1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2695 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Drinking and driving. Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 2695

Mr. Miller

Oral Questions

Privatization of highway maintenance. Mr. Lovick –– 2695

Mr. Harcourt

Appointment of regional development liaison officer. Mr. Kempf –– 2697

Prohibition against MLAs and media at Highways worksites. Mr. Sihota –– 2698

Tabling Documents –– 2698

Motion 91

Mr. Sihota –– 2698

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 2705

Mr. Harcourt –– 2707

Mr. Sihota –– 2708

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987 (Bill 59). Second reading

Mr. Lovick –– 2709

Mr. Miller –– 2717

The House met at 2:12 p.m.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker and colleagues of the assembly,

this morning I introduced part of the class from Magee Secondary School

and later this morning the rest of the class; and finally, the class

from Magee Secondary School which participated in one of the most

exciting parliamentary operations that I've heard of is here today

along with all the teachers, Mr. Barazzuol, Miss DeBrouwer, Mrs. Layman

and all those good-looking students. Would the House please make them

most welcome.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon we

have a delegation from the Pacific region of the Canadian Jewish

Congress. With that delegation we have Dr. Robert Krell, the chairman

of the Pacific region; Mrs. Sharon Kates; Mr. Bernard Pinsky; Mr.

Irvine Epstein; and Mr. Erwin Nest, their executive director. I would

ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: On behalf of the New Democrat caucus I'd like

to reinforce that welcome to the members of the Canadian Jewish

Congress. We enjoyed the meetings we had with them; we hope you can

come back soon.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like the House to join with me today in

welcoming three mayors from my constituency, the representatives of

three municipalities in the Elk Valley. I understand they are here, but

just as it is when I'm here and they are there, I am just reporting

what they're doing. I understand that in the gallery today are Mayor

Colin Curties and administrator Loretta Montemurro of Sparwood; Mayor

Dick Pinotti and administrator Jim Montain of Elkford; and the mayor of

Fernie, Tiny Shatosky, and administrator Colin Dean. I'd like the House

to join me in making them welcome.

MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, in the House today are two

businessmen from the city of Penticton, Mr. Peter Beulah and Mr. Bruce

Turnbull, along with the economic development officer for the city of

Penticton, Mr. Robert Miller. Would you please welcome them.

MR. GUNO: Mr. Speaker, it's rare that I have the opportunity

to introduce anyone from Atlin. In fact, some of my colleagues wonder

if there's anyone in Atlin, but there are and they're very fine people.

I'd like to introduce two people in the gallery today from the Nass

Valley, Chief Menesque, otherwise known as Mr. Rod Robinson, who's the

executive vice-president of the Nishga Tribal Council. Along with him

is Mr. Nelson Leason, who is, in his own mind, a legend, but a fine

fellow. He's the chief councillor for Lakalsap. I'd ask the House to

bid them welcome.

Ministerial Statement

DRINKING AND DRIVING

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As most hon. members may be aware, drinking and

driving is our most serious and costly crime. Each year 7,200 people are injured

and 250 people killed in drinking-driving accidents in this province.

This afternoon in Vancouver, B.C. Transit officially launched an

ambitious and far-reaching campaign called "Don't take the keys," a

plan to get more people home alive and safe this festive season. As you

know, Counterattack has produced an excellent record in reducing

drinking and driving over the past decade. Transit, with its extensive

transportation resources in the lower mainland and in conjunction with

Counterattack, will create an awareness among the public that there is

an alternative to driving a car. Naturally, the campaign complements

the Counterattack program.

The message, Mr. Speaker, is simple. If you are out celebrating the

festive season, don't take your car keys: leave them at home. It's

safer, easier and more convenient to drive with our transit team, the

designated drivers.

[2:15]

B.C. Transit has designed and packaged a LifeSaver gift pack which

contains two adult transit tickets in a festive envelope. Some 800

major companies and 1.200 restaurants and licensed premises have been

contacted with suggestions to get involved and provide their employees

and customers with the LifeSaver gift packs for a safe journey home.

The essence of the program — and we understand that it will be more

prevalent on the lower mainland — is to make people aware that there is

an alternative. B.C. Transit is in a unique position to deter people

from drinking and driving, and through this campaign and the LifeSaver

gift packs, we will encourage people to conscientiously plan not to

drive after drinking. It is intended that this will be an annual event,

and it is hoped to expand the LifeSaver gift packs to the general

public next year.

MR. MILLER: The minister is to be commended for her efforts

in promoting people to not drink and drive. It's a serious problem in

this province, and any efforts that we undertake are to be commended.

This side supports the minister in that regard.

Indeed, the recent increases in the ICBC premiums point to a much

larger problem in terms of highway safety in this province. Many people

are being injured, and there's a very high price to pay. It is for that

reason that, although we were pleased last year with the formation of

the highway safety committee of ministers, we were somewhat

disappointed that that committee has not been particularly operative.

We would encourage the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon.

Mr. Rogers) to follow your good example, get that kind of committee

going so we can cut down on the carnage on our highways in other areas,

and as well, for example, reintroduce motor vehicle testing, which we

think will go a long way to making the highways safer. Let's get the

drunk drivers off our highways. Let's get the bad cars off our

highways. Let's get the bad drivers off our highways. We all agree on

that.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

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

Transportation and Highways. It concerns the privatization plans for

Vancouver Island. When announcing the sellout of public highways some

months ago, the Premier announced that this was a marvelous opportunity

for small business persons. Subsequently, however, we learn that

Vancouver Island's highway maintenance operation is going to consist of

[ Page 2696 ]

three areas, effectively awarding this business to

big contractors. Will the minister please tell the House why the small

business persons have effectively been shut out?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm glad to be able to answer the question,

because I believe the member is under some misapprehension. We have

called for statements of interest to be in by the middle of next month.

Those statements of interest to date have included submissions by

individual single employees, in some cases groups of three and four

employees, in other cases others. Nothing is etched in stone. There are

a number of different proposals that have come forward, and nothing

further will be done until such time as we have seen what expressions

of interest are brought forward.

MR. LOVICK: A supplementary, if I might, Mr. Speaker. Patience, friends.

The minister's abilities to fly straight and level are well known.

The predicament is that I don't think that is an entirely straight

answer and that this House is being levelled with. I want to ask the

minister if he will give us his personal assurances, in this chamber,

that the highways maintenance program for Vancouver Island will not be

divided between three or fewer big contractors.

HON. MR. ROGERS: If you ask for expressions of interest and

then, in the process of asking for them, put limitations on them, you

have not been honest in asking for the expressions in the first place.

I want to look at everything that comes in, and I want to pick what's

best for the people involved. I'm not going to tell you right now

whether we'll do it one or three or 50 or 100. You don't understand how

business works, and I can understand why you wouldn't understand. I

have a reasonably good idea, much better than you do. When you ask for

expressions of interest, that is precisely what we're asking for, and

if we put restrictive covenants or caveats on it right now, we would be

dishonest in doing so.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, just to pursue for ever so slight a

moment.... I know I use multisyllabic words, and some are getting lost

in the shuffle. The question I would pose to the minister is: if, in

fact, nothing is graven in stone, if no definite and hard decisions

have already been made, why then did we advertise at considerable

public expense that the Vancouver Island program would consist of three

regions? What's the point?

HON. MR. ROGERS: We are asking for expressions of interest.

If you read the documents that have been circulated, from a purely

administrative point of view, they have been broken down into their

normal, existing administrative points. After all, you've got to deal

with the thing on an apples-and-apples basis. But I can assure you that

nothing has been determined, that the areas will be specifically dealt

off to one particular person or another.

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

of Transportation and Highways. British Columbians have very real

concerns and fears about the sellout of the highways operations, which

will mean unsafe roads right across this province. What studies have

been done by the government that will show that the roads will be safe

and that the taxpayers will save money after the privatization of our

highways?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, we have used the examples of a

number of other jurisdictions that have entertained precisely the kinds

of things we are doing: for example, the province of Ontario, the

province of Saskatchewan, various jurisdictions in the United States,

and one experimental region which was started in this ministry in

another area of British Columbia by my predecessor-plus-one. In all

cases the work has been done satisfactorily. If the terms and

conditions of the contract are specific enough — and that's all that I

feel is really necessary — and there are severe penalties for people

have no difficulty.

MR. HARCOURT: Has the minister decided to table those studies with this House?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I didn't say that we had done studies; I said we....

Interjections.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, read the Blues .

We have examples from other jurisdictions which we've seen. That's all

you have to do. Talk to the Ontario minister of highways; ask him how

they do it. Talk to the people in Saskatchewan; ask them how they do it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I've already done it, thank you very much; I'm satisfied with the answer.

MR. HARCOURT: Trust this government, a government that puts

profits ahead of the safety and well-being of the citizens of British

Columbia; that's what he's saying. Promises, not evidence.

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. It's about the north, where the highways

are the lifeline for most communities — for example, the highway

between Dawson Creek and Prince George — for emergencies and medical

services. What guarantee can the minister give the people of the north

that this very important lifeline will remain open under severe winter

conditions?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No Minister of Highways can ever give

anybody a guarantee that any highway can remain open regardless of

weather. But I tell you that it doesn't matter whether the highway is

between Prince George and Dawson Creek, or any other part of the

province. The life-threatening situation that exists with an unsafe

highway should not specifically be directed at the north or Vancouver

Island or the lower mainland or the southern interior or the northern

interior. They're all viewed in the same way. We are using Vancouver

Island first in our privatization efforts. It's going to be done first

on Vancouver Island. Are you suggesting to me by your question that

somehow the road between Prince George and Dawson Creek is any less

important than the road between Tahsis and Nanaimo, for example? You're

not. They're all considered the same way, and there's absolutely

[ Page

2697 ]

no guarantee that you can give the ultimate service to everybody. You probably could, but I couldn't.

MR. HARCOURT: I would hope that the Minister of

Transportation and Highways would know the difference between Oak

Street, and the weather there, and the highways in the north and the

interior where the weather is different. I would hope that after the

first person is killed or is wounded, the contract would not go to a

profit-making friend of the government but would go back to the safe

hands of the Highways crews of this province.

Mr. Speaker, about these contracts of which the minister doesn't

seem to be able to table evidence, or wants us to trust him about, I'd

like to know: can the minister try to advise us, finally, whether these

contracts to maintain the highways of the province will be fixed-price

contracts?

HON. MR. ROGERS: In due course, Mr. Speaker, copies of the

contracts will be made available to members of the House. But I would

advise the hon. member.... You're only very recently here in Victoria,

but, as a matter of fact, Victoria has been inundated with little white

fluffy flakes from time to time, and so have all parts of the province,

including Vancouver. Do you know that less than two years ago, a

highway which you seldom travel, which goes between Hope and Vancouver

in the lower Fraser Valley, was closed owing to a snowstorm? Snow

afflicts all parts of this province.

MR. HARCOURT: We're having a snow job right here in the

House. I have never seen snowflakes so big and fluffy, hiding an honest

answer. We need a straightforward answer. If he can't answer whether

they're fixed-price, can he tell us, Mr. Speaker, if they are

cost-plus, like the Coquihalla Highway?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I told you and you weren't listening,

because your friends are so busy chatting around you. We haven't got

the contracts developed to the stage where I can give you a copy to

look at.

