1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

11439 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Forest Amendment Act (No. 3), 1990 (Bill 72). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 11439

An Act to Improve Employment Standards (Bill M240). Mr. Sihota

Introduction and first reading

Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority Act (Bill 75). Hon. Mr. Savage

Introduction and first reading

An Act to Extend Workers Compensation Protection (Bill M241). Mr. Sihota

Introduction and first reading –– 11440

Forestry Research and Development Act (Bill M242). Mr. Harcourt

Introduction and first reading –– 11440

Forest Value Added Act (Bill M243). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 11440

Oral Questions

Ainsworth mill in Lillooet. Mr. Miller –– 11441

Young Offenders Act. Mr. Mercier –– 11441

Ainsworth mill in Lillooet. Mr. Miller –– 11442

Road blockades by natives. Mr. Rabbitt –– 11442

Mr. G. Hanson

Ferry purchase. Mr. Sihota –– 11443

Tabling Documents –– 11443

Ministerial Statement

Cariboo Fibreboard Ltd. pulpwood agreement. Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 11443

Mr. Miller

Presenting Reports –– 11444

Committee of Supply: Office of the Premier and Executive Council

Operations estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 4: office of the Premier –– 11446

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm.

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Williams

Mr. Harcourt

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. J. Jansen)

On vote 38: minister's office –– 11465

Ms. Cull

Mrs. Boone

Waste Management Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 68). Hon. Mr. Reynolds

Introduction and first reading –– 11469

Municipal Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 50). Committee stage.

(Hon. L. Hanson) –– 11469

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

Referendum Act (Bill 55). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Dirks) –– 11471

Mr. Perry

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Senatorial Selection Act (Bill 65). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Dirks) –– 11472

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Adoption Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 73). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen) –– 11473

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Ms. Cull

Energy Efficiency Act (Bill 36). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Davis) –– 11474

Hon. Mr. Davis

Ms. Edwards

Hon. Mr. Davis

Indian Self Government Enabling Act (Bill 64). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) –– 11474

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber

Mr. Guno

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990 (Bill 54).

Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11476

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Sihota

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill 76).

Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11476

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 46). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11477

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill 67).

Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11477

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Sihota

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act (Bill 79).

Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 11477

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Miller

Mr. Jones

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Blencoe

Ms. Cull

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Point of Privilege

Taped conversations of Attorney-General. Mr. Speaker –– 11492

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. J. Jansen)

On vote 38: minister's office –– 11493

Mr. Perry

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

MR. BARNES :

I want to ask the House to join me in welcoming the second member for

Vancouver–Point Grey's (Mr. Perry'

s) sister, Dr. Kitty Perry, and her

husband, Dr. Dave Irwin. I understand that both are psychiatrists and

that their services are available should anyone have need of them. I'd

like the House to make them welcome.

MR. HUBERTS : I

thought that, being close to the end of the session, it might be an

appropriate time to thank the Pages who have served us so well during

this session. It's particularly gratifying for me, because they

represent Pacific Christian School, a school for which I was chairman

of the board for a period of time. Over the last four years, we've had

different Pages representing different schools, and they've all done an

excellent job, but to these in particular, this session, I would ask

the House to assist me in showing our appreciation. I'd like to name

them: Rachael Kamerbeek, Heidi Mueller, Carey Pott, Karen Reitsma,

Christian Slemin, Theresa Wiens, Tom Clements, Liz Hartshorne, Katy

Holm, Sarah MacKay, Matthew Smiley and Libby Walton. I think I can

speak for both sides of the House: we appreciate your services to us

and we wish you great success in the future.

MR. SPEAKER :

On behalf of the members of the House, the Speaker was privileged to

entertain these young Pages yesterday at lunch, perhaps the

best-behaved group the Speaker has had in his dining room this year.

MS. CULL :

We have a very important group of British Columbians in the House

today. With the exception of their teacher, not one of these British

Columbians is over the age of five years. I'd like the House to welcome

these children, because they certainly are our future. Visiting us from

Cool Aid Day Care is teacher Diane Carruthers and children Victoria

Lukaszek, Adam Skiba, Nicole Snow and, last but not least, my son David

Wickstrom.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : On behalf of the second

member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and myself, I would like this assembly

to welcome to the precincts today the administrator for the

municipality of Delta Dr Bob Collier, his wife Evelyn and daughter

Rachelle. Would this House please make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA : In the gallery today is a good friend, a wonderful constituent,

an individual who has worked actively on behalf of the New Democratic Party

in my riding every year I've been living in Esquimalt, as I can remember,

which is the last 11 years: Gisele Bentley. Would all members please join me

in giving a warm welcome to Gisele.

