1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7653 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

University Endowment Land Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 49).

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 7653

Oral Questions

Community mental health services. Mr. Perry –– 7654

Special credit card rates for NDP and federal Liberals. Mr. Rabbitt –– 7654

Sustainable development. Mr. Kempf –– 7654

Logging practices on Vancouver Island's west coast. Mr. Gabelmann –– 7655

Forest fire fighters. Ms. Edwards –– 7655

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

On vote 76: new programs –– 7656

Mr. Clark

Mr. Sihota

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Regional Development and

Ministry of State for Mainland-Southwest estimates. (Hon. Mr. Veitch)

On vote 48: minister's office –– 7666

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Kempf

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Miller

Farming and Fishing Industries Development Act (Bill 44). Hon. Mr. Savage

Introduction and first reading –– 7688

Agriculture Protection Act (Bill 30). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 7688

Mr. Barlee –– 7688

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 7689

Game Farm Act (Bill 31). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 7689

Ms. Edwards –– 7689

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 7691

Seniors Advisory Council Act (Bill 41). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 7692

Ms. A. Hagen –– 7692

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 7693

Health Professions Amendment Act (Bill 40). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Dueck) –– 7693

Mr. Lovick

Third reading

Environment Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 34). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 7694

Mr. Cashore –– 7694

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 7695

Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 33). Committee stage.

(Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 7695

Mr. Lovick

Ms. Edwards

Third reading

Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1989 (Bill 35). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Michael –– 7699

Mr. Williams –– 7699

Hon. Mr. Michael –– 7699

Seminary of Christ the King Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill PR401). Committee stage.

(Mr. Jacobsen) –– 7700

Mr. Lovick

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of International Business and Immigration estimates. (Hon. J. Jansen)

On vote 38: minister's office –– 7700

Hon. J. Jansen

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Miller

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. DUECK : With us today we have a number of representatives from the B.C. Friends of Schizophrenics. These people have assisted my ministry in the past couple of years in putting together our mental health plan. We're very grateful for the work they have done.

With us today in the House are: Len Horne, president and director; Howie Morgan, vice-president; Murray Galbraith, vice-president and director; Ruth Frankish, secretary; Betty Vaughn, honorary director; Pat Forgacs, president, Vancouver branch; Lee Horvat, past president, Vancouver branch; Julia van Gorder, Vancouver branch; Kathleen Kerr, director; Alan Forgacs, Vancouver branch; Shirley Cook, president, Abbotsford branch; Marie Weeden, president, Chilliwack branch; Maureen Nicholls, director; and Iona Douglas, Vancouver branch. Would the House please make these people welcome.

MR. PERRY : I'd like to second the Minister of Health's welcome to the Friends of Schizophrenics. You know, it's a relatively short time ago that parents and relatives of schizophrenic people were looked on as the villains and blamed for the disease. I think this group has done a wonderful service to the community. It's very nice to have them here. I'd like to welcome them as well on behalf of the House.

HON. MR. VEITCH : It's been asked: what is the best night or best day of the year for Scotsmen to get married? That's obviously not on the longest day of the year but the shortest night of the year so that a person can negotiate a shorter time-frame for the hotel. We have a person here of Scottish origin who is celebrating 16 years of matrimonial bliss with his long-suffering wife, Cheri. I'd like to congratulate and have you congratulate with me the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) and his wife Cheri on their anniversary.

HON. MR. REID : From my constituency today we have two visitors. I'd like the House to give a special welcome to Gretchen Williams and Scott Stevenson, as well as to the representatives of the Friends of Schizophrenics from the White Rock area.

MR. PELTON : Hon. members, on the floor of the House today is Mr. John

Albert Hay. Mr. Hay was a member of the British Parliament for 24 years, and

during the time that he served his parliament he was a joint parliamentary secretary

to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, Civil Lord of the Admiralty

and Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy~ Mr.

Hay is now retired, and came to live in what our Speaker tells me is the best

constituency in the province, West Vancouver. Would you all please welcome Mr.

Hay to the House.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : We in the B.C. Transit family are very honoured today to have been given a very special national award. The Victoria regional transit system has earned the Canadian Urban Transit Association's Best Record in Traffic Safety award for 1988 in recognition of its outstanding safety record. Victoria buses have less than 13 incidents for every million miles they travel. The award was presented to representatives of B.C. Transit this morning at CUTA's annual conference in Ottawa. I'm sure that the House would like to join me in saying thank you for a job well done to our drivers around the Victoria regional transit system.

MS. MARZARI : In the precincts today are grade 7 students from Quilchena Elementary School with their teacher Mr. Reimer and their principal Mrs. Jackman. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. HUBERTS : Visiting in the House today from the great constituency of Saanich and the Islands are approximately 60 grade 6 students from the McKenzie elementary school. Accompanying these students are: two teachers, Mr. Peter Gorman and Mr. Jim Richmond; Const. David Cairns of the Saanich police; two student teachers, Cathy Thomson and Carrie Lauplind; and four parents, Mrs. Robin Calder, Mrs. Carol Denton, Mrs. Linda Nisula and Mr. Derek Byer. The first member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and I would like the House to join us in welcoming this group of people.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : In the precincts today is the former vice-president of the B.C. Social Credit Party~ Ed Kisling. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the Minister of Municipal Affairs in congratulating our Victoria bus drivers. They are indeed a great group of bus drivers. I can assure you that getting such an award driving the Victoria streets is indeed sometimes quite miraculous, particularly when the Legislature is in session and we have all the visiting MLAs back.

[2:15]

Introduction of Bills

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LAND

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled University Endowment Land Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : This bill contains measures designed to improve the function of legislation pertaining to the University Endowment Lands that are still under provincial jurisdiction. It is to smooth the transition to a new status which will be decided upon by the affected parties.

[ Page 7654 ]

Bill 49 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

MR. PERRY : A question for the Minister of Health. On May 11, over a month ago, I asked the minister when he would be presenting the mental health consultation plan to the cabinet. Has the minister taken the plan to the cabinet?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, that's future business.

MR. PERRY : A supplementary then. When he implied in his answer at page 6718 of Hansard that he would take it to the cabinet soon, I conclude that he has not yet done so.

Another question: when is the minister going to stop delaying and provide the

resources necessary to remedy the crisis created by the lack of community health

services in this province? We know there is a $20 million shortfall. When will

we be seeing that money?

HON. MR. DUECK : His conclusions are wrong We have the best system in Canada, and Canada certainly has the best system in the world. That doesn't say that we cannot continue to make improvements. We constantly review the programs we have and add and improve wherever we can.

The member for Vancouver-Point Grey knows very well how the system works. He's been in it -although not for very long, and perhaps he hasn't got that much experience. But to constantly insinuate and indicate that there's a lack of service, or to say that service is not provided, is absolutely wrong and not truthful.

MR. PERRY : Supplementary. In the estimates debate on April 27, the facts of the matter were carefully laid out, and there has been no response from the minister. I would like to ask again, Mr. Speaker: does the minister have a date on which he will present the mental health plan to cabinet?

HON. MR. DUECK : That will be done in due course. I said it would be done soon, and it will be. I am not going to indicate exactly when, because if there is an error and something does not get in on that date, you'll stand up and say: "You said " I'm not going to do that, because everything doesn't go exactly the way I want it to at the time I want it to. I said that plan would be presented soon, and it will be. He knows that very well, because I've spoken to him in the past about it.

SPECIAL CREDIT CARD RATES

FOR NDP AND FEDERAL LIBERALS

MR. RABBITT : My question is to the Attorney-General. The NDP and the federal Liberal Party have a special deal with two of Canada's largest banks that will see their parties receive special interest treatment for major credit cards across Canada. Is there any law being contravened by this special privileged arrangement which favours a political party ahead of the general public?

HON. S.D. SMITH : I'll have to take as notice that part of the member's question with respect to any contravention of the law. I certainly will have it looked at. Indeed, I must say to the member, Mr. Speaker, that there have been members of the public who have asked that question. Generally speaking, I think it is the case that we have high interest rates inflicted on people, consumers with credit cards in this country, and those who are in small business are inflicted with high interest rates. I think generally legislators ought not to be in bed formally with those they may have to regulate.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

MR. KEMPF : A question to the Minister of Forests. Given that the government unveiled yesterday a blueprint for business and environmental groups to work together to develop sustainable development, and given that the task force chaired by Dr. David Strangway defines "sustainable development" as "a goal or ideal in which economic, environmental and social objectives are balanced to build a society of long-term prosperity, stability and quality, " has the minister decided to reverse the policy and allow public input into the management plans of the eight tree-farm licences now up for renewal in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER : In the tree-farm licence policy of the province, there are a total of five opportunities for public input. In the very first case, before a tree-farm licence is even considered, there are public hearings. Secondly, we get to the management working plan, and there is public input. Then we get to the development plan, which is reviewed -it is a five-year horizon and is reviewed every year -and there is public input. Then there is a pre-harvest silviculture prescription, and that provides for public input.

And then, before you can have any opportunity to cut within a tree-farm licence, you have to have a cutting authority~ called a cutting permit. In the cutting permit application there is opportunity for public input. That's five. A past Minister of Forests should understand that.

MR. KEMPF : Given the controversial nature of tree-farm licences, as indicated by the minister's eight so-called information meetings around the province, and given the concern by more than 40 percent of the public in the province of British

[ Page 7655 ]

Columbia with respect to tree-farm licences, will the minister not reverse the policy, giving the public some input, through public hearings, public meetings or whatever, into these eight tree-farm licences that are up for renewal, in order that they may voice their concerns, should they have any?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Speaker, we originally looked at five locations in the province and decided on eight, in order to have information sessions on a proposed policy for replacement of forest licences which are already held by licensees with tree-farm licences. We went around the province to eight different locations. We listened to over 90 hours of oral presentations and received over 300 written presentations. Those are all from the public. I consider that to be public input; probably most people in the province consider it to be public input.

There was a proposed policy, Mr. Speaker. We have not developed a replacement policy. Any move on that program has been stopped while we review all of the inputs thoroughly and discuss them within the ministry. That's taking place currently, and there's no intention of forcing any policy without going through due process.

The Ministry of Forests is one of the most public ministries in this government. It's the most decentralized, and there is more opportunity for the public to have input into the management strategies of this ministry than in any other ministry.

MR. KEMPF : Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether the minister said yes or no with that lengthy diatribe But given that the task force chaired by Dr. Strangway made some very real recommendations, and the Premier said yesterday, "We intend to move quickly to translate these recommendations into action, " is the minister, by his not allowing the public to voice its views of these eight tree-farm licences up for renewal, making a farce of that task force and that public announcement yesterday?

HON. MR. PARKER : No, Mr. Speaker.