MR. HARCOURT: What the minister is saying, Mr. Speaker, is

that he hadn't done any studies before he recommended the privatizing

of the highways of this province. If you had any studies before you

took this precipitate route, will you table those studies about the

contracts that you intend to put forward to the private sector?

HON. MR. ROGERS: When a contract is developed, I'll be

pleased to send you a copy so you can have a look at it and examine it

thoroughly to your satisfaction.

APPOINTMENT OF REGIONAL

DEVELOPMENT LIAISON OFFICER

MR. KEMPF: My question also is to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways in his capacity of czar for Nechako. Yesterday I questioned the minister

as to the qualifications of Mr. Barry Carter, the newly appointed development

liaison officer for Nechako. After the questioning here in the House, the minister

told the media that Mr. Carter was: "the most qualified from among many

applicants." My questions to the minister are: where was the position posted;

how was it advertised; who were the applicants; and would the minister file

their curriculum vitae with this House along with Mr. Carter's?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I undertook yesterday to table Mr. Carter's

curriculum vitae, which I shall do as soon as I have it in my hands. I

shall try to do that this afternoon.

When this particular announcement was made by the Premier, a number

of people approached me and a number of people wrote to me as they have

written to other ministers responsible for various areas of the

province. There were a number of telephone inquiries. But when people

are applying for a job and are currently employed, they do so with some

measure of trepidation and also with some measure of security that the

people with whom they are applying do not contact their existing

employer or make public to anybody who inquires as to their credentials

and why they are applying.

Many of you in this room — and I've certainly been among them — have

applied for a job that you didn't get. But the fact that you didn't get

the job doesn't mean that your application form is made public. So I

will table Mr. Carter's curriculum vitae. I will tell you there were at

least ten other people who approached me about this job.

Mr. Carter is on a three-month contract to see if it is a

satisfactory arrangement between him and me working in this particular

area. If it works out satisfactorily. I plan to continue it. If it

doesn't work out satisfactorily, I plan to discontinue it.

I will not give you the list of names of all the other people that

applied, and I won’t list their credentials, because that's patently

unfair to anybody who applies for a job and isn't successful.

MR. KEMPF: Curriculum vitae or whatever you want to call it,

Mr. Speaker.... I'm just a member from the back woods, but I know

what's going on in this province. I know what's going on in this

province with respect to regionalization.

[2:30]

Mr. Speaker. supplementary. Perhaps the minister.... And I guess

he's not going to answer my questions or let the people of British

Columbia know — even though he tells the media that there were other

qualified applicants for the job — who they were, what they were or

what they stood for.

Perhaps the minister could also tell me today — having turned down

the municipality of Bums Lake in their request to consider

headquartering the new duchy in Bums Lake — where Mr. Carter will call

home, where he will establish an office. If in Smithers, what will his

travel allowance be? Will he have a vehicle? Will he get mileage? Just

what will be the situation with respect to the office? Will he have a

secretary? How much will that secretary be paid? Will he have an

assistant? How will he or she be chosen? Mr. Speaker, the people of

Nechako have the right to know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think a lot of that question

could appear on the order paper, but the minister may want to answer

the first part.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't turn down the people

of Burns Lake. I didn't turn down the people of Smithers, or Topley, or

Granisle, or Houston, or Vanderhoof, or Fort St. James, or Dease Lake,

or Cassiar, or even Atlin,

[ Page 2698 ]

because we don't choose to name one particular community within the area as the regional headquarters.

What we're going to do is: when we are in these communities — in

some cases, the communities have individual needs — we will use locally

available government offices. That may be the government agent's

office. But I can tell you that the mayors and the municipal councils

and the chambers of commerce in every one of the communities has said:

"Please use our facilities when you're in our community as our guest."

I think that's tremendous cooperation, and that's what we plan to do.

If you would like to know, yes, we have a nice, used vehicle that I

have secured that will be based either in Vanderhoof, or Smithers, or

Burns Lake — wherever I happen to need it when I'm in the region.

That's where it will be.

I think the other questions, Mr. Speaker, would probably best be put

on the order paper. I'd be pleased to answer them. But I think that

they will be generic answers for all of the regions because we will

treat them all the same.

PROHIBITION AGAINST MLAS AND

MEDIA AT HIGHWAYS WORKSITES

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Highways. It's

astonishing to learn that there are no contracts and that the minister

has no idea as to how many zones will be established on Vancouver

Island. He has no idea as to how many studies.... In fact, it appears

that there have been no studies made with respect to privatization. So

I'll try to ask him a question he may be able to answer. It has been

ordered, as the minister is aware, that opposition members and the

media together are not being allowed on highway worksites. I'm sure the

minister will disagree with this directive, and accordingly is

interested in making sure the public and the. opposition have all the

facts as they relate to privatization. The question to the minister

simply is this: will the minister issue a directive immediately

rescinding the order that was sent out preventing media and opposition

members being on highway worksites?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The order didn't come from my office. It

didn't even come from our ministry, and it has been rescinded by the

people who made the order in the first place, which, I think, is the

appropriate place for it to come from. It was inappropriate to make.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I believe it probably went out the same way as the original instructions went out, but it certainly....

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, I shall inquire and find out. I'll

take that part of it as notice. But the instructions shouldn't have

gone out. I believe that the very premise of that begs questions in all

ministries. I think that every MLA has the right to attend — provided

they give reasonable notice that they're going to attend — a function

that they're responsible for voting moneys for in this House.

Hon. Mr. Davis tabled the annual report of the British Columbia

Utilities Commission for the year 1986, and the annual report of the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for the year 1986.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would ask leave for the House to revert

to Resolution 91 standing on the order paper in the name of the hon.

member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

Leave granted.

Motions on Notice

On Motion 91.

MR. SIHOTA: The motion, just for the record, and I'll just read it, is:

"Be it resolved that this Legislature appoint a

special committee of the Legislature to inquire into the matter of the

conduct of the personal affairs of the Hon. S. Hagen" — which is, of

course, the Vancouver Island Secretary for Economic Development, or

Minister of State, or whatever they call it — " specifically questions

relating to Mr. Hagen's disclosure forms and possible conflict of

interest arising from his failure to relinquish directorships in three

companies active in financial or commercial operations, contrary to

cabinet guidelines, and possible violations of the Constitution Act,

and report its findings to the House."

In introducing that motion, let me say at the outset that the debate

on this motion is a debate, in my view, about trust. It is a debate

about faith, and perhaps the breach of faith. But particularly, in my

view, this is a debate which transcends the affairs of the minister

involved and deals squarely with the integrity of the Premier. That's

what this debate is all about, and that's why this motion has been

moved.

Accordingly, it has come as a bit of astonishment to myself to learn

that members of the government on the opposite side are not enamoured

with the motion that I have just read out, and it is my understanding

that they will not be supportive of it, nor any amendments to it. That,

I believe, is both astonishing and highlights the point I made a second

ago about the integrity of the Premier.

The question in this regard, Mr. Speaker, relates to the affairs of

the minister as they were investigated by the Deputy Attorney-General

in August and July 1987. Members of the House may well be aware that

there were certain allegations of conflict of interest and breaches of

the Constitution Act levied against the minister in question. Those

were serious allegations, and quite properly they were acted upon in a

serious fashion by both the Premier and the Deputy Attorney-General.

As a consequence of the complaints laid by the Leader of the

Opposition, the Deputy Attorney-General investigated the matter and

produced a report that was submitted to the Premier. The report was

dated August 4, 1987, and I trust that some members of the House, and

particularly the Attorney-General and most certainly the Premier, have

had an opportunity to review the provisions of that report. The

questions that were raised in that report dealt first of all with

whether or not there had been any breaches of the Premier's conflict-of

interest guidelines. Members of the House may be aware, and I trust

most ministers are, that the Premier has introduced

[ Page 2699 ]

conflict-of-interest guidelines that apply to

individual ministers. The Deputy Attorney-General, upon investigation

of the circumstances surrounding that event, came to the conclusion

that yes indeed, provisions 2 and 3 of the Premier's guidelines had

been violated.

There was another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, that arose

during the course of his investigations and flowed from the complaint

laid by the Leader of the Opposition; that was to ask whether or not

the provisions of

section 25 of the Constitution Act had been violated.

For the reference of members of this House, in the event that the

provisions of

section 25 of the Constitution Act have been violated, a

member may have to vacate his seat. That is the consequence. There was

a very serious allegation made by the leader of Her Majesty's

opposition.

The investigations by the Deputy Attorney-General resulted in some

findings with respect to the Constitution Act and in particular with

respect to

section 25 of the act, which I will get into in some depth

in a few minutes. However, what is in my view of critical import and an

issue which transcends the actual report was the reaction of the

Premier after the report was issued. The report was issued on August 4,

1987, and the Premier replied on August 6.

I've taken the liberty of coming into the House today and bringing

with me the press release that the Premier issued in this regard. On

page 4 of the press release issued by the Premier on August 6, 1987,

and released publicly both through the media and to all members of the

House, the Premier said that he felt — I'm not quoting — that it was

important that there be no doubts left in anyone's mind as to whether

the provisions of the Constitution Act had been violated in this

instance. The Premier then said, and I quote, because the press release

has it in quotation marks: "Accordingly, I will support a referral of

this particular issue under

section 27 of the Constitution Act to a

committee of the Legislature for an examination and review when the

House sits this fall."

That was a commitment made by the Premier on August 6, 1987. As I

said at the outset, the issue in this debate is not so much the affairs

of the minister, although obviously they must be dealt with and

obviously this motion directs us in that direction.... More

importantly, they raise questions about the integrity of the Premier

and whether or not individuals....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Under the rules of this House,

the integrity of a member cannot be questioned except by substantive

motion. Now I know the member has a motion with regard to the minister

of post-secondary education, but it is not a motion about the Premier.

If he wants to talk about integrity of a member, it must be done by

substantive motion. So I would suggest he just might want to revise his

wording during his statement.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for clarifying that

matter for me. Let's move along now, and I'll certainly refrain from

using that language in the course of my comments.

The issue clearly is the reliance that one places upon those

statements and the statement made on August 6, 1987, because it is in

concert with that reliance that I move this motion, with the feeling

that there would be support from government members and from the

Premier — and I appreciate that he's not here.

The purpose of this motion is to launch the type of inquiry that was

envisioned in the press statement of August 6, 1987, an inquiry

pursuant to

section 27 of the Constitution Act. Hence the reference to

the Constitution Act in the motion that I read out a few minutes ago.

On that reliance we introduce this motion, and it's on that reliance

that we expect the support of the members opposite. Therefore there is

a salient issue in this regard in terms of whether or not one can rely

on those statements, and I certainly look forward to what the

Attorney-General will have to say with respect to the viability of

supporting this motion at this stage of the game.

There we have it,

section 27 and the commitment from the Premier,

and we're seeking the support of the government members of this House

in order to bring about that inquiry. If not, then one must begin to

doubt many of the other comments that have been made by this government

with respect to matters of conflict of interest.

[2:45]

For example, I have in my possession another news release issued

again from the office of the Premier, dated January 15, 1987. When

discussing the matter of whether or not members of this House ought to

have the opportunity to fully investigate the affairs of ministers, to

obtain full disclosure of their holdings and to be able to adequately

assure themselves as to whether or not there have been violations of

the conflict of interest rules in the Constitution Act, the Premier

said: "Full and complete disclosure is consistent with the concept of

open government that I have promised to the people of British

Columbia." Again, if those words about open government and with respect

to the Constitution Act are indeed to be something more than hollow

words, one would expect support from the members opposite with respect

to this motion to refer the issue to a committee of the Legislature to

review the provisions of the Constitution Act.