MR. RABBITT :

Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today I have three acquaintances

from the Thompson-Nicola Regional District: chairman of the board and

mayor of Chase, Mr. Chuck Marshall; Ald. Francis Van Dyke from Lytton;

and administrator Eric Shishido. I would ask the House to give these

gentlemen a warm welcome.

MR. GUNO : In the galleries

today I have two guests: Mary O'lito, from the Victoria native centre,

who works as the corrections outreach worker; and Julie Green, who is

attending the University of Victoria as a practicum worker. I would ask

the House to bid them welcome.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr.

Speaker, we have two distinguished visitors in the visitors' gallery

today. There is Eleanor Elliott, whose maiden name was Greene, a very

well-known pioneering family of Prince Rupert — Dr. Greene. Her brother

is Paddy Greene, whom I'm sure we all know quite well. I'd like you to

welcome Eleanor Elliott, who is now living in the riding of

Vancouver–Little Mountain.

We have another distinguished

visitor from Vancouver, a lawyer who is also the president of the New

Democratic Party, Mr. Ian Aikenhead. Would you give him a warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MR. SPEAKER :

Hon. members, the Chair has been advised that there are several bills

to be introduced this afternoon, so I will try and get them in

alternating order.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT

(No. 3), 1990

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Forest Amendment Act (No. 3), 1990.

HON. MR, RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, Bill 72 amends the Forest Act to enable increased

regulation of timber-harvesting and other forest management activities

on timber licences and private managed forest land. This will ensure

that the harvest and management of timber on those lands will be

conducted in an environmentally sound manner.

First, Bill

72 authorizes regional managers to extend the term of a timber licence

so that timber harvests can be spread out over more years. This will

permit greater protection of wildlife and watershed values.

Second,

the bill authorizes cabinet to designate areas at the request of a

local government within which regulations would apply to

timber-harvesting and other forest management activities on private

managed forest land.

Managed forest land is classified by

the Assessment Authority of B.C. as land for which the highest and best

use is the growing of trees. Other resource values, including

watersheds, landscapes and fish

[ Page 11440 ]

and

wildlife habitat, need to be considered in these areas. To ensure this,

Bill 72 authorizes cabinet to make regulations regarding forest

management on private managed forest land and designated areas.

also authorizes the Ministry of Forests to apply the regulations and

forest management activities: to require application for a permit to

harvest; to assess fees for the permit and harvested timber; to require

the preparation and approval of timber-harvesting plans before

operations begin; and to monitor approved forest practices to ensure

fairness in the application of regulations to private managed forest

land.

Bill 72 also provides for the establishment of an appeal body to adjudicate the ministry's decisions and actions.

Bill

72 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

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

AN ACT TO IMPROVE

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr. Sihota presented a bill intituled

An Act to Improve Employment Standards.

MR. SIHOTA : The purpose of this bill is to improve conditions of employment, particularly for women workers, in British Columbia.

The

bill will seek to make several improvements to minimum standards in a

number of ways. First, it re-establishes the Employment Standards Act

as the minimum standard for all employees in the jurisdiction of the

province. Second, it will require the minister to review and adjust

minimum wages on an annual basis. Finally, it extends child care leave

provisions by permitting a leave for adoption and an additional leave

for either parent of a newborn child or a newly adopted child.

Bill

M240 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.

OKANAGAN VALLEY TREE FRUIT

AUTHORITY ACT

Hon. Mr. Savage presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority Act.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

The development of this bill follows the reporting of a commission of

inquiry into the British Columbia tree-fruit industry. The purpose of

the bill is to establish a Crown corporation which will ensure an

efficient and coordinated approach to the revitalization and

transformation of the interior tree-fruit industry to ensure a strong,

dynamic and competitive tree-fruit industry. I will detail more in

second reading.

Bill 75 introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO EXTEND WORKERS

COMPENSATION PROTECTION

Mr. Sihota presented a bill intituled

An Act to Extend Workers Compensation Protection.

MR. SIHOTA :

The purpose of this bill is to extend the application of the Workers

Compensation Act to include workers who have not been previously

protected. It broadens the protection of workers' compensation to

include farmworkers, artists, employees of professionals such as

doctors and lawyers, and casual employees. It allows employees, as well

as employers, to make application to bring their workplace into the

scope of

part 1 of the act, and it requires the Workers' Compensation

Board to extend regulatory protection against illness and injury to

farm and domestic workers.