LOGGING PRACTICES ON VANCOUVER

ISLAND'S WEST COAST

MR. GABELMANN : I also have a question for the Minister of Forests. Given the unconscionable and devastating logging practices on the west coast of Vancouver Island, in particular between Port Eliza and the Bunsby Islands - the Kyuquot area - has the minister any explanation to this House and the people of this province how that kind of logging could have taken place in this province?

HON. MR. PARKER : The operations on that part of the Island are largely on tenures known as old temporary tenures. They're basically timber licences from the turn of the century and have been harvested on a clearcut basis since that time. Some of them are now in tree-farm licence and managed on a sustainable yield basis; but some are outside of tree-farm licence, and they have the opportunity to cut the entire timber licence because of the nature of the tenure.

Recall what I said earlier: that the tenure has been in place since the turn of the century. It was not any different in the '72-75 period than it is today. They still have the opportunity to harvest those licences which they own. What they own is the standing timber. The management of those old temporary tenures is basically one of a liquidation cut, following which there is a forest renewal program.

The clearcuts that the member opposite alludes to have occurred over a number of years, including the tenure of the '72-75 period. The Forest Service is on record publicly under this ministry to more closely regulate the old temporary tenures and to ensure more responsible management of those lands. That has taken place in the last couple of years and certainly didn't take place in the early seventies.

MR. GABELMANN : I'm talking about logging that took place between 1979 and 1985 in Mount Paxton, St. Pauls Dome and other areas - plans approved by the Forest Service. Will the minister explain why his staff approved those logging plans?

HON. MR. PARKER : Those folks became my staff on March 31, 1987. The member opposite may be talking about '79 to '85, but I'm talking about the period from the time when those licences were first issued, which was in the early part of this century and all the time intervening.

FOREST FIRE FIGHTERS

MS. EDWARDS : My question is also to the Minister of Forests. This year we're experiencing twice as many forest fires as in a normal season, which means we're probably headed for a very heavy forest fire season. Recently your ministry imported two unit crews from California to fight fires in the Golden area. Given the fact that B.C. has only six unit crews operating in the province - although we have many people very well familiar with the forests - has the minister decided to train more unit crews to deal with this year's forest fire threat?

[2:30]

HON. MR. PARKER : The member opposite alluded to the number of fires compared to a normal year. I don't know what's normal as far as a fire year is concerned. Every year has its own special attributes.

The fire at Golden, by the way, is an interesting situation. When the fire was discovered, it was on very tough terrain, high elevation and steep. The Golden office attempted between two in the afternoon and 11 at night to acquire local firefighters. Eleven agreed to go. We needed 40. Ten showed up at the district office. When they got out to the toe of the slope on the reservoir, six of them said: "No, thank you very much, I won't go into that ground." Four were moved to the top of the ridge. When they got to

[ Page 7656 ]

the site, two more left. We were left with two firefighters. It's extremely difficult terrain.

We have highly trained individuals in our unit crews - in our rap attack crews and our helitack crews. They were all deployed. We had had some 1, 500 lightning strikes. What we have is a cooperational agreement with the Yukon, Alberta and the neighbouring states, including Oregon and California, for assistance In emergency situations. We had a clear emergency In very dangerous terrain. It meant that we had to have experienced personnel to attack this fire. The unit crews that were available to us were out of the U.S. Forest Service station in California.

Last year, we helped in a number of the states, and we also helped in Peru with forest fires. This international assistance is important if we're going to have sustainable economic development with due concern for the environment around the globe. This Forest Service participates. Yes, we are training additional people, and we have made those opportunities available not only in the Kootenays but across the province, and continue to do so.

MR. SPEAKER : The Minister of Forests seeks leave to make an introduction. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PARKER : I ask the House today to welcome 22 students in the grade 7 class at John Field Elementary School in Hazelton. Accompanying them are their teacher, Dave Hobbs, and parents Alf and Ruth Brady. Would you please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

HON. MR. VEITCH : Just prior to announcing this particular vote, and for the benefit of my staff who are listening on speakerphone, we will be proceeding to the estimates of the Minister of Regional Development directly following the vote I will call now.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

AND CORPORATION RELATIONS

On vote 76: new programs, $45, 000, 000 (continued).

MR. CLARK : just a follow-up to the minister's staff on the speakerphone. I have given my assurance to the government Whip, and through him, I'm sure, to the minister, that I will not go beyond 4:30. That will be the maximum amount of time that I will continue on this discussion.

With that in mind I just want to finish up, as briefly as I can, our discussions of some of the concerns that I've raised about the Vancouver Stock Exchange. After we do that, hopefully we can wrap up In short order.

I wonder if the minister's staff are planning to be here today.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I wouldn't want to see the affairs of the House delayed, while bureaucrats dictate the pace at which we move. So the hon. member should just proceed. He hasn't said much in the last six or seven hours that would need much staff assistance, so I'm quite happy to see him start the debate.

MR. CLARK : Actually, it wasn't that I was looking for the staff's assistance for the minister; I know he doesn't need any. I thought I would just give information that the staff weren't necessarily aware of, and I wanted them to be assured of that.

I have canvassed a couple of specific examples: one of an international criminal and one of what appears to be a good case of money-laundering. I thought I would very briefly, if I could, canvass one other relatively small matter of the Vancouver Stock Exchange; then my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and I will briefly wrap up.

The minister and his staff may be aware of this, but I was reading in the Vancouver Sun an interesting court case about a promoter. This is a fascinating case of a guy named Sonny O'Sullivan; some people call him "Suitcase Sully" - that's his latest nickname, I hear. He was involved in a stock that was delisted finally. It went from 50 cents to about $5, and then was delisted from the exchange. This was an interesting court case, because it had nothing to do with the specifics of Starfire or this promoter, but I am wondering if the staff of the Securities Commission are aware of it.

I'll just explain it in laymen's terms. Mr. O'Sullivan hired a couple of people - a guy he calls Cliffie Robertson, in particular - to sell stock on a 10 percent commission. This is a few years ago, but the court case was just a month or two ago. Part of the deal was: "We'll give you 10 percent commission on the stock if you agree or make sure that they don't resell the stock within 90 days." I know the minister and the chief regulator beside him knows that it's illegal in this province to essentially withhold stocks by agreement from being resold.

Some of the people who he sold the stocks to resold within the 90 days, so Mr. O'Sullivan refused to pay the commission. As a result, to make a long story short, Mr. O'Sullivan was attacked and beat up by these individuals he'd hired. He was beat up because he didn't pay the commission, and he didn't pay the commission because they resold the stock before the 90 days were up. First of all, he called the police in, and the police went after the individuals for beating him up and extorting money.

What I found fascinating was that in fact the two were convicted - I think they got 30 months in jail - for beating up Suitcase Sully. The funny thing was that in the court case, while they were convicted of beating him up and extorting money from him, it turns out that all they were after was money that Suitcase Sully wouldn't pay, because they didn't

[ Page 7657 ]

fulfil the bargain. The bargain that he made with them is against the laws of the province of British Columbia.

I looked on the VSE, and I wondered if Suitcase Sully was still around. His new deal is a company called Bridge River Development. When you read the paper about the antics of Mr. O'Sullivan in connection with this case that came up, what kind of individual he was and what kind of deals he was promoting, you ask the question: is this a suitable person to be operating on the Vancouver Stock Exchange? I could ask that very simple question of the minister.

It seems to me that hiring hoods, essentially, to promote a stock in the United States on some arrangement which is a violation of the laws, and then the fact that he was beat up for not paying off, does seem to question whether this individual should be allowed to be a promoter on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

I wonder if the minister has any comment on that case, or whether his staff are aware of the court case and the material that came out of that court case, which would seem to imply that Mr. O'Sullivan may not be the kind of person we want to see promoting stock in Vancouver.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : This debate has been going on now for a number of days, and I have said - I don't know how many times - to the hon member that I have statutory responsibilities in performing the duties that I have. The statutory responsibility is to ensure that, beyond regulatory matters, justice is done and that we deal with those who are alleged to have perpetrated crimes, but that we do that in a fair and unbiased way. I am not, by virtue of my statutory obligations, capable of responding to individual requests or suggestions such as have just been made by the member opposite.

I cannot confirm or deny that there are investigations taking place surrounding an individual or a firm doing business on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

I have an obligation to ensure that justice is done, and that implies that there must be adjudications with evidence that can sustain any legal criticism and that justice be done and not only be done but be seen to be done by those we are attempting to regulate The very essence of that system requires that those in charge withhold comment until investigations, if they are taking place, are complete. So I'm in the position of being unable to deal with these questions, as the member knows full well.

I repeat again for the record, to start the day's debate: if the member has knowledge of a particular violation of laws, he should bring that knowledge to the attention of the Securities Commission. They would be pleased to take that information and act on it. In a similar sense, the hon. member can bring the information to me, and I can ensure that the issue being spoken to is addressed.

The member, in addition, has been repeatedly offered the opportunity to discuss

any specifics outside of this public arena privately with myself or the Securities

Commission so that he might be made aware of the current state of affairs as

it may relate to any one alleged violator of the laws. I can't do any more

than that, Mr. Chairman, under the law. The member knows that full well. So

he is, in my judgment, abusing the privileges of the House here by continually

dealing with matters that he knows I cannot speak to.

I am troubled by the suggestion the member made yesterday when I suggested to him that given the fact that all I can do is stand and say exactly the same thing I've said now to individual allegations, I would no longer rise and respond to individual comments or questions but rather I would save my answers until the end of the debate so that we would all save a little bit of time and wear and tear on our patience. I think that would be my inclination for the balance of this debate today, because there's no useful purpose in me standing and repeating myself.

[2:45]

I would, however, make this one additional comment; that is, upon reading the Blues of yesterday, the hon. member appeared to be making rather definitive statements in a number of cases. As a consequence of that fact, and by virtue, of course, that comments in this House are privileged and therefore the people or firms named are unable to respond in any legal way, I have isolated those particular points that were, in my judgment, alleged new material. I will be requesting the Attorney-General to follow up on those specific cases. It will be interesting to see what the consequence of that request for follow-up and hard evidence produces, Mr. Chairman.

In any event, it does strike me that that's the best way of giving the general public some comfort; that while justice must always be done, nevertheless, if allegations are made on the floor of this House in a privileged status, when they appear to have been made in such a definitive form that there's a suggestion of hard evidence associated with the comment, then it's appropriate that we have the Attorney-General follow up and perform his statutory responsibilities.

I therefore will be communicating that request to the Attorney-General, and hopefully that way everyone can get the comfort that I trust both sides of the House are anxious to provide when it comes to dealing with matters of the stock exchange.

MR. CLARK : I appreciate the fact that there's an undertaking to investigate some of the cases I've raised. I would assume that they would work with the Securities Commission on those matters.