I don't intend to go in depth into the report of the Deputy

Attorney-General. However, I think it is important to highlight certain

parameters of that report and some of the points he made in the report

in order to emphasize the reason why there needs to be an inquiry. I

suspect that one of the arguments coming from the opposite side will be

to say,"Well, the facts have all been investigated to date," that there

really are no new facts that have come to light.

It seems to me that there are at least five or possibly six reasons

why there ought to be a referral to this committee in keeping with the

commitment of the Premier, and they are as follows. During the course

of his investigations, the Deputy Attorney-General discussed the

affairs of the minister involved with an official of the bank. We won't

get into the name of the bank, although I think it's fairly evident

which bank it was from the terms of the report. Unfortunately, at the

time of his investigations the bank official was ill, and the Deputy

Attorney-General indicated that he was unable to contact the bank

official to determine the nature of the minister's involvement with

respect to the business transaction in question and to determine

clearly whether or not the minister had been involved on a day-to-day

basis. Therefore it makes sense for the committee to complete the

inquiry of the Deputy Attorney-General and call forward the bank

official. I am going in the order not of importance to my mind, but in

terms of the order with which these issues were laid out in the report.

Second, there are questions, I think, that need to be asked of the

various solicitors that were engaged by the minister involved.

Undoubtedly, there seems to be some confusion as

[ Page 2700 ]

to the carrying out of instructions. There was an

indication within the report that the minister involved had provided

particular instructions to particular lawyers, to result in the

minister divesting himself of his interest in various corporate

holdings that he had. That, for one reason or another, wasn't done, and

I think it would be important to contact and to subpoena the solicitors

involved to determine why that wasn't done. There is some passing

reference to that, but in my view not an adequate reference, in the

report of the Deputy Attorney-General. I emphasize that the point there

is not to engage in a witch-hunt, but to be satisfied that the

provisions of conflict of interest guidelines 2 and 3 were not

violated. That's the only reason.

Third, there is incomplete evidence from the accountant, and

certainly no transcripts of the evidence that was provided by the

chartered accountant in the deputy Attorney-General's report. Certainly

that evidence needs to be clarified and cross-examined.

Fourth, the deputy Attorney-General himself said, during the course

of his report, that although he felt there may not have been a

violation of the Constitution Act, in light of the fact that the Leader

of the Opposition had raised these issues — and I'm trying to find the

actual quote — he did not think it was appropriate to provide the depth

of his legal opinion and to explain why he arrived at his opinion. I

quote from page 12 of the report:

"I believe you are entitled to my legal opinion on

this matter, as the issues relating to it are inextricably relevant to

decisions you have indicated you wish to make in the immediate future.

That I must give you my opinion now on this question has been a

difficult decision for me to reach. That is because on the same day

that you referred the matter to me for inquiry and report, Mr. Michael

Harcourt, MLA, leader of the official opposition in the Legislature,

made a statement about the invoking of

section 27 procedure on the

reconvening of the Legislature. I share your respect for that body as

the ultimate lawmaker in the province, and it is also the adjudicator

on matters arising under sections 25 and 27 of the Constitution Act. My

dilemma has been how to meet the responsibility that I believe I have

to you and at the same time to do honour, respect and courtesy to the

Legislature and its members."

Then he goes on to indicate that,"my opinion could well be but one

that the committee would wish to hear, and while I believe it is a

correct one, it would at that stage be for the committee to say."

So the Deputy Attorney-General, during the course of his own report

in this regard, chose very clearly not to indicate his reasons for his

conclusion until such time as it was decided whether or not this matter

was going to committee, and he chose to reserve explaining his reasons

to that committee.

He assumed that there would be a reference to the committee. That

assumption was a correct assumption, keeping in mind that the Premier

himself, two days later on August 6, 1987, turned around and said that

the matter would go to committee. So if we are to find out the reasons

why the Deputy Attorney-General came to the conclusion he did, then

there must be a striking of that committee.

The Deputy Attorney-General went one step further, because he

implied very clearly in his comments that there may be other opinions

on this matter that the committee may want to hear. He says, and I

quote again: "My opinion could well be but one that the committee would

wish to hear" — but one.

On this matter we're dealing with a relatively unprecedented

situation. It seems to me that it makes sense not to shop for a lawyer

who would give you the type of decision or opinion that you want to

hear. We went through that this morning with respect to the Minister of

Health and comments on the amendments to

section 8.

I'm not saying that the purpose ought to be to shop for the

appropriate legal opinion, but certainly (

a) to invite the Deputy

Attorney-General to provide the reasons for his opinion, which we think

we have a right to know and which the Deputy Attorney-General says we

have a right to know and which everyone agrees ought to be done before

the committee; and (

b) to invite further input from other members of

that legal profession with respect to whether or not there was indeed a

violation of

section 25 of the Constitution Act.

So the fourth reason that I put forward to this House as to why the

Deputy Attorney-General's recommendation ought to be embraced with

respect to the committee is just that reason: the Deputy

Attorney-General himself says we ought to. So you hear from the banker,

the accountant, the lawyer and the Deputy Attorney-General.

I think there are two other higher reasons that ought to be

considered by members of this House in support of this motion. First of

all, in a democratic society it seems to me that the opposition ought

to have the right in this type of situation to cross-examine the

critical players involved in this situation.

It's not necessary — I'm going to get to this point in a few minutes

— to engage in a witch-hunt for the minister or try to quench a thirst

for political blood, because I want to say honestly and

straightforwardly that is not the motivation on the part.... I'll

explain that in a minute. I say that with all sincerity, and I've tried

to make my comments in keeping with that — it's not intended to do that.

But in order to perfect the nature of the inquiry and to make sure

that no stone is left unturned and that there is full confidence of

this House in the conclusions of the Deputy Attorney-General, when an

invitation is extended for a committee, when the Premier agrees to the

committee and these types of arguments are put forward in the

committee, then there really should be a committee to hear the matter.

That's the reason.

I dealt with the matter of political witch-hunts a second ago. I

think it really gets to the nub of the issue if one puts on the

following hat. The reason for this inquiry is to try to bring about

some much-needed reform in this province, reform in two areas: reform,

first of all, with respect to the Constitution Act, which is the

document that governs the affairs of this Legislature, the way in which

we function in this legislature, and — if I can use this word now, Mr.

Speaker — the integrity with which members are governed, or the way in

which members are governed. We have the Constitution Act riding above

all of us, which sets down the guidelines in terms of how we are to

function, which tries to set down rules of discipline and of decorum,

and which tries to fulfil the expectations of trust that the public

places on all of us. As a consequence of that, we have seen the

implementation of sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution Act.

If nothing else comes out of this committee.... I want to say that

it is not my desire to get onto a political witch-hunt with respect to

this committee, but the one thing I would like

[ Page 2701 ]

to see come out of it is reform with respect to the

Constitution Act, so we can begin to make that piece of legislation

relevant for the types of corporate infrastructure that we have in

today's world, to the complexities and business complexities that all

of us bring into this Legislature — me included, Mr. Speaker, because I

certainly have business involvements of my own. I think that matter

needs to be clarified. There are two ways to do it. One way is the

Constitution Act, and there is jurisdictional turf which the

Constitutional Act occupies. Accordingly, to the extent that reform is

required in that act, this is a nice vehicle to ensure that that type

of reform comes. So the purpose of the committee is not simply to turn

over and re-examine all the stones, or turn over new stones, with

respect to the affairs of this minister, but hopefully.... I'll get to

the hopeful

part in a moment. Secondly, if there is indeed an

indiscretion and violation of that Constitution Act, then a report

ought to come back to this Legislature for action. There are no two

ways about that.

On top of that, there is a need for a committee to come back to this

Legislature — in the event that the Deputy Attorney-General is correct

and there has been no violation of the Constitution Act — to make some

recommendations with respect to the improvement of that act, not so

much to catch politicians who may be involved in indiscretions in the

future, but to make sure that there is a responsible and reasonable

code of conduct for all members of the Legislature, with clear and

consequential actions in the event of violations of that act. It's high

time we took a look at that act. That certainly is the other purpose of

this committee. I would say that all of us in this House, as members of

this type of a committee, are quite capable of coming back with

recommendations with respect to reform of the Constitution Act, and

also recommendations with respect to the affairs of this individual

minister.

So, no, as I want to emphasize again to the members opposite, this

is not a matter of a political witch-hunt. It is a matter of reform,

first of all, with respect to the Constitution Act, and it is a matter

of trust in the August 6 statement that I referred to earlier on, and a

matter of how this process that we're all involved in works — the

reliance that all of us in this Legislature place on the word of the

other. When there are commitments made from time to time by members of

government, commitments with respect to agreements with members of the

opposition, those aren't in writing; those are agreements that are

verbal, and accepted as matters of reliance, a contract between

ourselves and members of government. We took the statement of August 6,

1987, to be in that genre. We acted on that reliance; hence the motion;

hence the referral; and hence the request from members opposite, if I

can convince them to support this motion — if they haven't caucused to

the point where they're wedded to a position of defeat of this motion.

That's the first area of reform.

The second area of reform, which I'm going to touch upon now, Mr.

Speaker, is with respect to conflict of interest. But I'll come back to

that in a moment, because I want to pause now and deal with some of the

technical aspects of the motion. I want to deal with why it is that the

motion is worded in the fashion that it is.

First of all, I want to lay out to members, for their interest.... I

should say that this is a skill that I learned when I was at the

University of Victoria, taking criminal procedure from the

Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), in terms of trying to figure out

whether or not there's sufficient evidence to meet the charge. I

learned well, I should say.

[3:00]

With respect to

section 25, let's take a look at whether there is

indeed an issue as to whether or not there has been a violation of

section 25 of the act. I appreciate that this is something that the

committee ought to be looking at. I appreciate that the Deputy

Attorney-General, for whatever reasons — we don't have those reasons,

and I won't repeat what I said earlier — has already concluded that

there was none. But by going through the exercise I intend to go

through now, I think one raises questions as to whether or not there

have been violations of

section

Section 25 says — and I'll go through it quickly, because I'll then

go through it a little more slowly — says: "No member of the

Legislative Assembly shall...(

b) be, in respect of a corporation that

accepts money from the Crown in right of the Province for the supply to

the Province of any goods, service or work...(

i) a director or senior

officer as defined in the Company Act...." Let's apply that to the

particular facts that occurred in July and August of 1987 and as they

relate to the minister in question at that time.

It says: "No member of the Legislative Assembly." In other words,

the act will only apply to Members of the Legislative Assembly. We know

that the member in question clearly is a Member of the Legislative

Assembly. So that portion of determining whether or not

section 25 is

violated is met. There's no problem there.

The next subsection says: "...be, in respect of a corporation...." There is

no doubt, from the Deputy Attorney-General's report on this matter, that

there were certain corporations involved. Three of them in particular related

to Comox Valley Ready-Mix, I believe. That aspect of the test is met.

"No member of the Legislative Assembly shall be, in respect

of a corporation that accepts money from the Crown...." In this instance there is no doubt that there was a transaction, a contractual

relationship, between the Crown and this corporation. Once again, that is pointed

out in the report of the Deputy Attorney-General.