Bill M241 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.

FORESTRY RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT ACT

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled Forestry Research and Development Act.

MR. HARCOURT :

This act establishes a forestry research and development agency with a

mandate to achieve more value-added manufacturing in British Columbia's

forest industry. Given the limits of our forests, the creation of new

jobs for British Columbians will depend on obtaining the greatest

possible manufacturing potential from every unit of wood harvested in

the province. As a matter of fact, recent studies show a potential for

$1.7 billion in new forest revenue and over 4,000 new jobs in British

Columbia.

[2:15]

The agency

established in this act would ensure higher levels of research and

development in the areas of new market and product development, new

harvesting, processing and manufacturing technology, and new

environmentally sensitive production technologies.

The

agency's activities would be located throughout the province, including

in the new University of Northern British Columbia, to make it a world

leader in forestry education, research and technology.

Bill

M242 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day at the next sitting of the House after today.

FORESTRY VALUE ADDED ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Forestry Value Added Act.

[ Page

11441 ]

MR. MILLER : Mr. Speaker, this bill strengthens the

requirements for new value-added production when licences to harvest

timber are awarded. New factors which must be included are the ability

of the applicant to create new value-added manufacturing, the ability

of the applicant to manage and use the forest resource on a sustainable

basis, and the ability of the applicant to demonstrate a willingness to

use supplies purchased from the region where the licence is located.

These changes will allow the government to choose the applicant who

will be able to harvest and process the timber, so as to provide the

greatest possible economic benefit to the, region and the province as a

whole.

In order to ensure that the province receives

additional benefits from replacement of any existing licences with a

tree-farm licence, all applicants must guarantee that within a

three-year period a higher value-added product will be produced under

the new licence.

Bill M243 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

AINSWORTH MILL IN LILLOOET

MR. MILLER :

To the Minister of Forests. In November 1987 your predecessor

transferred three forest licences to Ainsworth Lumber Co. One of the

conditions of that transfer was that they continue to operate a sawmill

in Lillooet. That mill is now shutting down; 100 people have lost their

jobs. Why did you allow Ainsworth to walk away from their obligation to

run that mill in Lillooet?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I met

last week with the mayor of Lillooet and two other people — I believe,

an alderman and the president of the chamber or chairman of the

regional district; I'm not quite sure. This was a week ago today, Mr.

Speaker, contrary to reports in the Vancouver Sun .

At that time I gave my undertaking to the mayor and to the other people

and, I might add, to the MLA for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), who is

most interested in this, of course. We had a good meeting. I have

dispatched a senior official from the ministry, an assistant deputy

minister, to meet with Ainsworth and come to some type of agreement,

and to express our concerns to them and the fact that we take very

seriously that that timber is tied to the community of Lillooet. I can

assure the member, the people from Lillooet and all British Columbians

that we are very much aware of the problem and are endeavouring to get

to the bottom of it at this time.

MR. MILLER : It appears, Mr. Minister, that you created a problem. Last

month your ministry made a submission to the Forest Resources Commission and

said that the dominant objective of awarding licences was community stability.

Given that, how can you explain the absolute contradiction of removing the licence-holder's

obligations to continue to operate the mill — in this case, in Lillooet? You

removed the obligation. Why?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, once again the member is wrong. I didn't remove the obligation.

Secondly,

my record speaks for itself and this government: we have forced the

holders of timber licences to keep mills open and to maintain

employment in communities. There are numerous examples I could cite; we

named a few during my estimates. Once again the member is wrong.

MR. MILLER :

The people of Lillooet don't want a sympathy card. They want some

action. It is a curiosity that the senior official in your ministry,

Mr. Harding, said that the obligation was removed from the licences,

and that the decision was made at the highest political level. You are

quoted as saying that you don't know why they were removed.

Perhaps

you've been informed overnight. Do you know what's going on within your

ministry or not, Mr. Minister? Why did your ministry remove the

obligation from those licences?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

The member is either not listening or doesn't understand. I have told

him — as I told the mayor of Lillooet a week ago today — that the

senior official from my ministry will be meeting with Ainsworth Lumber

at the earliest possible time to discuss with them the ways to keep

that mill open.