I just have a general comment before we move on. The minister, on the one hand, says: "Don't use generalizations, because then you are using innuendo...." He goes to great lengths to say that we shouldn't do that. Then when you raise specifics, he goes to great lengths to say that we shouldn't do that, because then we are impugning specific cases and raising them in the House.

[ Page 7658 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET : If you are so sure of your facts, why do you need the immunity of the House?

MR. CLARK : I don't need the immunity of the House; I've said many of these things outside the House.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK : That's good. I'm glad, Mr. Minister. I am happy that the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) will be looking into them, because those are the kinds of things that should be looked into by the Attorney-General and by this administration. They have clearly demonstrated on several occasions a very soft response to white-collar crime. There has been some clear movement on the part of the Securities Commission, but not nearly enough in these respects.

The minister has said in earlier comments and letters to me: "There are no international criminals. There is no money-laundering. You can't prove it." I've stood in the House and given a specific example of one of the most notorious stock swindlers in the world now operating in a firm connected with the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I have given a case which is very clearly money stolen from the Philippines and laundered through the stock exchange; I've brought another case of money-laundering before the House; and now this latest one, which is a local case in which all of the evidence came out in the court case.

The minister may be aware of the fact that I have not, in this case, made any unsubstantiated allegations. All of the allegations I made with respect to Mr. O'Sullivan came out in court in December 1988 with respect to him being beaten up by two thugs. In the court case it came out that it was a result of a stock deal that Mr. Suitcase had arranged on the VSE. That evidence is very clear for everybody to see; it's all on the public record already. The question really is: why has the Securities Commission not followed up and dealt with the individuals concerned, given the track record we've seen and the facts that came out in this court case?

What I would like to turn to now are some general questions regarding the handling of the insider trading charges that were laid by the Securities Commission against the two Bennetts and Mr. Doman. It begs several policy questions regarding insider trading in this province. I think that if we canvass that thoroughly, we can then move on. Rather than me starting off, I thought I would turn to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, who could maybe canvass this area first.

MR. SIHOTA : I know I have engaged the minister in the past in discussion about the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Usually I talk about things that aren't in front of the commission, and the minister always pleads that he doesn't have the information. Today I want to talk about something that, of course, has been before the commission, and I am sure the minister has all the information.

I wonder if the minister could tell the House when the Securities Commission commenced its investigation into the Bennett-Doman affair.

HON. MR. REID : What's the question on the estimates? What do you want to know about the estimates?

MR. SIHOTA : You'll find out.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Does the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew have another question he can continue with?

MR. SIHOTA : The minister is consulting with his staff, I would assume. I don't think they are talking about the weather outside.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, I should say that I appreciate your indulgence in allowing me to stand while I ask these questions, in light of my back.

Again, to the minister, whom I see is in the midst of a detailed conversation with his officials: this is a matter that the Securities Commission investigated quite some time ago and out of which some celebrated charges were laid. It is no longer before the courts, in the sense that the trial has been heard. I am sure that the minister would be quite happy to tell us about the diligence of his officials, because often he has said that they are very diligent.

Often he has said that we on this side of the House make spurious allegations, so my question to the minister is: when did the Securities Commission commence its investigation? The minister will now, of course, have an opportunity to expand on the diligence of that office.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I am advised that the investigation order was signed on November 8 and that there were investigators appointed, including one from the province of Ontario - because, as the House knows, this was a joint effort by both jurisdictions.

MR. SIHOTA : November 8 - that is about four days after the sale took place. I am wondering if the minister could tell the House when the Attorney-General's department was first notified of the ministry's investigation of this matter. Was the A-Gs department brought in on November 8 or was it advised a little later on at this stage? If so, approximately when?

AN HON. MEMBER : Prior to November 8.

MR. SIHOTA : I wouldn't think so.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Chairman, we have to be very careful here in our responses, because as the House knows and as the member knows full well, there are still unaddressed legal issues surrounding this matter. However, I am anxious to provide information to the member opposite and to the House when I can, providing that it doesn't violate the ongoing matters now under legal dispute.

[ Page 7659 ]

The hon. member made some aside, to the effect that the order was issued four days after the event. He conveniently overlooked the fact that two of those days were holidays - Saturday and Sunday. I think that point needs to be on the record.

The inquisition sometimes tends to be couched in phrases and language which create false impressions, and I trust that the member opposite would agree that it's neither his objective nor obviously should it be government's.

MR. SIHOTA : The minister failed to answer the question. Could he tell us approximately when the Attorney-General's department was called in? I give you credit: if it was November 4, it was two working days after the sale. That's fine. I didn't mean that in a negative way. Let me ask the minister then: when did the Attorney-General's department join hands with your securities people?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Chairman, we are uncertain whether that information should be disclosed at this time, given the legalities still being pursued in the courts. The only way I can handle the question is to take it on notice and provide the answer when we're given legal authority to do so.

MR. SIHOTA : I don't understand why the minister thinks that a simple question about when the Attorney-General's department got involved would in some way impede anything. It's a civil matter before the courts, that I'm aware of. The criminal matter has been resolved in British Columbia and is not being appealed. The appeal period has expired. Your government has decided not to appeal it. So I don't understand what legal ramification the minister is talking about. Sure, there's something pending in Ontario, but... .

HON. MR. REID : That's why you'll never be a lawyer again. You're finished.

MR. SIHOTA : I'd be very happy to show the Minister of Tourism my bar certificate.

I don't understand why the minister is taking that view at all. That's fine; we'll come to that again perhaps. I want to ask the minister this question then: could he tell us what triggered the investigation on November 8, 1988?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : As the member knows, the trade occurred on the Toronto Stock Exchange, so the inquiry was triggered by notification from the Toronto Stock Exchange of the transaction.

MR. SIHOTA : Could the minister then tell the House how long the investigation was by his officials? It obviously commenced November 8. When did it terminate, or is it still ongoing?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Chairman, I took an earlier question on notice because of pending legalities. Obviously the member could infer from my taking on notice and my response the answer to the question he just put.

MR. SIHOTA : Let me tell the minister, in response to his response: if he'd just stop trying to figure out what my question is all about and answer the question, it would be a lot easier, because I think he's reading far more into the question than there was,

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please, hon. members.

MR. SIHOTA : Certain members of the Social Credit cabinet would prefer that I not ask these questions, but I think they're fairly important.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA : I'll try to ignore the comments from the side there.

MR. BLENCOE : Consider the source.

MR. SIHOTA : That's right. I was mindful of the source when I decided to ignore it.

The question to the Minister of Finance is this. Obviously the government or his officials reviewed the records of the transactions. Could he tell the House who his officials interviewed during their investigation?

[3:00]

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Chairman, as I've said to the hon. member, there are ongoing matters before the various authorities. I certainly would not be prepared to harm the legality of those matters. Therefore I cannot answer to the question. The member fully knows it. As a matter of fact, the Securities Act,

section 132, says: "No person, without the consent of the commission, shall disclose, except to his counsel, any information or evidence obtained or the name of any witness examined or sought to be examined" under previous sections. Insofar as I have said there are still matters to be settled in a legal sense, clearly a response to that question would be inappropriate. If, as the member alleges, he is a member of the bar, I would have thought he'd know that.

MR. SIHOTA : You've got the people there from the Securities Commission. Maybe you could ask them for their consent and let us know. The minister told us that the investigation commenced on November 8. Could he tell the House whether or not that investigation involved both the acquisition and the sale of shares, or was it subsequent that you dealt with the matter of the acquisition of shares?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The same answer, Mr. Chairman. It would be damaging and potentially harmful to the matters yet to be settled for an answer

[ Page 7660 ]

to be provided at this time. So we'll take that question on notice also.

MR. SIHOTA : Could the minister explain why he thinks that question would be damaging to any litigation that's going on? Could he afford the House an explanation for this shield that he chooses to use?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I take some offence at the suggestion that we're using a shield. The member opposite knows full well that were I to harm ongoing matters that will be addressed by other adjudicating authorities, I could be found guilty of abusing public off ices and confidences given to me by statute. He cannot have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. Were I to oblige his request and subsequently be found to have done damage to the ongoing issues being adjudicated, then he would promptly ask for my resignation, and probably with justification.

I'm sorry, I can't let him have both sides of the debate. I have told him that I am not interested in withholding any information. When I am legally free to answer the questions that he puts surrounding this matter, I'll be pleased to file the answers; but not before.

MR. SIHOTA : Can the minister tell us what litigation is taking place in British Columbia in relation to this matter?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Once again, a little fishing expedition to attempt to determine exactly what matters might yet not be resolved. I cannot play that game. I have, as I said, statutory responsibilities Were I to start playing that game and in the process do harm to the issues being adjudicated, then of course I would have to resign my office. I have a matter of responsibility and obligation to perform here, and I'm attempting to ensure that it's done in an unbiased, fair, open manner.

The answers to these questions can, of course, be provided once we're legally free to do so. I for one am committed and make the commitment to do just that, but not before.

MR. CLARK : It's quite clear, it seems to me, that if the minister says he's prepared to tell us when the investigation started, it's not prejudicing anything to tell us when the investigation of the buying of the shares started as well. Maybe I could ask a different question: is the Securities Commission reviewing the case with respect to regulatory sanctions, as opposed to legal sanctions, against the parties, given that the government has chosen not to appeal the legal question?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I have stood in this House for at least eight hours saying repeatedly I cannot confirm or deny the state of investigations that may or may not be underway. To imply that we are not would suggest that we may, or even that a case might have been closed. To imply that we are would alert the alleged perpetrators that there are ongoing matters for which they may be at some risk. None of that would be in the interest of the duty I must fulfil. The question is patently exactly the issue I have been responding to for the last eight hours. I cannot share that in a public way. The member knows that. He's heard it repeatedly.

I can't do any more than my legal duty. That's what we're doing. If, as you suspect, there may be some sort of a shield here - to use the word of the other member - then all we can do is let the matters that are still under question be resolved, and at that time, when there can be no harm done to one side or the other, then I'm quite happy to share that information with the House.

MR. SIHOTA : When I referred to a shield, I should have said a mythical shield, because I defy the minister to point to any legal impediment that prevents him from answering the question.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : Ask the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) about ministerial responsibility~

The question to the Minister of Finance that still remains outstanding, of course, and the fact that's obvious to him, is that there is no judicial proceeding operating in British Columbia - maybe quasi-judicial, but not judicial.

The Minister of Finance is not on retainer for Mr. Bennett or Mr. Doman; he's on retainer for the people of this province. His job is to answer questions relating to the activities of his ministry, and we're asking questions relating to the activities of his ministry.

It would be a different matter if the matter was under appeal, but we've gone past the appeal date. It would be a different matter if the matter was being litigated criminally in British Columbia. That's not the case anymore. That's not a defence anymore. They should have called the estimates back in May if you wanted to avoid this, Mr. Minister, but you didn't. You're here before us now, and your officials have to account for themselves.