"No member of the Legislative Assembly shall be, in respect

of a corporation that accepts money from the Crown in right of the Province"

— which, of course, is in the province — "for the supply to the Province

of any goods, service or work...." We know that in this case, with the supply of concrete, there was therefore

a supply of goods, service or work.

So the first four tests within

section 25 have been met. The final one is: "...be...a director or senior officer

as defined in the Company Act." We know from the disclosure statement that was filed that the individual in question

was a director or senior officer of the company. We know he was a director because the disclosure documents point that

out. If memory doesn't fail me on this matter, it was disclosed on the "30 percent and above" provision, which would

make it consistent with the Company Act.

All five of the tests — and I have just read to you verbatim

section

25 of the Constitution Act — that one has to meet in order to come to

the conclusion that there has been a violation have been met, in my

view. I don't want to have an out in terms of my argument when I say

"in my view." All I've done is recite the facts that the Deputy

Attorney-General, during the course of his investigation, brought

forward to the attention of the committee. Therefore there is, in my

submission, an argument that

section 25 of the Constitution Act has

been violated. That's only my opinion.

[ Page 2702 ]

There is another opinion, and as the Deputy Attorney-General says,

there ought to be other opinions. Certainly it is not within the

purview of this House, the Legislature. to sit back and hear that type

of evidence. That type of evidence can only be heard from a committee

duly constituted by this House, dispatched to carry out this task and

come back with a report, to sit in the confines of a committee room and

hear evidence from the Deputy Attorney-General, from others in the

profession, and certainly from the Attorney-General and me, in respect

to any arguments that we may want to make one way or the other.

But the tests laid out by our Constitution Act, based on the very

fact that the Deputy Attorney-General comes up with, have been met.

I think that raises in my mind, and I trust in the minds of all

members of this House, an important question. I'm not trying to impugn

the good Deputy Attorney-General. but it raises questions in terms of

wanting to know why or how it was, and upon what legal reasoning, the

Deputy Attorney-General arrived at the conclusion that he did. I think

that's not an unfair or an unreasonable request in light of the facts

that I have attached to the Constitution Act, which are the very facts

that the Deputy Attorney-General had before him.

To continue with a bit of a technical discussion in this regard, Mr. Speaker,

section 27(

l) of the act provides:

"Where another member alleges that a member has contravened

section 25 and that money was ac accepted with the approval of the contravening

member, the alleging member shall table a notice of motion in accordance with

the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly setting forth particulars of

the allegations, and shall move without leave under routine proceed ings of

the Legislative Assembly that the matter be referred forthwith to a committee

to be forthwith named by the special committee appointed under standing order

68(1)...."

I understand that there are some concerns from the Attorney-General

with respect to the wording of the motion that I've put forward on the

order paper. I must say, Mr. Speaker, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage

here because I haven't heard the Attorney-General's arguments, being

the mover of the motion, so I'm presupposing some of the arguments that

may be arising. It may be that they may not, and I will certainly leave

it to other capable members of the opposition to deal with the

arguments that the Attorney-General may raise.

I want to emphasize the point that we are required under

section 27

of the Constitution Act to set forth the particulars of the

allegations. Therefore, as the drafter of the motion, I'm faced with a

predicament. I can't just put in a vague motion saying that the matter

concerning this minister be referred to a committee, because that opens

me up for an attack with respect to not complying with the provisions

section 27 of the Constitution Act.

On the other hand, because I'm required to put out the particulars,

I can quickly be accused of mudraking and being involved in trying to

further discredit the minister. As I have said at the outset. the

question of a witch-hunt is not the issue here, but I have, as required

under the Constitution Act, to put forward some of the particulars. It

is a tightrope to walk.

As a consequence, what we chose to do in drafting this motion, Mr. Speaker

— and I had the able assistance of our learned House Leader in this regard,

who has great experience in these matters — was to word the motion so as to

reflect back, and be predicated upon. the report of the Deputy Attorney-General;

not to try to introduce new dimensions to the debate, not to try to argue that

there ought to be a bigger inquiry than we had before. There were certain limitations

put in. It wasn't purposely so broadly worded as to say that we could have

an inquiry into every personal affair of the minister involved, going from birth

through to today's date. That wasn't our intention. Our intention was

to tie it back in with the comments of the Deputy Attorney-General. I'm

anticipating an argument here from the Attorney-General; that's why I'm

spending some time on this. We put forward in our motion the words "specifically

questions relating" to the minister's disclosure forms — because that

was dealt with in the report — "and possible conflict of interest arising

from his failure to relinquish directorships in three companies active in financial

or commercial operations...."

Those are the words that are left right out of the Deputy

Attorney-General's report. We went out of our way to make sure that,

despite the fact that the Deputy Attorney-General himself had found

there was a conflict of interest, we still cushioned it with the word

"possible" to be fair about it. The motion goes on to say "contrary to

cabinet guidelines" — which is clearly what the Deputy Attorney-General

found — "and possible violations of the Constitution Act...."

So I think that that tightrope was walked. One of the allegations

that's been directed towards me is to say: "Well, look, this motion is

so broadly worded that we can't support it, because it means we can

investigate every little nook and cranny of the minister's affairs. I

don't want to spend six months on an investigation doing that; that was

never the intent. Clearly when one weds the requirements of

section 27

with the report of the Deputy Attorney-General, it makes full sense

that the motion comes out in the fashion that it did on the order paper.

Accordingly I trust that I will not now be receiving arguments with

respect to the fact that the motion we put forward is so liberal, so

broad, that it is impossible to deal with. Certainly — and I will say

this on the record — if there is still concern about that, the terms of

reference can be tempered, in keeping with my comments today about our

intent and our goals, both with respect to reform and to deal with the

specifies of the minister involved.

I don't want members of this House to lose sight of the fact that —

I've used the word "wedded" before; I'm trying to think of another one,

but maybe I'll use it again — wedded to all of this and interwoven with

this whole debate is "a matter of public confidence," in the words that

were uttered on August 6, 1987, in the press release that I quoted

before. The reliance that we as members of the opposition place on

those words, Mr. Speaker....

That is a technical argument with respect to

section 25, and I

haven't put it forward, Mr. Speaker, in a jocular way, perhaps — in a

fashion that I would in the courtroom. I've tried to be fairly sincere

by presenting the argument with respect to

section 25 in words borrowed

from the text of the Deputy Attorney-General, to demonstrate as

conclusively as I can that there are some serious questions that need

to be asked and that it is imperative, therefore. that those questions

be put to the Deputy Attorney-General about the basis of his findings.

It is imperative also to embrace his view that there ought to be

other opinions, when you take a look at the facts as the Deputy

Attorney-General found them and apply them to

section 25 of the

Constitution Act, and when you take a look

[ Page

2703 ]

at the requirements we have under

section 27 of the

Constitution Act as complainants in this matter. That's why the motion

comes out in the fashion that it does.

There is no doubt in my mind, therefore, that this is not an attempt

by us simply to bring about a hollow inquiry. We want to see a full

inquiry to deal with those five or six previous issues, to bring about

the cross-examination that ought to come from that, and to make sure

there is a report and a conclusion that has the full confidence of the

House.

We put that forward on the basis of our confidence in the comments

that the Premier of this province made. It's regrettable that he's not

here to explain his words, because those words are very clear — so

clear, Mr. Speaker, that on August 7, 1987, the Vancouver Sun

says: "Premier Says He'll Heed NDP Call for Hagen Probe. Premier Bill

Vander Zalm said Thursday he would heed a New Democratic Party call for

a legislative committee to probe Stan Hagen's business affairs, despite

Hagen being reinstated as Advanced Education minister following an

investigation by the Deputy Attorney-General."

[3:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member not use members' names.

MR. SIHOTA: I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker. I had

certainly thought of that when I was reading it. I'm not too sure how

you handle that when you are quoting something.

MR. SPEAKER: Change the quote to "the minister" or "the Premier."

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that, because I didn't know how to handle it.

Later on in the same article, a reference is made to me. It says

that "the NDP will table a motion when the Legislature reconvenes later

this fall calling for an all-party committee. The Premier said earlier

in the day he would agree to the committee if the NDP still wanted it."

For very good reasons, Mr. Speaker, the NDP still wants it; the

opposition still wants it. We're simply asking the Premier to heed that

call; we're simply asking members of the government to heed the call.

It's a matter of public confidence in the words uttered by the Premier

of the province.

I said earlier that apart from the nature of the inquiry in this

instance, and the provision of the Constitution Act — and I'll tie this

back to both the inquiry and the Constitution Act — there were two

areas for reform. If I may be granted some liberty, I'll come back to

the point in a minute, but I'm going to transgress a bit. There is no

doubt — it's a well-documented record — that there has been a series of

violations of the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines by

ministers of the Crown. I don't want to go through all the names and

all the instances, but I don't think any of us in this House are proud

of the fact that those guidelines have been violated in the fashion

they have in the last 12 months.

MR. HARCOURT: The last few years.

MR. SIHOTA: The Leader of the Opposition is quite correct in saying

the last few years. It reminds me of something, Mr. Speaker. It might be opportune

to deal with that issue right now.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This is a matter that has confounded, confused and upset the

government for quite some time. It's not just the current regime that

has had problems with conflict of interest. In fact, you may be aware

that in January 1986 the Minister of Forests at the time was involved

in a matter of conflict of interest. He had breached some of the

guidelines that were in place at the time with respect to conflict of

interest.

On January 22, 1986, the Premier of the day, Mr. Bennett, after

reflecting upon the difficulties and the transgressions by that

minister, issued a statement which said: "We should take advantage of

this opportunity to improve the current legislation and process,

because it is important that the public have full confidence in those

who hold positions of trust." That was back in January 1986.

Certainly by asking for this committee and in keeping with the

comments I made earlier about the Constitution Act, the members on this

side of the House — who have not had to deal with these matters of

conflict — are still quite interested in making sure that there is

legislation in place, in keeping with the view of the Premier. The

Premier of that time, Mr. Bennett, said on page 8 of that same press

release: "The government will bring forward in the next session of the

Legislature the necessary legislation and will allow a free vote on the

bill with respect to conflict of interest."

Premier Bennett in January 1986 recognized (

a) the need for

legislation with respect to conflict of interest; and more importantly,

(

b) the need for that legislation to have the full confidence of all

members of this House. He indicated that there would be a free vote on

that issue to make sure that if there were to be changes to the

Constitution Act or if there was to be "conflict-of-interest

legislation introduced in this province," that that legislation would

have the full confidence of the House. that it would be a free vote to

assure it was passed unanimously, to assure it would be legislation

that would be above us all and would be beyond reproach and beyond the

type of debate that we now have in this province with respect to the

Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines.

That's what was promised at the time. It still hasn't been

delivered. Think about that for a moment. Since then we have had at

least four other ministers with this regime involved in matters of

conflict of interest. I'll read again the words I quoted from the

current Premier on August 6: "Accordingly, I will support a referral of

this particular issue under

section 27 of the Constitution Act to a

committee of the Legislature for an examination and review when the

House sits this fall."

Surely the members opposite will not argue those words are hollow.

Surely the members opposite will not argue with the words of the former

Premier when he said: "We should take advantage of this opportunity" —

when a conflict-of-interest situation arose — "to improve the current

legislation and process because it is important that the public have

full confidence in those who hold positions of trust." Surely members

of the House opposite don't want to maintain that those words were

hollow.