I also find it passing strange that the minister would say to my colleague from Vancouver East that it's not for him to confirm whether or not any investigations are ongoing. Has the minister forgotten that last year, in relation to a question I asked him in question period dealing with a company that Mr. Brown was associated with - and I can give him the name of the company if he gives me some time to look it up - the minister indeed confirmed that a matter was under investigation, and offered that information on his own. That's a total contradiction of what he said today.

I'll be happy to provide the minister with that response. As it turned out, however, the minister said that there was an investigation and there wasn't one. We spent about four days in this House trying to tell the minister that he was behaving like Pinocchio, and he still, to this date, hasn't retracted that error. Maybe it has more to do

[ Page 7661 ]

with the fact that he got stung than it does with this mythical shield he says exists.

I want to know this from the minister. The Attorney-General's department chose at some point to lay charges against the Bennetts. I can't remember the exact date that that occurred, although I'm sure I could find that. Was the Securities Commission informed prior to the laying of those charges that the Attorney-General's department was about to proceed with the laying of the charges?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I'm advised that that's a matter of public record, and the answer to the question is yes.

The member made a few other comments that I'll deal with now. He pointed out that last year I did confirm or at least that I answered a question he put to me regarding a particular stock. He asked if that was under investigation and I said: "Well, the Vancouver Stock Exchange have halted trading, so obviously it's a matter under investigation." That's the issue, I take it, that he's referring to. As a matter of fact, I'm advised now that the word I used at the time was "examination, " not "investigation." I remember trying to dance around that issue. In any event, the aside made by the member just a moment ago isn't quite on the point.

I also want to remind the member that in the opening response to his first question, I pointed out that the issues surrounding the Doman matter were a joint investigation. I don't know whether he caught that or not, but if he didn't, I make the point again.

MR. SIHOTA : When you say it was a joint investigation, I take it that it was a joint investigation with Ontario.

Could the minister first of all tell the House when the Attorney-General's department told you they were proceeding with charges? How much notice did they give to your ministry with respect to that matter? Was it hours, minutes or days?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I'll take that question on notice, on the same reasoning as the previous questions.

MR. SIHOTA : I fail to see how that can prejudice any type of litigation that's going on. Does the minister want to do his job or not? The question to the minister is this: what discussions did your officials have with people in Ontario, once you were advised of the charges being laid in British Columbia, vis-à-vis the value of proceeding in British Columbia first and Ontario second?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : We'll take that under notice, Mr. Chairman. As I said, there are matters still to be settled and there is much more to be done, and therefore it would be inappropriate to respond at this time.

MR. SIHOTA : I guess we've been getting accustomed to this sort of stonewall methodology on the part of the government.

Let me ask the minister this. He says there are other matters left to be covered. Could he explain what those other matters are that would prevent him from answering such a basic question? Tell us.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I have responded to that issue. I do believe the question has been answered previously, and I can't add any more to my previous answer.

MR. SIHOTA : You haven't covered it at all, and in fact the preference seems to be to allow it to remain uncovered in terms of your attitude vis-à-vis these answers. I want to tell the minister that it's very important that we get some answers in terms of what his ministry did or did not do and the level of cooperation that existed between his ministry and the Ministry of Attorney-General.

Let me ask you a general question that pertains to this matter. Are your officials satisfied with the level of cooperation they had with the Attorney-General's department in this regard?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The issue is obviously one that involves all arms of government, and to that extent all arms of government act in a coordinated fashion. So the member can draw his own conclusions.

[3:15]

MR. SIHOTA : I think there are others who have written about this matter and have drawn several conclusions. It relates again to the matter of cooperation with the Attorney-General's department.

Let me ask the minister this question. Did your securities officials make any representations to the Ministry of Attorney-General as to the jurisdiction in which the criminal charges should first be laid?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I think I've already dealt with that issue in a previous answer.

I believe the only way to ostensibly tackle this question is for me to remain in my seat and make a note of the questions put. I have already assured the member that once we're legally free to provide the information he's asked for, we will provide it. But that time is not now, and therefore I'll have to just make a note of the questions and let the natural course of events dictate when I can provide the answers.

MR. SIHOTA : Somehow I suspect we're not going to get any answers from this minister until after the next provincial election.

I want to ask the minister this question.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : You'll be back asking the same questions.

[ Page 7662 ]

MR. SIHOTA : If the Minister of Education wants to come run against me in my riding, I'll be very happy to take him on.

Did the Attorney-General's department in any way pre-empt the investigations of your people?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA : just in case the minister did not hear the question, because there was some chatter going on between me and the Minister of Education: did the Ministry of Attorney-General in any way pre-empt the investigation and activities of your securities people?

MR. CLARK : I guess if the minister wants a list of questions, we'll give him a list of questions.

Can the minister confirm that in fact Securities Commission investigators of this case were surprised that a press conference had been called by the Attorney-General's ministry to lay these charges?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The second member for Vancouver East.

MR. CLARK : Can the minister confirm that the Ontario investigator from their Securities Commission in Ontario was not informed that charges would be laid by the Ministry of the Attorney-General here in British Columbia?

Can the minister confirm that in fact the investigator from the Ontario Securities Commission had to attend the press conference that the Ministry of the Attorney-General held in order to find out what charges were to be laid and what constituted the charges?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I am advised that that is not correct, Mr. Chairman, and I am free to disclose that fact.

MR. SIHOTA : The member for Vancouver East asked two other questions. Can the minister explain why it is that he is not prepared to respond to the first two questions and only respond to the third one? Has he got an objection? Is he unaware of what transpired, or is he aware and just would prefer not to tell us?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I answered that question about five or ten minutes ago. I told the hon. member that the issue was a cross-ministry issue, and whenever those instances arise all arms of government are coordinated to act effectively, and that was the situation that prevailed. I can't answer any more definitively than that.

MR. SIHOTA : Is the minister saying, then, that the Ministry of the Attorney-General did not pre-empt his official's investigation activities on this matter?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew continues.

MR. SIHOTA : Well, the minister is not prepared to answer that.

With respect to the laying of charges, there was a charge laid initially with respect to the sale of shares and subsequently, on the date of the trial, the charges with respect to the acquisition of the shares were laid. What conversations did his securities officials have with the Attorney-General's ministry, if any, with respect to the need to lay those charges at the time they were laid?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : Question to the Minister of Finance again: did the Attorney-General's department come to your ministry and say: "Look, we should lay charges on the front end" - in other words, on the acquisition? So first, did they do that?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Repetitive and tedious, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CLARK : These are new questions.

MR. SIHOTA : I don't understand why the minister is not prepared to answer this question. There was obviously a gap in time between the original decision to lay charges with respect to the sale of shares and the decision to lay charges with respect to the acquisition of shares.

Let me ask the Minister of Finance this: did his officials recommend to the Attorney-General's ministry that charges be laid with respect to the acquisition end of the charges? Did they make that recommendation or . . . ?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I can't answer that.

MR. SIHOTA : I'm at a loss to understand why the minister says that he can't answer that question. He's already said his officials investigated on November 8. We know when their investigation commenced. All we're trying to find out is whether or not they recommended that charges be laid on both ends -the sale and the acquisition? Or was it that no recommendations had... ?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : On a point of order, I know that the ego of the member for Esquimalt demands that if he wants to ask a question 20 times, somebody should answer it 20 times. He has asked those same questions several times. He has perhaps changed a word or two, but the content has been identical. He has had the answers to them, and then somehow or other he expects that the minister must answer because it suits his ego, and the committee has to listen to all that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I would just remind members - and I have mentioned this before - that there's no

[ Page

7663 ]

compulsion that ministers answers questions that are put to them during estimates.

MR. SIHOTA : Certainly it is not for the Minister of Education to impute any motive, and it's pure hyperbole to make the suggestion that he did make. Quite frankly, we have an obligation on this side of the House to ask questions. I am sure that the Minister of Education would prefer that we not do that when it brings some sense of discomfort to ministers on the other side of the House.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : We believe in the learning process; you haven't learned a thing.

MR. SIHOTA : Well, in order for a learning process to take place, there must be dialogue, and we're not getting that in terms of the new Socred stonewall mentality.

MR. CLARK : I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[3:30]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 11

Barnes

Marzari

Gabelmann

Boone

Clark

Blencoe

Edwards

Cashore

Sihota

Jones

Miller

NAYS - 32

Brummet

Savage

Vant

Michael

Dueck

Parker

Weisgerber

Huberts

Dirks

Mercier

Messmer

Rogers

De Jong

Chalmers

Veitch

Reid

S. Hagen

S.D. Smith

Couvelier

Ree

Davis

J. Jansen

Johnston

B.R. Smith

McCarthy

Peterson

Bruce

Serwa

Rabbitt

Long

Jacobsen

Davidson

MR. SIHOTA : I'd like to know how the member for Columbia River (Mr.

Crandall) voted on that one.

HON. MR. VEITCH : A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I notice that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew voted on both issues. He's like his leader and has both of his feet firmly planted in the air. I'm wondering which way he voted.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Chair is well aware of the way the vote was taken, hon. member. The hon member has received permission to remain on his feet because he has a bad back. The debate continues on vote 76.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA : A question for the Minister of Finance. What discussions took place between his ministry and the Ontario securities people vis-à-vis whether or not charges with respect to the acquisition of shares should be laid, and in which jurisdiction?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The second member for Delta rises on a point of order. just before he does, maybe I could ask the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) to take their seats.

MR. DAVIDSON : Mr. Chairman, the matter being canvassed at this time by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is currently a criminal-proceeding consideration by the Ontario court. Notwithstanding the fact that no charges have yet been made, it is very clearly understood that that is still a matter of consideration by that body. The questions by the member at this time transgress that area, which- is reserved for a theatre other than this one.

I believe the Chair has made a ruling on this matter in the past. I believe - with the greatest of respect, Mr. Chairman - the minister has made it clear that this is a matter that cannot be discussed at this time, and I would ask the Chair so to rule.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Chair has the benefit and wisdom of counsel. The matter is not sub judice until charges have been laid, and I do not believe charges have been laid in this case.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Chairman, for the record, it's my understanding that charges have been laid in Ontario.

MR. CHAIRMAN : In that event, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew must govern his remarks accordingly.

MR. SIHOTA : I thought that the matter in Ontario - and I could stand to be corrected; the minister has his officials here - was charges that flow from the Securities Commission with respect to violations of securities provisions in Ontario. Are you saying that they are the same criminal charges?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : They are, I'm advised, the equivalent charges that were laid surrounding the transaction of November 4.

just for my own information, Mr. Chairman, could you clarify your ruling? What is the practice in matters that are before the courts? Is it appropriate that we continue on this course?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Chair does not make a ruling; the Chair only wants to make a recommendation for guidance. In order for the Chair to give a really well-researched ruling, I wonder if it would be possible to discuss another facet of this issue for now, and I will have the Clerks give us a definitive ruling. It's going to set a precedent not only for this

[ Page 7664 ]

committee but for future direction of the House, and as such, I'd like to get something definitive on it. If the member could proceed on that basis, I'm sure a number of other areas could be canvassed. Or perhaps the House Leader could call another vote.

MR. CLARK : Pending that, I would like to canvass, if I can - I don't think this falls within the purview of the Chair's ruling - some issues that have arisen out of recent events. In Ontario, the securities legislation has a different test than B.C.'s. The test in Ontario is commonly referred to as a reverse-onus clause. Would the minister care to comment on that and on the government's view with respect to the difference in legislation between the two, particularly with respect to reverse onus?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Rather than get into a ruling right away, perhaps I can assist the committee by reading from the journals of MacMinn, page 58, dealing with the sub judice convention and matters pending judicial decision:

"A matter is sub judice during the following period of time:

"Criminal matter - from time charge laid to passing of sentence and from date of filing notice of appeal to date decision given by appellate court. Between sentence and filing notice of appeal, matter is not sub judice, subject always to the discretion of the Chair."

I was hoping the committee members would exercise their own discretion, but we will work diligently to try to get a more definitive ruling.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The member has dealt in his last question with an issue that apparently has had a fairly wide circulation. Therefore I believe it's appropriate to set the record straight. Certain commentators have suggested that the acquittal in B.C. Provincial Court indicates the need to introduce a reverse-onus provision for insider trading which would require defendants to prove they had not traded on inside information. It was suggested that the Ontario Securities Act has such a provision. The fact is that the differences between the B.C. and the Ontario acts were not a factor in this trial.

Ontario does not have a reverse-onus provision. Such a provision would most likely violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' protection of a defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty~

MR. CLARK : I want to be very clear that a reverse-onus clause is a difficult one and rarely used As I understand it, the classic example is in drug trafficking. Where an individual has possession of a drug in a certain quantity, once a legal case is made that possession is in fact the case, then the onus shifts to the defendant to prove that the quantity of drugs is not being used for trafficking.

A reverse-onus clause does sound like a very heavy... I think a circumstantial case must initially be made before the onus would reverse. It is true, and I think it is a terrible.... If I can be quite bold, think the ruling of the judge was preposterous in some respects, and the conclusions that he came to were simply unsubstantiated. But, having said that, it is true - and I agree with the minister - that he said a circumstantial case was not made.

In that case, a reverse-onus clause similar to the one in the Ontario case would not kick in, because first you have to make the case. Then the onus shifts. So I agree with the minister that with respect to the judge's reasoning - and as I said, I think it's faulty reasoning - such an onus would not be reversed, so to speak.

Having said that, I want to get a little - if I could, for a minute, until we get a more definitive ruling -beyond the narrowness of this specific case and deal with the general principle. Although the minister's briefing notes have said there is not a reverse onus in the strictest sense of the words, I wonder if he would agree that the onus should shift to the defendant in light of circumstantial evidence. Otherwise, it would seem to me, as Ace Henderson said, you will never be able to prove a case of insider trading unless at some point the onus shifts, after a circumstantial case has been made.

So let's put aside this particular case. That seems, in light of the debate surrounding the legislation in British Columbia, to be a flaw which subsequent trials and cases may bear out. Whether this one did or not is really not the point. The point Is that the Ontario legislation is stronger and does imply a shifting onus, once the circumstantial case is made. Does the minister not agree that it might be desirable in British Columbia to move in that direction?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before we hear from the minister, perhaps I can have the attention of the members of the committee. The Chair can only go on the information that is brought forward. The information we have received from the minister is that charges have been laid in this case, and it is incumbent upon us to respect the decision. These charges are laid either in a court in British Columbia or in any other province in Canada.

The rule that the Chair is bound by is one of avoiding any possibility of prejudicing the case. Therefore it's in the best interests of justice that we avoid discussing this issue. There will be another time in this forum when this issue can be canvassed more thoroughly. For the members and for the minister as well, I would ask that you confine your remarks to other parts of your responsibilities. Thank you. Please continue.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Our Information Is that the reverse-onus clause

in the narcotics act, which the member referred to, was struck down. It's

in violation of the Charter, so the precept under which the member frames his

question is ultra vires.

MR. CLARK : I won't get into a legal debate. It seems to me that the evidence is clear, and we could debate for some time the relative merits of the Ontario legislation. I think there are several aspects of that legislation which are better than ours - not

[ Page

7665 ]

just in terms of the penalties and the shifting onus on trading with knowledge as opposed to having to prove those kinds of questions.

[3:45]

1 might just end my remarks by suggesting to the minister that I look forward to further legislative changes in that area in line with the Ontario legislation. I would hope that, despite differences or concerns we may have, that the Securities Commission is pursuing the research with respect to moving in that direction in British Columbia.

I will conclude my remarks on the minister's estimates. I might note that it's earlier than I had anticipated. With respect to the Vancouver Stock Exchange, I want to first of all commend Mr. Hyndman of the Securities Commission. I think it's very clear that they are moving in a direction I support. But I think it's clear, given some of the evidence that I've tried to put forward, that there is still a ways to go in British Columbia to deal with undesirable elements on the stock exchange. The minister, by saying that the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D.

Smith) would investigate, seems to imply some problem with that; I actually take some solace in the fact that there is going to be some investigation of these remarks.

I've chosen specifically not to go into other cases and there are other cases that I clearly could have gone into. I tried to isolate it specifically to three cases which deal with three different facets of the exchange and which deal with questions raised by the minister about the allegations I made earlier. I tried to narrow the focus, although it took longer than I had hoped.

I want to end, though, by saying that it seems to me that we do have to make decisions in British Columbia with respect to the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the direction that we want to take as a province. The government very clearly, particularly with respect to the comments regarding investment of government pension funds on the stock exchange - clearly the kinds of notions that the minister has put forward - wants to move the Vancouver Stock Exchange to a level of the Toronto Stock Exchange. That seems to be the desire and the stated intent of the government, on the view that the stock exchange plays a very significant role in their economic development plans.

We've heard comments from the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) about what he sees as the role of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. We've seen comment in British Columbia about the role of a venture capital exchange as opposed to a more senior exchange in Toronto. In addition, we've seen a lot of controversy regarding the kind of people involved in the Vancouver Stock Exchange and some very unfortunate international exposure recently.

I will end by saying that on this side of the House we feel very strongly - as the Leader of the Opposition has said - that we need an all-party committee or some other vehicle which comes to some consensus about the direction in which we want to see our stock exchange go. They have played a role, we want to see in what direction we want them to go in the future.

The direction the government is moving in concerns me in terms of its moving very quickly in the direction.... There have been lots of changes, many of which are commendable, but investing government money In the Vancouver Stock Exchange, using government money in a way to try and - falsely, I think; at least potentially - elevate the stature of the stock exchange concerns me. There are many questions outstanding with respect to how we marry a venture capital exchange with new rules and regulations which attempt, in the government's mind, I think, to elevate the exchange, and at the same time deal with the risk - with risk comes reward - by removing unsavoury elements from the exchange.

All of those questions are evolving. I know that the minister has given it some thought. I don't think British Columbians and this chamber - and if I might say, the government - have given enough thought to the role of the exchange in an evolving global marketplace and the role of other international financial Institutions, international financial legislation, international financial centres, Asia-Pacific foreign investment - a whole range of things which have the potential to fundamentally alter the economy of British Columbia, and not necessarily, in my view, beneficially, but potentially so....

The challenge, it seems to me, is to channel that foreign investment into things that add value to the community and to British Columbia as a people and a place and, beyond that, to look at the stock exchange as one of many levers which could be used by government and by public policy to try and shape the future British Columbia.

I think the government has been moving in a direction without adequate forethought. There hasn't been adequate discussion, and I think the debate needs to be elevated in some ways to a bipartisan if not non-partisan way. We need to discuss these questions in an open public forum. We need the full participation of the business community - not just the people on Howe Street, but the entire business community of British Columbia - in how we see the exchange fitting into the future plans of British Columbia.

That is why we feel strongly that one forum, one possible way in which we could proceed, is through an all-party committee which helps both to deal with these fundamental questions and the direction we want to see in British Columbia and also with our international reputation, which I think has suffered very greatly In recent months.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'm about to call the vote, but if the minister wishes to speak, I recognize him.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : A couple of points should be made in conclusion. First of all, the member made some reference to his desire to see some changes to the insider-trading regulations. I just remind the member and the House that a year ago I announced that we would be bringing in some legislation this session to deal with that issue. We

[ Page 7666 ]

will be dealing with that, I believe, in the very near future.

The member also dealt at some length with the future of the VSE vis-à-vis other exchanges around the world, and certainly vis-à-vis adding to the economic strength of British Columbia's financial community. He seemed to be working on the assumption that the government had not been very active in this field, and I just want to disabuse him of that notion. It's a subject we've been spending a considerable amount of time on with the industry and with others who might have an interest in the industry. So that is an ongoing matter, which I do believe will result in some policy issues in the near future.

The key point here, however, is that the Vancouver Stock Exchange is managed by a board of governors. It is a self-regulating organization, as is every other stock exchange in the world. Therefore it is the government's attitude that it's important that the industry itself see the vision, see the potential and see the opportunity, and that the industry itself develop the maturity to be able to resolve internally its own problems.

That is progressing apace, and there has been significant progress made over the last year and a half in that respect, not only by the Securities Commission but also by the board of governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I am satisfied that the board of governors of the exchange have similar desires as those expressed by both sides of this House relating to the operating style of the Vancouver exchange. I do anticipate that by the time we revisit my estimates next year, we will have seen continued significant progress, and I look forward to that day.

Vote 76 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF REGIONAL

DEVELOPMENT AND MINISTRY OF STATE

FOR MAINLAND-SOUTHWEST

On vote 48: minister's office, $341, 470 (continued).

MRS. BOONE : I have a couple of different issues I'd like to canvass here with the minister. When we last dealt with this, we sort of got into a little bit of a debate with the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) on the structuring. I'd like to get a little bit more general on the structuring of the ministry as a whole here. I'd like to ask right now how the ministry is currently structured. When the ministers of state first came in, there was no overriding ministry; each of the ministers of state was autonomous, and there was no sort of super minister or minister of everything dealing with it.

Is the money currently in your budget the money for seed capital funding, for consultants? There are various things that come through.... Any other issues that are raised, are they included in your budget or are they diffused out into the budgets of the various ministers of state throughout the province?