And so the choice. If you support this motion, put some support and

some action and some substance behind the words that were uttered by

both of those Premiers. If you don't support this motion, then you

invite cynicism; you make those words sound hollow; and you erode the

very public trust that both Premiers — the current one and the last one

— referred to during the course of their diatribe on matters of

conflict of interest.

[ Page 2704 ]

The choice in front of this government is to decide whether or not

once and for all it intends finally to wrestle with the issue of

conflict of interest, which impugns us all, or if we just want to

engage in public relations exercises of standing up and uttering the

right words when they look good on radio and television, when they try

to provide succour and comfort to the public that is outraged by the

nature of conflict that has transpired. If that's what you want, if you

want to create the impression that there is no need whatsoever to do

anything substantive about the commitments you make and that this is

all a hollow and shallow game, then you defeat this motion. But if you

believe in the integrity of the individuals involved, if you believe

that they stand behind the words they say, if you believe that there is

commitment from those in public office to bring about a level of trust

that the public feels there ought to be in public officials, then you

support this motion.

There should be a free vote on this motion so that we can see who it

really is that supports the need for proper conflict of-interest

legislation, that supports changes to the Constitution Act, that

believes in the words of public officials, and who it is that doesn't.

Is it members of cabinet who are turning around and saying that they

themselves are not impressed by these guidelines, that they alone, as

individuals in the most obvious position of conflict, do not want to

have legislation that meets the requirements of trust that former

Premier Bennett talked about in his report?

I can't believe that all the back-benchers opposite are opposed to

this type of legislation or reform. Quite frankly, I would be

astonished to believe that members of cabinet themselves are not

interested in finally coming to grips with this matter of conflict of

interest. We're laying out before members of this Legislature the

perfect opportunity to do that, to demonstrate once and for all: do you

or do you not want to grapple with this issue and come down with some

changes?

The purpose of the inquiry of the committee, very simply put and

very obviously worded, is: to deal with the affairs of the minister

involved so that we can clean up what's left over from the

investigation of the Deputy Attorney-General, and then to begin to deal

with the other issue of bringing about the type of reform that this

province needs. That's the purpose of this motion, and the challenge to

the members opposite is to demonstrate once and for all whether they

stand behind the commitment made by the Premier or if they themselves

intend to walk away from the commitment made by the Premier. That's the

challenge before members opposite.

It has been argued that you can't legislate.... I'm sure someone

will stand up opposite and argue: "Look, the member for Esquimalt" — as

usual, as some would argue on the other side; never, as I would argue —

"is asking for legislation in an area that can't be legislated." To

quote somebody recently: "You can't legislate against stupidity." I

want to deal with that issue, Mr. Speaker, because it ties in with the

need to bring about the type of reform that I am talking about.

The point is this: people do stupid things. They commit theft, and

they commit fraud and they commit rape. What do we do? We don't say:

"Well, you can't legislate against those stupid things." We don't say

that. You know what we do? We pass legislation. In the three examples I

used a minute ago, we passed the Criminal Code. We pass the Criminal

Code so that it serves as a deterrent to people who think about doing

these stupid things. Secondly, it provides a consequence if they do

those stupid things.

People do stupid things like dumping oil into streams and killing

fish. We don't turn around and say: "Well, that was stupid; don't do it

again." Is that the way in which you govern society? Is that how it is

that you govern the affairs of society and try to maintain some type of

order in society and try to prevent a level of anarchy? No, Mr.

Speaker, we pass environmental laws. It's too bad the House Leader

opposite is not here to hear this. We pass environmental laws to make

sure that if people do those stupid things there is legislation in

place that will either serve as a deterrent to prevent people from

doing it or, alternatively, provide a consequence if they breach it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

To bring the point home — because I know this debate is not on the

Criminal Code or environmental laws — the reason why we need reform

with respect to our Constitution Act, and need, in keeping with former

Premier Bennett's suggestions, legislation on the matter of conflict of

interest, is to prevent those kinds of stupid things from happening,

such as getting involved in a business matter when you're a minister of

the Crown — to provide a consequence.

There are times when we sit here on this side of the Rockies and

tend to think that those Rockies serve as a wall that separates us from

the rest of Canada, and we don't hear what's going on. But I say to

those opposite — like I say, I regret that the Premier is in Toronto —

who believe that you can't legislate on matters of conflict of

interest: take a look elsewhere. How were they able to do it in

Manitoba? How were they able to do it in Ontario? How were they able to

do it in Alberta? How were they able to do it at the federal level?

It's because, as we're asking for in this motion, they took the time to

sit down and take a look at an instance — in this case, involving one

minister — and began, out of that experience, to draft the guidelines

and legislation necessary to prevent this type of abuse and erosion of

public trust from occurring. If they can do it elsewhere, surely we can

do it here in this province.

[3:30]

If you don't want to look elsewhere, Mr. Speaker, I ask the members

opposite to take a look at the order paper in this province. The first

act, the first private member's bill that was introduced in this

Legislature by members of the opposition, was legislation on conflict

of interest, to try to chart a course for members opposite, who seem to

have a lot of difficulty with the argument that you could have

legislation on these matters. I don't intend to debate that

legislation, because that would clearly be outside the purview of this

debate. But I encourage those who believe that that's not possible to

read the material on the order paper.

As I said a minute ago, there is another way. You can introduce

legislation in this regard. You can begin to deal with these problems.

You can begin to pass legislation — I'm not talking about the stuff

that I've introduced, at this point — that is consistent with some of

the guidelines the Premier came down with. Quite frankly, if you read

the Premier's guidelines, some are borrowed from the Ontario

legislation. That's where they come from; you can just read them word

for word. If other jurisdictions can do it, so can we.

[ Page

2705 ]

I'll tell you what gets everybody else to comply elsewhere: it's the

fear of losing a seat. In every other jurisdiction the consequence in

the legislation.... If you don't act by deterrence, the consequence

elsewhere is simply that you lose your seat. If you're involved in a

conflict-of-interest matter, you lose your seat. For all of us in this

House, I can't think of anything more worrisome than that. I don't

think any of us would be delighted at losing our seat. I'm sure that on

the opposite side there are a few members who....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sorry. I promised I wouldn't get jocular during the course of this debate, so I won't.

Clearly, that's what we need in this province: to take away from the

Premier the decision-making power on matters of conflict of interest,

and to provide some consequence.

I want to point out to members opposite that there are remedies to

the matter of conflict of interest. Those remedies do not involve

people having to divest themselves totally of all business interests

that they have. I often get offended with the simplistic argument:

"Well, I guess what you're really saying is that people have to divest

themselves of all their business holdings." We've never maintained that

position. Other jurisdictions have never maintained that position. That

type of simplistic attitude ought not to be used as a shield against

bringing about reform in this area.

To recap a bit. I have tried to outline six or seven salient reasons

this matter ought to be referred to the committee, reasons which flow

from inadequacies, shortcomings or omissions — none of them purposeful

— in the report of the Deputy Attorney-General, in terms of not being

able to talk to a bank official who was ill or an accountant who was

unavailable or a lawyer who wasn't identified. I've tried to

demonstrate that the Deputy Attorney-General himself fully expected

that a committee would be appointed, and that there is indeed doubt,

both in the mind of the author of the report and in my mind, as to

whether or not there had been violations of

section 25. In accordance

with that, and in keeping with our view that there ought to be reform

in this area and that one of the areas that ought to be reformed is the

Constitution Act, we move this motion. Those are the reasons.

As I said at the outset, there is another issue of confidence that

transcends the issue raised by the Deputy Attorney-General — an issue

of public confidence, in the words uttered by the Premier. Those words

were: "Accordingly, I will support a referral of this particular issue,

under

section 27 of the Constitution Act, to a committee of the

Legislature for an examination and review when the House sits this

fall."

The members opposite love to quote the Premier. They revel in

opportunities to turn around and say,"Well, our leader says," and then

they play follow the leader. All I'm saying in this instance is: follow

the Pied Piper. The leader has spoken. The leader has said that he will

support a referral of this particular issue under

section 27 of the

Constitution Act to a committee of the Legislature. That's what the

Premier of this province has said.

Are we to rely on the words of the Premier? Should we rely on the assurances

that the Premier gave in this regard? If you think that that reliance ought

to be there, that those assurances ought to be fulfilled, that those guarantees

should be met, then it's a simple matter of supporting this motion. If you

want to be offensive and to be an affront to the Premier and not to pay homage

or respect to his words, then vote against this motion; that's the choice.

It's on that basis, with that reliance, with those words and assurances,

that we put this motion before the House, and we fully expect the full support

of the members opposite.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is a considerable

disappointment to me to hear a rehash of the allegations that were made

against the member for Comox last July, which were dealt with for ten

days and in an extensive report by the Deputy Attorney-General. As a

result of that report, and even before that report came down, the

minister resigned his portfolio. He was admonished in that report in

some regards about disclosures. There was one issue that the Deputy

Attorney-General looked at, and that was the only issue as far as the

Constitution Act was concerned.... That was the sale of concrete to the

UBC research farm at Oyster River and whether that constituted a

violation of the Constitution Act. He looked at that, he reviewed the

facts, and he concluded that it did not.

It was a sale of which the member himself had no knowledge and had

nothing to do with. It was a small sale. The bids were all open, in

public, and the lowest bidder received the contract. There was no

knowledge on the part of the member of that bid, and he was not dealing

with a Crown bid. He was dealing with a bid for the university, and a

university in this province is not the Crown. I am absolutely appalled

that these people would argue that, because that's the only way that

there could be even a remote case under

section 27.

Those were the allegations, and the Deputy Attorney-General looked

at those and found that there had not been a violation of the

Constitution Act. But when the Leader of the Opposition asked for a

reference under

section 27, he quite correctly deferred to this

Legislature and said the Legislature could determine that. We on this

side waited for a straightforward reference under

section 27 of the

Constitution Act. We waited for the opposition to make their charges

and make them stick. We would have agreed very willingly to a

straightforward reference under

section 27 of the Constitution Act,

because it's a very serious procedure and these are serious charges

against a member, and if you are going to make those charges, then you

have to meet the requirements of

section 27.

Let me remind the House of those provisions. "Where another member

alleges that a member has contravened

section 25 and that the money was

accepted with the approval of the contravening member, the alleging

member shall table a notice of motion...setting forth particulars of

the allegations, and shall move" for a special committee to be

appointed.

Instead of doing that, we have a resolution here that is as broad as

the doubletracking of the CNR, going through all the matters that Mr.

Hughes looked at. It wants an inquiry into the conduct of the personal

affairs of Hon. S. Hagen, specifically questions relating to disclosure

forms and possible conflict of interest arising from his failure to

relinquish directorships in three companies. Those are the matters that

Mr. Hughes has already dealt with and on which the member was already

in jeopardy and in possible violation of the Constitution Act. That is

not in compliance with

section 27; that's not the kind of motion that

we were going to support.

What the member opposite who makes this charge was supposed to do

was to make an allegation, a motion setting out that money was received

by the member for Comox with the approval of the member for Comox, that

he knew his

[ Page 2706 ]

Ready-Mix company was getting that bid, and that

with his approval they got paid; also, that it was money received from

the Crown and not from the university. He can't make those allegations;

he can't make a proper notice of motion; he knows that, so he

constructs this broad kind of net and wants this Legislature to replay

all the matters that this member has already been in jeopardy on and

already been punished for. I say that that is a very regrettable

process to follow in this House.