HON. MR. VEITCH : No. Essentially, if you're talking about seed capital.... Those kinds of items are provincewide issues administered through the Ministry of Regional Development. The Ministry of Regional Development has a coordinating role with the ministers of state. We meet at least twice-weekly and sometimes thrice-weekly to discuss issues. If you look at the blue book, the estimates book, you'll find that the ministers of state have their own budgets, for their office, for expenses that occur within their region, for their regional development officer and regional liaison officer and a small staff.

They also have some budgets there for helping out in local situations, such as studies in a particular region or something of that nature.

But the loans portfolio, the ERDA arrangements, and indeed, the majority of the analysis, other than the primary analysis, is at the Ministry of Regional Development level. That is where the expertise lies -and we don't want to duplicate that expertise anywhere in the province.

So with the Minister of International Business and Immigration you essentially have six ministers of economic development in the province of British Columbia, all working in their own areas. The ministers of state, of course, have the function of bringing forward to either a ministers-of-state committee or the Ministry of Regional Development - essentially what was the economic development committee -issues and opportunities that affect their regions throughout the province.

But the coordination and the administration is effected through the Ministry of Regional Development in cooperation, of course, at the official level with the associate deputy ministers in each particular instance. So it's working very well. It's taken some fine-tuning, like any other initiative, but it's all working and coming together very well.

MRS. BOONE : So all the ERDA money is in there. I can understand that.

From what I can see at the moment, consultancy seems to be a pretty hefty business in this province. I would really advise people, as long as the Social Credit government is in, to go into consulting, because it certainly is a hefty business right now.

Is the money for consultants held at the local level or at your level? How is it accessed? Do the ministers converse with you and have to go through you in order to get money for consultants, or do they have the ability to do that at the local level? Can you tell me as well just how much is budgeted for consultants?

HON. MR. VEITCH : I prefer not to comment, of course, on the budgets of other ministers. You'll have your chance to do that. We wouldn't want to offend the rules of the committee.

We don't use consultants to a great extent, but we do use them rather than keep expertise on-board at all times. There are people out there with knowledge in a certain area. One of the examples would be the steel area or something of that nature.

[4:00]

[ Page 7667 ]

Generally consultancy work is done through the Ministry of Regional Development when there is a cross-ministry situation involved or when a large project comes close to fruition. If it's a smaller project - say between a municipality and the minister of state or the MLAs in the area - that can be, and indeed is, done at the minister-of-state level.

We'll look up the money in the budget in just a minute, but it Isn't all for consultants; it covers a broad range.

We don't hire consultants unless we need them and it's something our in-house staff is not capable of doing. They're very experienced people, and there are very few things they're not capable of looking into. But on something like the steel project or a large new project, we would take consultancy advice and bring someone in.

MRS. BOONE : If I understand you correctly, you're saying that most of the funding for consultants, etc., is done through the local ministers.

The minister is shaking his head. You are saying to me, then, that if it's a small project, it's done through the minister of state through his own budget, and if it's a larger project, they come to you for the consultant's fee. If it's a major study... For example, is the health study that's taking place in Prince George in conjunction with the regional districts, the municipalities and what have you being funded through the minister of state?

HON. MR. VEITCH : The particular one you're alluding to was done at the regional level because it is purely a regional situation. You could ask the minister about it when he stands up to do his estimates, but it was a regional item done through the minister of state's budget in the Cariboo region.

MRS. BOONE : The minister was talking about regionalization and about having the ministers of state out there on hand for people to do all of these different things. Yet earlier he mentioned that his staff goes out into the regions to advise the people there as to what they can do. Surely you must see some conflict in your whole attitude. You're saying: "We want to regionalize. We want to give these people the authority to do these things." Yet you are sitting here once again sending people out from Victoria to deal with issues. Surely they ought to be dealt with at the local level, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. VEITCH : It depends on where the expertise lies, and the general

expertise lies in the Ministry of Regional Development. That's where very

talented people who have had many years of experience work, and rather than

double up on these items, of course, we do them through the ministry. There's

no problem. We get along extremely well, and it's all done through consultation.

We have meetings, as I say, at least three times a week, and sometimes more

often. We go over all of the issues. If it's purely a regional issue, it

is done at the regional level, and the Ministry of Regional Development, other

than proffering advice, is not involved.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

If it was the potential closing of a plant or something of that nature - a broader arrangement -or something that was tied into one of the federal-provincial programs we administer through this ministry, the original information would, in all likelihood, flow through the minister of state's office. The analysis and indeed the negotiation would be handled at the Minister of Regional Development level so that we don't double up and do what the NDP has accused us of, and that's piling people upon people. We're very quick on response, and we try to move things through just as quickly as we can.

I can tell you without equivocation or fear of contradiction that we haven't had one argument in any of these issues. It's working very well indeed.

MRS. BOONE : I certainly wouldn't argue with the minister, but it seems to me that you definitely are piling people upon people. You're telling us at one point that you have a regional staff here and then that you also have people out in the field. Surely it's not necessary. We've done without those people in the field for many years, and we've had offices. Most areas have regional development offices that have worked very well.

You mention the FMC plant that's going into Prince George. The minister seems to like to claim that this was all done because of the minister. The mayor of Prince George worked very hard on this with the regional development office, which has been there for many years. That plant would have come about whether you had your minister of state there or not, Mr. Minister, because we have had some very hard-working people.

it seems to me that you are definitely duplicating staff. Do you or don't you have a large central staff?

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE : You have a fairly large central staff, I would say, and then you have staff that have never been there before out into the regions. That is a duplication, Mr. Minister. If you're saying "no, " how can that be? Has your staff then decreased considerably since they put staff out into the regions?

HON. MR. VEITCH : We increased the government agents' offices, as I said. The staffing of government agents that you asked about before increased by 10 percent. Normally in an area the permanent staff would be one regional development officer, who is domiciled in Victoria and gives that advice back and forth, and a regional liaison development officer. In some of the smaller regions, there's only the regional development liaison officer and a secretary, and in many cases they work out of government agents' offices. So we do not have duplication.

[ Page 7668 ]

What does happen, though, in an area like Mainland-Southwest, which represents almost 57 percent of the population of British Columbia, is that in those instances and some of the other instances we have some staff that I must admit came over from the old Economic Development ministry into our ministry. They go out into the field and talk with people, and they do give advice. We quite often send people from the Ministry of Regional Development at the request of one of the ministers of state. In fact, we consistently send them out - they're on the road a lot out into the various regions - but we do not double up.

I'm glad you mentioned FMC, because FMC is a perfect example of regionalization and how it can accrue to the benefit of the people of B.C. The mayor of Prince George was one of the first people to accept regionalization as something that would work very well for his area. I have been told as well that the mayor is of NDP persuasion. He is a very progressive mayor, a darned good mayor. It doesn't matter what his politics are; he believes this process is good for Prince George. What happened with that?

We worked with the Minister of State for Cariboo, with the Ministry of Regional Development, with the companies, and we negotiated to have that particular operation not placed in another community in B.C. where we felt it ought not to be; but it was up to the company.

Indeed, with the cooperation of the mayor, with the cooperation of the people in local regional development, with the cooperation of the regional development officer and the liaison officer - and yes, the mayor, and yes, members of the council.... That's what regionalization is all about: people getting together to help other folks in their area. That is a perfect example of how we established a new operation in Prince George.

By putting it there, not only are we going to employ, in the construction stages, about 400 people working on that magnificent project; we are working, as the first step there, towards eliminating the dioxin problem in the province by starting a hydrogen peroxide plant in Prince George. It works, and it works very well, hon. member.

Do whatever you want philosophically, but I know you have a great interest in the people in your riding. The other member is on board. You might come to some of the meetings and work with them and find out how well this is working. Sit down with Mayor Backhouse of Prince George and ask him how well it's working. He is one of the greatest proponents of this program. I believe the mayor of Prince George is doing exactly the right thing on behalf of the people in his particular jurisdiction.

The mayor and the council, all of the people involved, including the minister of state, cooperated to ensure that the FMC plant was built in Prince George and not in another location in British Columbia: regionalization at its finest.

MRS. BOONE : Mr. Minister, you act like these people would never have spoken together if there hadn't been a minister of state. I'm telling you that the Prince George regional development office has always worked closely with the existing MLAs, and that would include the minister of state. It has always worked closely with the regional district, with the municipality, with all of those things. And they worked closely, I would Imagine, with the Ministry of Regional Development, which would have been there. It is totally unnecessary to have that extra little level in there, the minister of state.

The minister of state was not necessary to have that come about. The Ministry of Regional Development certainly did its work, and so did the existing people at the municipal level. They didn't need that extra level of bureaucracy in there, Mr. Minister, and the province certainly doesn't need that extra level of bureaucracy, and they don't need the amount that it's costing. We can work quite well at the regional and provincial levels to deal with the ministries there.

The mayors can deal with the ministry, too, and they don't need an extra level in there to try and sort things through or, in many cases, to add some confusion.

You act like it's so amazing that these mayors are cooperating. What mayor wouldn't cooperate if they thought they were going to be able to get something out of this? Any mayor is going to do that. They may be skeptical and they may not necessarily agree that this is going to be the best thing, but of course they're going to try their hardest to get whatever they can for their community. But I'm telling you, Mr. Minister, that they don't need to have another level of bureaucracy to do it.

I've talked to a lot of people out there who are dealing with the ministries, and as I stated earlier this morning, they don't know who to go to. They don't know whether they go to the line ministry; they don't know whether they go to the minister of state. So they end up doing duplications of everything to try and get things going. They do duplications just to cover all the bases, because they're not sure who's in charge, they're not sure who has the final word, and they don't know who has the ear of the person who's listening.

For example, if it has to do with a health issue, they don't know whether the minister of state is going to bypass everybody and go directly to the Premier or the cabinet and leave out the Minister of Health. They don't know whether it's faster to go to the Minister of Health on an issue. They don't know those things. As I say, people out there are covering all the bases, and that is the only natural thing to do.

To think that anybody out there who is dealing with any ministry is going to verbally oppose something and verbally come out against the only avenue they currently have to get anything from the government is really putting blinders on. You know darned well that they won't do that, because you know darned well that that community - whether there is a New Democrat or a Socred mayor in there - would be cut out of the funding right away.

[4:15]

I find it interesting that the minister takes it upon himself to know the political leanings of the various mayors around this province, as if that makes a difference. The mayors in our area don't even run on a political basis; they don't run as a party thing. So I

[ Page 7669 ]

find it kind of interesting that you should be so concerned that you actually take the time to find out the political leanings of the various people.

I'd like to ask you some specific questions, tied to regional development. They are of grave concern and things that I think this ministry ought to be dealing with quickly. The minister will probably say this Isn't even my interest, but it is, Mr. Minister. There are a lot of issues around environment, and we've talked about them. But one of the main things has to do with native land claims in development plans. It has become clear to anybody who has anything to do with it in the province that economic development cannot proceed steadily until we deal with native land claims. That is absolutely essential for the development of this province.