We would have supported something straightforward. We would have

supported if there was an allegation there that money had been received

by his company and that he had approved of that and that that had been

money received in relation to a contract with the Crown or an agent of

the Crown. They know opposite, Mr. Speaker, that they can't make a

motion like that because there isn't one scintilla of evidence to

support it. Now this is not the kind of thing to bring forward —

conflict-of-interest debates or debates to amend the Constitution Act —

because this involves the integrity of a member and a member's seat,

and you shouldn't play fast and loose with a member's seat.

As a member of this government I'm quite happy to debate the

Constitution Act or whether or not we should improve our guidelines,

but to put a member in jeopardy and to put him in jeopardy, Mr.

Speaker, a second time when he's already been investigated.... I

listened to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew's very clever legal

arguments that somehow this was an incomplete investigation — that

there were people that the Deputy Attorney-General couldn't speak to,

bank managers and so on. They didn't have a thing to do with any of

those people, with Ready-Mix. We know the facts of Ready-Mix. We know

it was a contract for Mr. Hagen's firm, and we also know that it was

opened in public and the lowest tender got the bid. We also know that

the member didn't know or participate in that. Those facts are known.

There are no other facts on that allegation.

What they want to do is replay the whole Hughes investigation under

the guise of being a motion under

section 27. This is a terrible

precedent if this motion passes. We're quite happy to air something

that's real. We're happy to deal with a serious allegation. We don't

want to sweep anything under the rug. But you want to abuse the

privileges of a member and put a member through a committee of

privilege based on things he's already been in jeopardy on. Where's

your sense of fair play and decency? You should be ashamed of yourself.

[3:45]

No Premier has ever dealt more promptly with allegations of this

kind and dealt with them in a straight-up way and required resignations

where necessary and conducted investigations. These investigations have

been conducted, I'm happy to say, by a gentleman whose integrity is

above reproach in this province and in this House, somebody who sat as

a superior court judge for a number of years and somebody who knows and

can understand witnesses and knows when they're trying to pull the wool

over his eyes. In his report he also very forthrightly said that this

member had committed sloppy practices, and he reprimanded him for

breach of the guidelines. It was not a coverup at all. When it came to

the question of the Constitution Act, he said there was no violation of

the Constitution Act. I just want to read what he said about the

member: "Having said that, I draw on 18 years of experience where day

in and day out I made credibility assessments of my fellow citizens, to

tell you that in my judgment Stanley Hagen is an honourable man of high

integrity." He made that assessment.

If you think a committee of privilege and an allegation in this

form, not dealt with properly as it isn't being here, but just leaving

a cloud over a member and suggesting there should be a committee of

privilege on something like this.... If you think this is a minor thing

and if you think this is some chance to make the government look bad,

then you're not reflecting on your position as members of this House.

The shoe can be on the other foot, Mr. House Leader. You know, other

people can make allegations against other members.

It's high time, in this province, we stopped making all sorts of

allegations against people, until we have evidence of some real

corruption. You're pretty good on that side at doing that, aren't you?

Pretty good, some of you. I think that if allegations are going to be

made against people, they should be brought forward in clear terms. If

you have something to move in this House under

section 27; if you can

prove that money changed hands and it did so with the participation of

the member; and you can meet the

section 27 test, we'll gladly have an

inquiry any time, because we haven't got anything to hide.

But you can't do that, Mr. Member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. I

don't think you want this debate to continue either, because you're

normally a fair-minded chap. I'm sorry that you've been put through

this and that you have to make all these legal sophistic arguments. But

you know that there is absolutely no case under sections 25 and 27, and

you know that there is nothing there. Otherwise you would have framed a

proper motion, and we would have been in a committee. We have no proper

motion because we have no evidence and we have no case.

How can a man violate the Constitution Act involving a contract with

the university unless you argue that the university is the Crown in the

right of the province? You argue that and you're going to have every

academic in this province screaming about academic freedom, because the

universities aren't part of the Crown. They're not emanations of the

Crown, and they've never been taken as emanations of the Crown.

Just to give you some idea and remind you of what the spokesman of

the universities thought of Mr. Hagen when he did resign for that brief

period of time, the President of Simon Fraser University said: "It came

as a complete surprise and I'm absolutely sick at heart about it." That

was William Saywell. "Stan Hagen is one of the best things that

happened to post-secondary education in British Columbia. I think he's

the best minister in Canada right now." Similar utterances came from

UBC, from Dan Birch, the acting president, also from the Canadian

Federation of Students. I know you don't want to hear this, but you're

dealing with the rights of a member. He's a member, and you want to put

him in a seat of jeopardy with absolutely not a scintilla of evidence

and no case under the Constitutional Act. You know that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order from all. I might remind the Attorney-General to use the member's ministry name, not his personal name in the House.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Yes. I was quoting from somebody who used his personal name, and I regret that.

We should — most of all in this place — recognize the rights of members and safeguard those rights. It's one thing to

[ Page

2707 ]

criticize a government, and it's one thing to take

shots at us about conflict-of-interest guidelines and tightening them

up. We understand that's your job, and we don't quarrel when you go

after us on that. But what I'm talking about is the sacred right of a

member to take his seat and hold his seat. That right can only be taken

away under

section 27 proceedings. Those are very serious things, and I

do not believe that any of you in your hearts think that the case of

the member for Comox is one that requires a

section 27 procedure. If

you did, you would have drawn it differently.

We've had a good debate. We've heard some good recommendations on

what might happen with the Constitution Act. We've aired some things.

But let's not translate that into a privilege committee for something

which there is not a scintilla to go on. There isn't. There's nothing

to go on. Let's not talk about the rights of members and ministers in

broad-brush ways either, because the right of a member to hold his seat

and freely speak his mind is the most treasured thing that we have in

this chamber.

I take you all as men of good will and believe in my heart that

there isn't any one of you who seriously wants us to have a privilege

committee on this matter. If we had a matter for a privilege committee,

and if there was something to go on, I and everyone on this side would

be the first ones to move it. But it isn't there, so let's get on with

other constructive debates.

MR. HARCOURT: The Attorney-General has certainly proved one

maxim that's known to most trial lawyers: if you've got a bad case,

bluster loudly. We're quite astounded by the approach that the

Attorney-General has taken in this matter. He says that the Deputy

Attorney-General cleared the hon. member, and that that's the end of

it. I would like to suggest that that is not what the Deputy

Attorney-General said at all. On page 14 of his report he says that "at

the end of the day it cannot be said that the Minister of Advanced

Education, since being sworn in as a member of the executive council,

distinguished himself in the management of his personal affairs. It can

fairly be said that the opposite is the case."

The Attorney-General also says that the matter is finished as far as

the Deputy Attorney-General is concerned. On page 13 he said that he

would like to "reserve a public discussion...until an appearance I

would be prepared to make should such a committee be named under

section 27 of the Constitution Act and should I be invited to attend

before it. My opinion could well be but one that the committee would

wish to hear, and while I believe it is a correct one, it would at that

stage be for the committee to say" — not the Attorney-General. For the

Attorney-General to say that we should be putting evidence forward....

That's not for us to do. That is a matter to be investigated quite

thoroughly and properly in the spirit we put it forward.

I may say that I find the approach the Attorney-General has taken on

this matter quite distasteful. I want the Attorney-General to know that

the member we are discussing here today, after my request under the

Constitution Act, approached me personally and said that he wanted to

express his gratitude to me for the restrained and careful way in which

I and our caucus put this matter forward. For it to be said today that

we did anything other than obey not just the spirit but the intent of

the Constitution Act comes as quite a shock and a surprise.

So we have the hon. member's words to me personally about the

approach that we have taken on this matter. We have the Deputy

Attorney-General saying that the hon. member was not conducting his

personal affairs in the best way he could have. We have the Deputy

Attorney-General saying, in expectation of a hearing by a committee of

this Legislature, that he would not be putting forth his opinions,

because he expected there to be a committee of this Legislature.

I find it quite astounding that over the last little while we have

had this quite different tone and approach being voiced by the

Attorney-General. We have, on top of that, not just the approach that I

took and the word of the Minister of Advanced Education, and the

written words and opinions of the Deputy Attorney-General, but also the

Premier saying that he would heed the call after the investigation —

not before, not during, but after this investigation, he would heed the

request put forward by me on behalf of our caucus that a committee of

this Legislature be established, which makes the Attorney-General's

approach here today even more astonishing. After quite a few hundred

criminal trials and trials in the civil courts, I may say that I go

back to the maxim, defend a case with bluster, which I'm sure the

Attorney-General was put up to do — for what reason I'm not quite

clear, because we have only just heard this presentation by the

Attorney-General.

What we are talking about here today is not just that we carry

forward in the spirit in which this whole matter was first voiced. It

wasn't a smear. It wasn't pushed across in the headlines with words

that implicated the minister beforehand or embarrassed him and his

family. It was done with very careful and restrained language by all on

our side of this House. For the Attorney-General to say otherwise is

wrong, and he knows that, which is why his forceful presentation was

not given with his usual sense of conviction.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to reaffirm our sincere desire that this

motion go forward, that there be a legislative committee to deal not

just with the integrity of this member who, as I've said before, we are

quite prepared to maintain the same spirit that I established when I

put forward the request for this investigation.... Again, as the hon.

member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew has put forward, we feel that there

is something even greater this Legislature can do, and that is to

finally bring forward some proper conflict-of-interest laws — not

guidelines — and to have an independent arbiter so that the Premier

does not act as judge and jury.

We say that there is a confusion and ambiguity about what is proper

conduct and what is not, that there are two standards for those elected

and for the guidelines circulated recently for our public employees.

It's wrong to have two standards. We think that the people of British

Columbia should have some properly framed laws for those members of the

Legislature, particularly those entrusted with a cabinet position, to

recognize very clearly the difference between right and wrong. Our laws

are not capable of doing that right now because they are in guideline

form and are interpreted by the Premier.

[4:00]

We think it's unfortunate that this discussion has taken the turn it

has today, Mr. Speaker, because we New Democrats have a great respect

for democracy and for this Legislature. That's why we want a full

debate in this Legislature of privatization. People are entitled to

have this fine body, which has taken centuries to evolve, to be the

place where those debates take place and where the members' affairs can

be dealt with by their peers. I may say that I am saddened, actually.

I've recovered from my shock at the approach of the

[ Page

2708 ]

Attorney-General, and I'm quite saddened by the

approach I see emerging from the government — not just from the

cabinet, but from the caucus — that they are changing their minds.

As the Leader of the Opposition, in my dealing with the Premier on

this matter, I think that before we deal with this matter any further I

would like to have the Premier back in this Legislature. I would like

the Premier to tell us that he has changed his mind about heeding the

request of the Leader of the Opposition that this matter be

investigated with due respect for the rights of people, with proper

process and protection of individuals' reputations and freedoms. I'd

like to see the Premier here when he returns on Monday, for us to come

back at this matter, and possibly to have a rethink after this

astonishing performance by the Attorney-General.

I'm going to be putting forward, under standing order 45(2), until the Premier returns, that this House do now adjourn.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

G. Hanson

Barnes

Marzari

Rose

Harcourt

Stupich

Boone

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Cashore

Guno

Smallwood

Lovick

Sihota

Miller

A. Hagen

Jones

Clark

Edwards

NAYS — 36

Brummet

Savage

Rogers

L. Hanson

Dueck

Richmond

Parker

Michael

Pelton

Loenen

Crandall

De Jong

Rabbitt

Dirks

Mercier

Long

Veitch

Strachan

B.R. Smith

Couvelier

Davis

Johnston

Weisgerber

Jansen

Hewitt

Gran

Chalmers

Mowat

Ree

Bruce

Serwa

Vant

Campbell

Messmer

Jacobsen

S.D. Smith

MR. SPEAKER: Before we continue debate on the motion, the

second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain is seeking leave to make an

introduction. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

MR. MOWAT: In the gallery today we have a member who has

served this House very well in the past as a representative from

Vancouver-Little Mountain. He served as a minister in many of the

cabinets. I would ask the House to make welcome Evan Wolfe.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I ask leave to table a document referred to in question period.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Debate continues on Resolution 91. I advise the House that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew will close debate.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to speak for another hour...

AN HON. MEMBER: Despite the fact they still could use the instruction.

MR. SIHOTA: ...despite the fact the members opposite could

still use the instruction. Nonetheless, in closing debate on this

matter, I want to react very quickly to the comments the

Attorney-General made. In my view, there's still a way out for the

government on this matter.

There were basically two issues raised by the Attorney-General. One

was that there was no evidence pursuant to

section 27 on this issue and

the absence of such evidence has resulted in his not supporting the

motion. Secondly, he said that the wording of our motion was too broad.

If I remember correctly, he said that it was as broad as

double-tracking the railway, or something to that effect. I want to

quickly deal with both of those points, because I don't think there's

much to either one of them.

First of all, for the Attorney-General to say that there was no

evidence or insufficient evidence to warrant an examination under

section 27, that the test under

section 27 hasn't been met —

section 27

is a pivotal

section here — ignores the obvious fact that the Premier,

back in August, 1987, felt that there was. He said — and I'll emphasize

the words: "Accordingly, I will support a referral of this particular

issue under

section 27 of the Constitution Act to a committee of the

Legislature." What happened between then, when I'm sure the Premier was

advised, and today? Why the fear to refer this to a committee? What has

happened in between? The Premier obviously at the time felt there was

enough evidence under

section 27, and we put forward this motion in

keeping with that recognition on our part and on the Premier's part.

AN HON. MEMBER: Up until this morning.

[4:15]

MR. SIHOTA: Up until this morning it was my understanding, of

course, that the government was going to be supportive of this motion

as well.

But secondly and more importantly, if the motion isn't properly

worded, if the member opposite doesn't like the motion, then move an

amendment. That's all we're saying. If the Attorney-General is upset

over the words "personal affairs," let's move an amendment to remove

that. If he doesn't think the words "specifically question" limit the

enquiry to the Constitution Act — even though the motion says

section

91 of the Constitution Act — the obvious option before the government,

to be consistent with what the Premier said, is to introduce an

amendment. That's the way out: to introduce an amendment to the motion.

We would entertain that. Let's hear something constructive from the

side opposite, something positive for a change, instead of just being

negative and voting down this motion. If you don't like what it says,

amend it. That's perfectly valid under the rules, perfectly proper.

Let's talk about that. But of course, no. Who's afraid of dealing with

this issue? What's the concern?

The issue now has become, Mr. Speaker — and I'll wrap up on this point — not so much the affairs of this individual

[ Page

2709 ]

minister but the confidence in the statement of the Premier. That's the issue now.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

G. Hanson

Barnes

Marzari

Rose

Harcourt

Stupich

Boone

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Cashore

Guno

Smallwood

Lovick

Sihota

Miller

Jones

Clark

Edwards

NAYS — 36

Brummet

Savage

Rogers

L. Hanson

Dueck

Richmond

Parker

Michael

Pelton

Loenen

Crandall

De Jong

Rabbitt

Dirks

Mercier

Long

Veitch

Strachan

B.R. Smith

Couvelier

Davis

Johnston

Weisgerber

Jansen

Hewitt

Gran

Chalmers

Mowat

Ree

Bruce

Serwa

Vant

Campbell

Messmer

Jacobsen

S.D. Smith

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) sought to raise a matter of privilege

relating to answers given by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries

(Hon. Mr. Savage) during the oral question period yesterday.

The member quite properly tabled a copy of his statement and a

notice of motion which he proposed to move in the event a prima facie

case of breach of privilege was made to the satisfaction of the Chair.

The Blues of yesterday

indicate that the member's concerns arise out of a series of questions

and answers relating to the granting of the milk quota. The member

gives a number of facts to argue against the validity of answers given

by the minister. The matter clearly involves much detail and, in the

member's words, is highly technical.

It is readily apparent that both the members differ in their

understanding and

interpretation of facts affecting this matter. On a

number of occasions, including that of June 14, 1985, the Speaker has

ruled that a dispute arising between two members as to allegations of

facts does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.

I would refer members to citation 113 of Beauchesne's fourth

edition. For this reason, I cannot find that a prima facie case of

breach of privilege has been made out.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I know many of us in the assembly and in

Nanaimo, I am sure, have been waiting since noon in breathless

anticipation for the learned second member for Nanaimo to carry on the

debate he began just before lunch in his own flawless, erudite fashion,

although I did notice in question period he ended a sentence with a

preposition.

Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 59.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No.4), 1987

(continued)

MR. LOVICK: Obviously that generous and gracious introduction

deserves brief comment, and what I would do is simply share with the

House the line from Churchill. When corrected once for using a

preposition at the end of a sentence, he said: "That is an

impertinence, sir, up with which I will not put." I share that with you.

When we ended debate earlier today, I had argued the case that it

seemed on the face of the evidence presented in Bill 59 that, indeed,

the government had perhaps proceeded with too much haste and not enough

care. I was taken to task after the House adjourned by a couple of

people, among them the Provincial Secretary. suggesting that I was

perhaps not entirely correct in my reading of

section 17.

Because I believe in the principle of fairness, I am prepared to

acknowledge that there is perhaps a case to be made to demonstrate that

yes, indeed, the numbering as originally presented in the bill might be

correct. I'm not entirely persuaded by the case but I am willing to

acknowledge there might be one.

I was, as I say, quite prepared to be very fair about that and say

yes, I erred — first time ever, as I recall — and I was going to accept

the charge; guilty as charged. However, on looking at a couple of other

bits and pieces of this bill, I discovered an even better error which,

it seems to me, makes the point all the more emphatically and

effectively. I want to draw the attention of the House to that

particular

section then.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

I am referring to — and I must search my pile of notes here, if I

may —

section 12 of Bill 59 dealing with the Jury Act. Let me draw your

attention to that and point to you the error — a significant one, I

think — that occurs there. It says in the notes, of course — and I

offer this just to explain so we all understand what the intention of

this amendment is — to the Jury Act that the purpose of

section 12 is

to correct a statute revision error. So be it. We all understand that

excellent idea. We then turn to the Jury Act, and we discover that

section 15 of the Jury Act is amended by striking out "jury" and

substituting "judge," and we think that probably makes sense too. If,

however, we look at

section 15 of the Jury Act, we come upon this

marvelous first statement: "The party requiring a judge shall, before

he is entitled to have the judge summoned, pay to the sheriff a sum

sufficient for payment of the judge...." Clearly, unless all the

notions of jurisprudence have suddenly disappeared from human history,

there is an error there. I believe the intention, Madam Speaker, is

that the last line of this particular

section of the bill is supposed

to replace the word "jury" with the word "judge." Otherwise, however,

the amendment doesn't make any sense.

Again, I would reiterate my case made earlier that we seem to see

very good, solid evidence of lack of care and lack of meticulousness,

and I wonder whether that is indicative of an overall lack of care, and

indeed indelicate and indecent haste, perhaps, with this particular

miscellaneous statute.

Having made those few points, I want now to turn to some of the

substantive parts of this particular bill. I think there are some very

significant issues that cry out for our attention. I am not going to

attempt to deal with every

section of the bill;

[ Page 2710 ]

indeed, there are far too many for anyone to do

that in the space of a mere two hours. I will, however, focus on what I

think are a couple of the more significant parts.

I want to begin by having a look at

section 2 — not clause by

clause, but the principle of

section 2, I hasten to point out.

Section

2 of the bill, as we know, is an amendment to the Constitution Act, and

according to the note, it removes the ceiling on the number of

parliamentary secretaries. I submit that, if many people look at this

particular amendment and see the intention of removing the ceiling,

those people will want to raise the roof. The predicament is that this

is the kind of action on the part of government that I can guarantee

you is likely to exacerbate the already tense situation that exists out

there in terms of how people perceive this government: as insensitive

and somehow unmindful of the concerns of ordinary men, women and

children in our communities.

[4:30]

The predicament, of course, is that this intention of raising the

ceiling, i.e. increasing the number of parliamentary secretaries

possible, is a little bit out of sync. The problem is that we have not

yet had any discussion about the new superministries, about the new

regions of the province, but patently we're here being asked to accept

the fact that we're going to create some new ones in order to make

possible that measure that has not yet been discussed and debated. On

legalistic grounds, perhaps the government is on relatively safe turf;

perhaps it is indeed within their right to do so. I suggest, however,

that the spirit or intent of that tends to be directly against the

proper operation of a Legislature and the proper process of

consultation, as that would be defined by any fair-minded person.

I think I'm safe in saying that, because the problem with

parliamentary secretaries, as most people will contend — and I think I

can make that estimate and be on fairly safe ground — is that they are

perceived by the great majority of people throughout the province as

simply patronage appointments. They're rewards for service because

there aren't enough seats in the cabinet. That's the perception. And

the perception is that when you have a whole bunch of individuals in

caucus who apparently don't have other jobs to do, then in order to

make them feel busy and productive, what you're going to do, of course,

is make them parliamentary secretaries — at considerable expense, I

might add. The question then is, given that perception.... And we know

the perception is out there, because I recall that six months ago some

evidence and statistics demonstrating the level of cynicism out there

were presented to this chamber. We know that evidence is there.

Guess what's going to happen, then, if we suddenly decide to

instantly almost double the number of parliamentary secretaries, if we

remove the ceiling, the limit, on the number of parliamentary

secretaries. You know, Madam Speaker, I know and the hon. House Leader

across the way knows full well that what's going to happen is that most

folks except the party loyalists are going to say: "Yet another example

of the government rewarding itself, rewarding its own friends, and

ignoring the ordinary men, women and children of the province."

I'm saddened by that, because it seems to me that we do indeed have

a problem. We have a problem with what I referred to before as a kind

of creeping cynicism: the sense that it doesn't really matter very much

what we the people do; it doesn't matter who you send to Victoria,

because all politicians are alike, they're only out for their own best

interest, and so forth and so on; therefore why get involved in the

process?

That line of thinking, that kind of intellectual analysis or lack of

intellectual analysis, inevitably leads people to simply give up on the

system. They say: "Well, if that is indeed the case, and that's the way

the system operates, why should I be involved?" Of course, if people

come to that conclusion, then we are really in trouble, because the

system can in fact no longer function as it ought to.

My suggestion, then, is that this particular measure, however

ostensibly it might appear not to be offensive, however minor a matter

it might appear to be, nevertheless adds fuel to the fire of cynicism.