We have areas in the Cariboo that have specifically expressed concern. There are logging companies there complaining that unresolved land claims impede their ability to conduct business. There is an Indian band in the Cariboo that wants a moratorium on logging by Carrier Lumber. They are saying that because they want to have their land claims settled. In my area at various times we have logging roads blockaded because they're trying to raise the issue of land claims. As Minister of Regional Development, you cannot ignore this issue.

It is not going to be possible for economic development to take place in this province until that issue is settled. I would like to know just what you are doing to deal with this and how you have interacted with your minister of state on this issue. He certainly has a difficult job. It is not going to be an easy job, but it's one that we've got to tackle. I'd like to know what the minister's views are on this, what he has done and what he intends to do on this issue.

HON. MR. VEITCH : This is interesting. There was a statement there. It doesn't have to include a question, of course, during this type of debate. You can make a statement of principles, if you wish. I am just trying to pull apart the convolution in the first statement that the hon. member for Prince George North uttered here. The statement was that any mayor worth their salt would cooperate with the government of the day to get something for their community, to bring in an operation, an industry or whatever was viable, proper and economically and environmentally correct for the area. I agree with you. Any mayor would, regardless of their political affiliation.

You also said that any MLA would, for whatever set of reasons, for some philosophical bent that I do believe is quite inconsistent with the federal NDP position as enunciated by the current leader of the NDP... Mind you, if Svend Robinson or somebody takes over, it could be anything. But anyway, you said that the position of all of the members on that side -save one and a half, because one of them is very active and the other one is not quite so active - is that you don't want to have anything to do with it.

So you won't attend these things, you won't have anything to do with it, and you made no submission whatsoever as far as the FMC plant was concerned. You know, "We just open up the clouds and it will happen anyway." I will tell you something: it doesn't happen anyway. The only way that economic development happens in this province is by people working to make things happen, and that's the only way it happens in any jurisdiction.

If they can get a little help from their MLA and throw some of that darned philosophy to one side and work on behalf of their people, the people might get along a little better. I can tell you that the other member, who happens to be the Minister of State for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and also the Minister Responsible for Environment in the province of British Columbia, did just that. It was because of his good work and because of the mayor's good work and the good work of others that we got the FMC plant in Prince George. It would not happen by itself.

It would have happened in another part of British Columbia. Nothing happens by accident; it happens because of the disposition of people to work to make things happens.

On the other hand, you are telling us you don't believe in the ministry-of-state system, and now you are saying we should go out and have the ministers of state negotiate Indian land claims. You can't have it go either way. If you are looking....

MRS. BOONE : That's his portfolio.

HON. MR. VEITCH : That's right, hon. member. Now that you've told me that's his portfolio, I would suggest you proffer that question in that vote when it arises.

MRS. BOONE : Mr. Minister, you are the Minister of Regional Development. I have just pointed out to you that you cannot have regional development and economic development in this province until we settle these claims. This is not something that you can shirk off at this point. You are responsible for economic development; you are responsible for regional development.

The reality is that the federal minister, Cadieux, has written to our Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) and asked him not to approve any more TFL9 until the land claims have been settled. Now that is economic development. When you constantly have problems there, when you are constantly dealing with a situation where a company can be shut down, where people are not secure in knowing what is going to happen on their land, that is a regional development problem, Mr. Minister, and it is something that you ought to be concerned about.

You ought to be concerned about it to the extent that you, through your coordinating powers, are working to coordinate your ministers to deal with this. Surely you can see that's one of your roles as a coordinating power - to deal with these issues. Or do you want to just continue to stick your head in the sand on this issue, as the rest of your government has, and not deal with it?

[ Page 7670 ]

We will not have sound economic development in this province until we settle those claims, until the industries that are coming into our province can be assured they are not going to constantly be upset, having their work stopped as a result of claims taking place. We must deal with this. If you cannot see this as part of your role as minister of regional and economic development, then I certainly feel sorry for you, because I think you have really lost touch with what your role is truly about.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I would not want to have the hon. member for Prince George North feeling sorry for me. I would hate to have that - crocodile tears. If you started to cry, I'd start to cry. I can never see anyone do that, so don't feel sorry for me whatever you do.

I can tell you we are having sound economic development in this province. If you think $24 billion worth of economic development on the books -major projects; projects outside Mainland-Southwest which are $10 million or more, and $20 million or more inside - is peanuts, I am sorry. That's not the way it falls within my lexicon. These are major projects, and there are hundreds and hundreds of smaller projects happening in each and every region of this province.

They're happening because of policies that this government has set forth, because of balanced budgets, because people from all over the world see this as a good place in which to invest, live and do business. They didn't do that when the NDP was in power. Do you remember the signs at the airport? I remember a big sign that said: "Would the last British Columbian" - the last businessman - "to leave please turn off the lights."

The lights have been turned on in this province, and it's moving. The economy of this province is in the ascendant in a way that it has never been before There are some areas in the province that, like Prince George, need help - but we've brought that one around - because they're resisting the general trend throughout the rest of the province. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) alluded to one of these communities a while ago.

It's not for me to say, but I believe it would be much better if the MLAs, regardless of which party they represent - or whether they represent any party at all - got on board to work within the system that prevails to try to make these things happen, the same as the mayors that you spoke so kindly of a while ago.

There are all sorts of opportunities, all sorts of problems - if you want to call them problems - and responsibilities that fall with other ministers. The Minister Responsible for Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) within this province is the hon. member for South Peace River, and I'm sure he will respond to questions if they are given to him in the House I'm not going to offend the rules of debate in committee by moving into another minister's estimates.

You accused me a while ago of being the minister of everything. You're doing me honour overmuch

I'm merely a coordinating soul who works very hard to try to help other people do things for the province. I'll work with you too if you want me to, if you'll give us half a chance in your area. I'll work with any member of the Legislature, regardless of their politics, or with anyone in the province. Economic development is happening in a sustainable way in British Columbia.

MRS. BOONE : It's obvious that the minister does not see this as something within his role as a coordinating body. That is your role: coordinating these things. Last year in his previous life, his previous role, I took the minister at his word when he offered to give me access to information regarding lottery grants given to him. He said: "Send me letterhead and I will send them out." Well, Mr. Minister, I never received anything at all back from those people. No letters coming back, nothing whatsoever.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I changed portfolios.

MRS. BOONE : You changed portfolios, but long after that system was out. Either my people aren't getting any lottery grants or else I'm not getting anything there, so working with the minister is not exactly my top priority.

I work very hard, and I'll work with the line ministers. I work with the line ministers in each and every one of the areas that I've got, and I don't feel I need to go through my minister of state in order to reach a line minister. A line minister is quite willing, quite adequate and quite proper for dealing with the situations that exist within their ministry. They don't need a third person in there, or whatever it is. I certainly don't need another person in there to deal with.

You talk in terms of the need for diversification. If you're going to diversify, one of the things you must diversify in is dealing with the inequities among regions and why sometimes people are reluctant to move from the lower mainland. I've always contended that if people move from the lower mainland and stay outside for three years, then they don't want to go back. I'm sure the member for Omineca will agree that that's often the case. We've got to do something to encourage people to do that.

But some of the things that are foremost in encouraging people to move - and you must do this if you're going to have diversification or anything happening in the regions - have to do with inequities in transportation, in education in terms of the northern university, in social and health services and cultural activities. These are key areas that I hear about time and time again as to why people from the lower mainland don't stay in our area, or why they won't move into it.

If we are going to encourage any kind of growth outside the lower mainland, I think our communities have acknowledged that those are prime areas we must address in terms of our development. They have to be there first, because unless that infrastructure is

[ Page 7671 ]

there, communities will not grow a tremendous amount. That is why the northern university, for example - and I think this goes for all of the regions - cannot be seen strictly from an educational viewpoint. It's an economic viewpoint as well. People, industry, professionals, what have you, look to see what's in a new area in terms of facilities for their families, their employees, a draw to gain new employees - all of these various things in a university setting. Those are the things that I think are really essential. They also look to make sure they've got adequate health facilities and services. Those things must be addressed.

[4:30]

When I talk about health facilities, I can't help but notice that there have been some studies going on throughout the various regions, in different areas. It's interesting, though, that in your areas, the southwest and lower mainland, it says that no initiatives have been taken and no proposals received to date from any group - this comes from a BCHA newsletter of March 1989. In region 3, Okanagan, no initiatives have been taken to date with respect to health care. Perhaps the minister feels that there is nothing his your area needs. He may be very correct, too. Perhaps he doesn't think any changes need to be made.

If you look at what's taking place here, there are a lot of different task forces going around. There are studies being done, but it appears to me that these are often being done independently. While these studies are taking place, the ministry has sent out a memo saying that this is how they are going to reorganize the presentation of their health services through the community and family health services plan.

We've got people running around at the local level - very well-meaning and busy people - doing task forces and studies to try to determine what the best way is to deliver those services in their area, and yet the line ministry has already determined that there's going to be reorganization and has presented something else. That lack of coordination is the type of thing that I talk about, where there's a duplication of services, where people are saying: "Why are we doing this when you've already sent us out something? Why are you studying something twice?" It makes absolutely no sense at all.

I would like to ask the minister, on a broader term, though, just what he's done on those areas I've talked about - the entire infrastructure - and how he's dealing with those areas in terms of getting people in and providing those services so that the communities can grow properly.

HON. MR VEITCH : I do believe that the member is a latter-day Saint Thomas. She is almost persuaded. She's almost ready to accept the regional concept. You're getting very close to it. I agree with a lot of things that you have said.

We talked about transportation. Through my very good friend the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant), at his request, the ministers of state throughout all of the province of British Columbia are....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Do you want to listen to this? The ministers of state throughout all of the province of British Columbia have been working with their local community groups. They've been working with the regional districts, and very shortly a comprehensive transportation plan - or at least the genesis for that plan that has to be worked on at the government level to ensure that the priorities are correct with the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways and his ministry - will be coming forward from all over the province of British Columbia.

You're absolutely right. If you don't deal with transportation Issues, especially in the mainland southwest and the lower mainland.... It can either be a funnel ' or it can be a plug for all of the rest of the activity that's going on in the rest of the province because you can't get it out to our customers around the world. We're dealing with it. We're dealing with it in the most comprehensive way that has ever been attempted since 1958.

[Mr. Miller in the chair.]

You talked about the northern university. The hon. member knows that I am a great supporter of that prospect, of the potential of having a university located, preferably, somewhere in your area of British Columbia. The Indians used to have a word for it. They used to call it sunwapta. They would throw a pebble in the water, and they would watch the circles spread out from that. That was the aura of influence that was caused by the simple act of throwing the pebble in the water. A university is one of those kinds of things - or any institute of higher learning.

It provides a whole new infrastructure, a whole new reason for different industries or different businesses or different entities to locate in any particular area. That's part of the regionalization process. Some of these things have to happen coincidentally, one with the other.