It makes people think once again: "This is a government not concerned

with protecting my welfare and my interests, but rather its own

interests, its own welfare."

I have a number of colleagues, Madam Speaker, who are anxious to

take

part in this discussion. Indeed, I know that

section 2 of the

bill, the Constitution Act amendments, is going to generate

considerable discussion and comment. In fact, some of my colleagues

have done a rather close analysis of the proposition embedded here:

namely, the increase in parliamentary secretaries for reasons that have

not formally been made clear. The only reason we know of that we need

more parliamentary secretaries is, remember, press releases.

I think, legitimately and understandably, some of my colleagues are

prepared to engage in an analysis and examination of this particular

clause. I do not therefore need to do so; instead, what I want to do is

to turn, in the time remaining to me, to one particular

section of the

bill. I am referring to

section 19.

Again, if I can remind members opposite — because I know it is not

commonplace in this Legislature for everybody to read along as the

speeches unfold —

section 19 is the Railway Act; specifically,

amendments to a particular section. The intent of this legislation, or

the effect of this legislation, is to repeal

section 287 of the Railway

Act.

Section 287, let me remind members, is the power of the minister

to make regulations. All right, that's not difficult; we understand

that. The point I would like to make, though, is that the minister

already has tremendous powers to make regulations, notwithstanding that

section 287 of the Railway Act appears to be rather light, relatively

limited, in the number of clauses. In fact,

section 287 is only two

short paragraphs.

Again, to emphasize and make that point about the incredible power

already apparently granted to the minister, let me just remind members

about the existence of regulations to the Railway Act. If you pick up a

book of the consolidated regulations of the province of B.C., Madam

Speaker, what you'll discover there is that the

section on the Railway

Act is the biggest chunk of the book; it's about one inch thick of a

very compressed book. In that one-inch thickness there are

approximately 600 pages. Obviously, the minister has power to make

regulations under the act. The question, then, is why is this change

required? What's the purpose of this change to

section 287 of the

Railway Act?

Here we look to the notes in the bill again, and we discover the

purpose, stated again in the notes.

Section 19 is intended to "clarify

the regulatory powers of the minister, to confirm the regulatory powers

of the minister, and to amplify the regulatory powers of the minister."

The question I want to pose, Madam Speaker, is why the need to

amplify? What is the demonstrated case for this amplification of those

powers? Sadly, the presenter of the

[ Page

2711 ]

Miscellaneous Statutes bill decided that no comment

was required. Clearly, then, I am left no choice but to speculate

somewhat. I don't think, however, that my speculation is idle; I rather

think it is based on some concrete evidence.

Why the need to amplify? Let's think about a couple of

possibilities, just logically. Why the need to amplify, I ask the

question, unless it is true that successive ministers over time have

indeed been exceeding their authority to make regulations? Is this an

admission that in fact we have not been behaving legally, as we ought

to? I see the hon. House Leader on the other side nodding his head and

I can hear him. Good.

If that's the case, I'm a little worried about what kind of

operation, dare I say it, we are running in this province when only

after 600-plus pages, and one inch thick of regulations, we suddenly

miraculously discover: my goodness, we don't seem to have the authority

to be doing all these things we've been doing! I'm a little concerned

about that, and I think that's a legitimate concern.

But I think there's another concern, another possible reason too. Is

it the case — I ask this question rhetorically, Madam Speaker — that we

want to expand and amplify the powers of the minister so that the

minister will indeed be able to do other things that he or she might

not be legally entitled to do in the existing

section 287?

I think probably the answer to that question is that yes, that is

the reason — that there are other things at issue. There is evidence

for the conclusion that there are other things the minister wishes to

do that he — and I use that pronoun not generically but rather

referring to the individual — cannot do given current legislation.

That, of course, is what causes my colleagues and I to say that perhaps

we should look more closely at this.

So let's look a little closely at

section 287, not clause by clause

but the principle of 287, which amplifies the powers of the minister.

We see that the original

section 287 made reference to railways. Good.

That's what a Railway Act should do; I think we can all agree with

that. But the new

section 287 specifies and repeats again and again

some other things. Not just railways but tramways are also specifically

referred to. As well, there is also a reference to aerial tramways.

Of course, when one reflects on that for a little bit to see if we

can put names to those entities, names to those things, specifics, we

say well, railways, okay, we've got a couple of railways under

provincial jurisdiction. We have on one hand the rail division of B.C.

Hydro. We also have a Crown corporation called B.C. Rail.

Then we look to the area of tramways and we say well, yes, we do

indeed have a tramway. That's called SkyTrain, probably, and that's

under the control and mandate of B.C. Transit, another Crown

corporation. Then we say, what about aerial tramways; what exactly does

that mean?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Up in the air.

MR. LOVICK: Up in the air. I'm glad to see that the hon.

House Leader from the other side is not about to leave me up in the air

and is still paying attention. I'm delighted by that.

Aerial tramways.... I wonder by looking closely at any kind of

lexical definition of tram and tramway — that's a dictionary, for

members opposite, okay? — but any kind of aerial tramway, whether that

in fact means a ski lift. If it means a ski lift, well, lo and behold,

there's probably another Crown corporation that the minister now has

powers to deal with. That other Crown corporation exists in that

beautiful area at the end of Howe Sound called Whistler.

[4:45]

I believe the activities of that Whistler corporation are now

transferred to B.C. Place, if my memory serves me at all well, or if my

research is in any way thorough. The question then becomes.... Pardon

me if I appear to be suspicious, Madam Speaker; I certainly don't

intend to be, overly, at least. But I think it's reasonable to be

concerned. It is reasonable to pose some questions. I want to state the

thesis, if you like, bluntly as follows. My colleagues and I think it

entirely reasonable, fair and legitimate to conclude that the amplified

power — using the word "amplified" provided us in the notes of

explanation — being sought here by this government will be used in

effect to facilitate the dismantling and the sell off of these

particular services. I'm referring again to B.C. Hydro's rail division,

B.C. Rail, SkyTrain and Whistler.

What we have here is a very clear indication.... I'm more than

willing to be corrected on this; indeed, I would invite correction from

members opposite who will have their opportunities. But I would suggest

to you that the evidence is rather solid, perhaps irrefutable, that

what we're looking at here is simply another way to achieve the

privatization dream. As we know, and we have quoted to us time and time

again, everything is conceivably for sale — everything. The Premier has

said that on half a dozen occasions. Believe it or not, he actually

thought he was allaying and assuaging people's fears when he said that,

but he nevertheless said it, and of course it had the opposite effect.

I'm working on that assumption, and I would invite anyone to challenge

the error of my logic. I think the logic is solid and the conclusion

inescapable.

I want to refer, albeit briefly, to those particular entities, all

of which are not in the glare of the spotlight, thanks to the powers

asked for in

section 19 of Bill 59. This is a miscellaneous statute

that is not only a runaway railway train that looks out of control, but

also talks a bit about railways. I want to talk a bit about railways

too, to begin with.

Let me start by talking about B.C. Hydro's rail division. I do not

propose to say everything that ought to be said about the rail division

of B.C. Hydro; clearly we would need many hours to do so. I have a

colleague who has done considerable research and has acquired very

impressive expertise on the subject. I'm referring to the second member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), who will probably want to offer some

comments about this particular entity.

What I want to do is put on the record a couple of observations

about the rail division of B.C. Hydro. The first claim I want to make —

and I think it's hard to dispute — is that the public is now well

served by that entity. People, as we know, love to hate Hydro. That's

given. It has been that way for a very long time. It was probably the

case when it used to be B.C. Electric, before another Premier of the

province — from the other side of the House with another kind of

ideology than the one I am normally associated with — decided that the

public interest was not well served by that private interest.

Nevertheless, because of the nature of utilities, we like to hate B.C.

Hydro. If we can peel back the layers of prejudice for a moment, we can

discover that there are good and compelling reasons to defend B.C.

Hydro's rail division.

Let me draw a couple of points to people's attention. How many of us

know that that stretch of railroad is apparently among the most

profitable in the world, if not the most

[ Page 2712 ]

profitable? It functions very well, thank you. The

question is: what do we do with those profits? What we do with those

profits is we do something to offset and counteract the costs that

would otherwise have to be borne by us, the consumers, from B.C.

Hydro's provision of services. The annual profit of rail does reduce

the cost that would otherwise confront us if rail were not there. In

short, the consumers are well served by it. What we're doing is we're

using a public utility to achieve those savings to benefit the people —

not a few of the people but all of the people.

The second argument I'd like to suggest is about B.C. Hydro's rail

division. Hydro rail now serves Hydro's electrical division. That means

that it uses the rail division's rights-of-way in order to run its

transportation lines. If we are to transfer that activity to a private

rail company, what happens thereby is that a private rail company will

be able, in all likelihood, to impose a charge for the use of the

right-of-way. That is an extra charge that we, the people, will have to

bear. In other words, it's another illustration, I think, of an

increased cost that the taxpayers will have to bear in the name of

privatization, in the name of increased efficiency, so it is alleged.

Again, to draw the obvious conclusion — if I might, Madam Speaker,

for fear that some might miss it — what we have is a particular

division of Hydro doing something to offset the costs that we would

otherwise have to bear for the provision of Hydro's services. What

happens is that the higher electricity rates that businesses and

homeowners would have to bear are not then necessary because of that

offsetting profit generated by the rail division of B.C. Hydro.

I would present the case that there is no good solid evidence to

show that B.C. Hydro's rail division does not perform good and valuable

service in the province, and I would suggest that, by any fair analysis

and fair evaluation of the piece, one ought to say that unless you can

demonstrate a clear case as to why the people are not being well

served, you ought not to tamper with the service being provided. That's

a logical conclusion to draw, and one that I think fair-minded people

would indeed draw.

Another brief point, if I may, about the rail division of B.C.

Hydro. I see that even the member for Mackenzie and Powell River has

now started to pay attention; clearly my words are sinking in. I'm

delighted to know that. It's worth mentioning, and I think it needs to

be established clearly for the record, that a recent study completed by

Ernst and Whinney recommended that B.C. Hydro's rail division should be

merged with B.C. Rail. Many members know what happened to that report

and to the advice presented. The advice was peremptorily rejected by

government. The question is: why should that be?

I don't lean to a conspiracy theory of the universe or of history,

but it seems to me a plausible and credible conclusion to draw that you

don't merge those two things, even if it would be more efficient, as

was alleged by the Ernst and Whinney study. What you want to do is make

things dismemberable. If you want to privatize, and the literature on

the subject from Britain makes this very clear, you try to put things

into dismemberable form; that is, into small enough pieces that you can

take them apart. You don't expand them, because when you increase their

size they're more difficult to dismember. What you do is keep them

their existing size or you make them smaller, because you can then

approach the process of privatization with much more ease, simply

because you can sell them off in small enough chunks that you can

always find buyers. I want to suggest that the government's rejection

of the advice from its own consultants probably makes sense only in the

context of being part of a larger strategy vis--vis privatization.

I have a few other comments to wrap up the argument about the rail division.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I detect that the member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Jansen) is saying: "Please don't rush, Mr. Member. There are many more

things I'd like to hear from you, because seldom have I had an

opportunity to be so edified in so short a space of time." I appreciate

that gesture from him.

The public utility case. I want to sketch that out now, Madam

Speaker, and again let me say — ere anybody think I am trying to take

advantage of an opportunity here