The same is true for cultural and social. We have been doing this. We've been working with our lotteries branch and building cultural outlets in areas like Prince George and Prince Rupert, and indeed, all over the province of British Columbia. The minister responsible - I won't get into his territory - has done just a super job in that particular field.

You talk about health care in Mainland-Southwest. You were telling me that the reason that people wanted to live in the mainland -southwest area of British Columbia is that they had first-class health care. Well, yes, but there can be some changes to it and there can be better ideas brought forward in that particular area. I say that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) is doing a super job. We do have a social services committee that will be working with the Ministry of Health and bringing forward Ideas. But you're quite right: most of the infrastructure is

[ Page 7672 ]

there. We have a super, first-class health care system in British Columbia. We have an extra-super one in the mainland-southwest area of British Columbia. It's working.

I agree with you on transportation. We will soon have these reports back. The Minister of Transportation and Highways, through his staff, will be able to work them together. In fact, they're working with all of these committees and groups and offering a coordinating role at the present time. They'll soon be back. You'll have the best transportation plan that this province has ever seen, and remember, it will be done by this government.

MRS. BOONE : I can't help feeling a bit of deja vu here. You came up to Prince George and you traveled the province - a social whatever-it-was committee. A whole slew of you guys came up. What was it? Social services or whatever. There were a mess of you up there, anyway; you only seem to come up to Prince George in gaggles. There were about seven or eight of you, and you had submissions coming from people all over, and they told you about the social needs That was two years ago.

They told you about the social needs, and if you'll remember correctly, a group came in with their children, and they presented each of the ministers with a balloon. That group of parents are currently fighting this government because that very building, the child development centre, is in danger of closing because of financial problems. So tell me that you listened to them two years ago. Tell me that the social services group listened. Tell me how much you are going to listen to everybody else who comes around and gives you information, whether it be through the transportation committee or what have you.

We're tired of coming and making submissions to you. Listen to your elected people. Listen to your MLAs, because I could have and would have told you those things, and I have told most of those people those things over and over, as has the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) and the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno). We all can tell you these things. We don't need to have these things studied over and over again, and we don't need to have these submissions going on again You traveled the province once, you got submissions from everybody, and you can come....

HON. MR. VEITCH : And I'll travel it again. I'm going into your area.

MRS. BOONE : You've already been in, I think -the economic development.... There were nine of you in there on a weekend. That was great. You raised some $3, 000 or $30, 000 or $13, 000 for the party, so that was good government money well spent.

We don't need to have more of these task forces running around studying these issues. They are absolutely essential things that we deal with. We must deal with the services that aren't in our area We must be providing the mental health services, the access to our health services, the transportation which is not just paving roads. It has to do with providing Carefree transportation for our seniors on Sundays so that they can get to church, and in the evenings so that they can get out of their homes and do something. We can't do that. The seniors in our area can't do any of those things if they depend on public transportation.

Those things were told to you two years ago, and you haven't done anything on them. And you're expecting us all to come back to you again and tell you these things over and over, so you won't act on them again.

I know darned well that the minister will come around, and they'll study things again. I'm sure we will hear more from the Minister of Transportation as to how great these studies were and how much he learned from them. But I'm sure it's all been told to him at different times by the existing MLAs and by people throughout the area. I think the member for Omineca wants to speak, so I'll let him go on for a minute here - just a short one.

MR. KEMPF : That's precisely why I sit here in the middle between these two groups: in my position, I don't have to be browbeaten by anybody's caucus but my own, and I can speak on behalf of those who send me here, which unfortunately too many people don't do in this chamber.

I sat here very quietly for the last hour, and frankly, I really don't know what we as northerners did before this minister. I'm amazed that we even were able to inhabit the northern part of this province. The minister thinks he's the best thing since mother's milk. My gosh, Mr. Chairman, I really don't know what all that infrastructure did in place before the minister and his convoluted ministries-of-state system came along in British Columbia. The member for Prince George talked about that very thing a few moments ago and asked why we need yet another level of government in the province for the taxpayer to pay for.

I was involved in municipal politics before coming here almost 14 years ago. I remember an organization which is still in place and which the minister is going to have a very difficult time getting rid of to get full control over the state ministries of the north: the Northern Development Council. Through you, Mr. Chairman, It did very well, thank you very much, for the people of the north and for economic development - I don't want to puncture your ego - long before you came along, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF : I've got to go through the Chairman, because not many people have been using the poor fellow this afternoon. Mr. Chairman, while you're at it, would you bring that minister to order. If he wants to speak, let him get on his feet and speak - which is the rule of this House - strictly in order.

HON. MR. VEITCH : What do you want me to order, Jack?

[ Page 7673 ]

MR. KEMPF : I don't want you to order anything, Mr. Minister, and neither do the people of the north. I would invite you to come into my area. You're just the thing I need to win the next election.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : You need something.

[4:45]

MR. KEMPF : Ah, we hear from the peanut gallery, Mr. Chairman - from the minister who sneaks around behind the duly elected member's back The member for everything down there said a little earlier that MLAs should try and cooperate. Boy, are we going to talk about that when we get to the estimates of the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast. Are we ever going to talk about that! Endlessly, we're going to talk about that.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : You're good at that.

MR. KEMPF : That's what I'm sent to this place to do, just in case you wonder what your tenure here is.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : I'm happy with my tenure.

MR. KEMPF : Well, don't get too happy with it. From the information I'm getting out of that member's constituency, I wouldn't get too familiar with this place.

Mr. Chairman, I want to get back for a moment to the question I was asking the minister about prior to the lunch hour. He's had plenty of time to call the Aluminum Co. of Canada or to discuss with his colleague the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) why the government allowed the hydroelectric project at Kemano - commonly called Kemano 2 - to proceed prior to that company living up to a commitment to the northern interior for the use of some of that hydroelectricity here at home in British Columbia. Why did the government allow that? Why did they allow the Aluminum Co. of Canada to slither out of that agreement and not to live up to that commitment to the people of Vanderhoof and area?

While he's at that - and I'm sure he got this information during the lunch break - there's the question I asked earlier, Mr. Chairman: what is the agreement between the government of the province of British Columbia and the Aluminum Co. of Canada with respect to the hydroelectricity that's going to be generated from this new project that they don't need themselves? By their own admission, they already have an excess of hydroelectricity for their needs at Kitimat. Certainly I've heard no announcement about the building of another aluminum plant in British Columbia by the Aluminum Co. of Canada. So the question remains: what's going to happen to that hydroelectric power generated by Kemano 2?

Certainly it's not going to be used in a pulp mill in Vanderhoof, because

there isn't one being built. And we all know how long it takes to construct

a pulp mill. So what I want to know is - and I ask it of this minister because

he is the Minister of Regional Development, and this is development in the province

- what is the agreement between B.C. Hydro and the Aluminum Co. of Canada?

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF : Yes, I have many questions, some of them a little more localized than that one.

I want to know - and I'm going to ask the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast this same question when his estimates come before the House - what are the qualifications? Just for the record, so that other members of this House know and so that the people of British Columbia would know to whom their tax money goes, what are the qualifications for an economic development liaison officer, of which there are a number in British Columbia now? What are their qualifications?

What are the qualifications of the individual who's paid $45, 000 a year plus expenses, plus being supplied with a vehicle, an office, office personnel and office equipment? What are the qualifications for such an individual?

While I'm on those localized questions, Mr. Chairman, I want to quote the minister from this morning's Blues, which are white now.

HON. MR. VEITCH : They don't print this stuff, do they?

MR. KEMPF : Yes, lo and behold, it quotes the minister as saying: "Our transportation plan is being developed...." He talked this afternoon about this glorious transportation plan, which even the Minister of Transportation and Highways doesn't know a heck of a lot about. I ask him questions all the time, which take him four months to respond. But then it's a long way from his office to mine in this building, so three or four months is not a great deal of time for a response.

Anyway, to continue the quote: "Our transportation plan is being developed

from the bottom up, through consultation with users.... As such, local MLAs

......

HON. MR. VEITCH : Yes.

MR. KEMPF : Oh, MLAs, those are the people out there who used to represent the people of British Columbia through a democratic process; I remember those. "...local MLAs, locally elected officials, local people from transportation fields."

Well, I just want to ask the minister how, in his area - in his state of British Columbia - the local MLA goes about getting on this transportation committee. Does he make application? Does he write a letter to the minister? Does he get down on his knees? What does he have to do, Mr. Chairman? The minister talks about trying to cooperate. Well, Mr. Chairman, try as I might, not only am I not considered good material to be on these committees, but even the ones I get on I'm not told of the meetings.

[ Page 7674 ]

MR. DAVIDSON : They don't like you.

MR. KEMPF : I guess not; they don't like me. I don't know why, Mr. Member. I'm a nice guy; I'm quiet. I don't know why they don't like me.

Tell me, Mr. Minister, how do people in your state get on this transportation committee? I'd like to know. I want to cooperate, as you talk about.... I want to cooperate.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Are you moving into my area?

MR. KEMPF : Is that what I have to do - run in urban Vancouver in order to get on a transportation committee? If that's it, tell me. I just want to know.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr. Chairman, it's interesting. I don't want to draw any attention to another vote of this House, because it would be offending the rules of committee, and I try not to do that.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Back on February 20, 1989 at 11 o'clock in the morning in room 209 of the Hotel Vancouver - that great and glorious bastion of all things in downtown Vancouver - the Northern Development Council met, and the chairman was Mr. Fox. They came there and met in downtown.... They can meet any place they want, hon. member; it's up to them. It's a free country, and they can meet any place they want, but they met there.

There was Mr. Fox from Bulkley-Nechako, Mr. Kinsley from Fraser-Fort George, Mr. Robinson from Kitimat-Stikine, Mr. Parker from Fort Nelson-Liard, Mr. Girvin from Cariboo, Mr. Laloge from Peace River Regional District, and Mr. Simmons. One of the fellows who sat in on this was His Worship John Backhouse from Fraser-Fort George.

Here's what they said about this council that the hon. member said was dead, gone, kaput - the Northern Development Council: "Chairman Fox opened the meeting by advising that the meeting with the Premier and the ministers of state was a good first section. He noted that it had accomplished" - he is speaking of the meeting - "what it was intended to do." That is from the minutes of the Northern Development Council of February 20, 1989, held at 11 a.m.

We talked about Kemano 2. My good friend the hon. member for Omineca - whom I respect very much and whose quiet tones I'm glad to hear in the, House - keeps stating that we are going to export all of this cotton-picking electricity that is going to be generated. First of all, it's cheaper for hydro. I'm going to get off this kick because I don't want to impinge upon the territory of my good friend the Minister for Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis).

The electricity generated there is going to be needed because of a burgeoning demand for power and