I hardly regard that as a sympathy card. I

regard that as sympathy for the people in Lillooet, for the workers and

for the community. We care very sincerely about the small communities

in this province. The government record speaks for itself in that

regard.

MR. MILLER : Further to the minister. There

has been ample evidence of political interference in forestry

decisions. The fact remains that the obligations were removed. You are

the minister. Have you ascertained why? What is the rationale of the

government for removing those obligations?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the member to cite an instance of political

interference by this government, and further, to tell me what he would

have done differently.

YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT

MR. MERCIER :

My question is to the Solicitor General and acting Attorney-General.

Almost daily we read about a juvenile or youth gang involved in serious

crimes, including murder, and the very light sentencing available to

our courts under the Young Offenders Act. Today it was reported that

10,000

young offenders, including two dozen murderers, have been released from

Canadian jails since 1985 due to this legislation. Has the minister

decided to make the strongest possible representations to the

[ Page 11442 ]

Canadian Minister of Justice for immediate action to remedy this deplorable situation?

HON. MR. FRASER :

In two parts, Mr. Speaker. Firstly, the ministry makes a great deal of

effort to ensure that those who are apprehended or run afoul of the law

have a chance to rehabilitate themselves. In that regard we have a

number of very innovative and good programs.

Secondly, the

government has made strenuous objections and representations to the

federal government with respect to the Young Offenders Act,

particularly with respect to young offenders guilty of serious crimes.

We have made that representation before and we continue to make it now.

AINSWORTH MILL IN LILLOOET

MR. MILLER :

On August 24, 1989, the Premier announced that Ainsworth would

construct a plant in the Cariboo. In September 1989 a big ad was

published in the Cariboo papers by David Ainsworth saying that the

Premier was the finest Premier that B.C. has ever had. [Applause.]

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. MILLER :

My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Forests. Since he is

unable to provide a rationale why the ministry removed the obligations,

can he give this House an assurance that there were no political

reasons why those licence obligations were removed from Ainsworth?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

First of all, I am now sure the member is hard of hearing, because we

haven't removed the obligations. We are sending an assistant deputy

minister up there to explain to Ainsworth exactly how they will comply

with our requests — in fact, our insistence — that they maintain the

employment in Lillooet.

Secondly, I do agree with the

member that we have the finest Premier in the province — probably the

finest one we will have for some time

AN HON. MEMBER : Say it again.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

He's probably the finest one we will have for some time to come, and

all you have to do is look around this province and you will see why.

We could go back and cite examples from the only time that the NDP was

ever in power....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I

think we are approaching the end of the legislative session. Question

period has been deteriorating rapidly over the last few weeks.

MR. MILLER :

I must insist to the minister that licence A18690 had attached to it

section 12, which was a commitment by Ainsworth to run that mill, and

it has been removed from the licence document. That is a fact. Would

the minister explain? Never mind trying to cover up by saying you are

now sending people in to do some damage control. Explain why that was

removed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : For the fourth time: the member can get up and wave

the paper around all he wants; I'm telling him, the people of Lillooet,

the mayor of Lillooet and the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), who is

most concerned and was at the meeting with the mayor where I gave my undertaking,

that this government will not let those jobs disappear from Lillooet.

ROAD BLOCKADES BY NATIVES

MR. RABBITT :

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the legitimate concerns of British

Columbia natives, the illegal roadblocks that are now having an

intolerable effect and impact on the village of Lillooet must be

addressed. This is the second time I have raised this question in this

chamber, and I'm even more concerned today that someone may get hurt or

killed in the near future.

What steps is the

Solicitor-General prepared to take to resolve this potentially

explosive situation as quickly as possible in the interests of all

British Columbians, native and non-native?

HON. MR. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, it's understandable that many people in British Columbia

have anxious questions about the escalating disruptive actions by

native people in British Columbia. We are seeing roads being closed and

possibly rail lines being shut down.

However, today the consequence of the release of this report right here....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER : You may think it's a very light-hearted matter, but we certainly don't over here, I can tell you.

With

this morning's release of this document, the interim report of the

Premier's Advisory Council on Native Affairs, it is the hope of this

minister and this government that those involved in the blockades

around the province of British Columbia will now take them down.

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the same minister. It's alarming when a

member of this House gets up and implies the use of force, as was

expressed earlier by the same minister. To reach just, honourable and

peaceful settlements of the aboriginal peoples.....

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON :

Let me conclude. Will you and your colleagues support the recognition

of aboriginal title and bring peaceful solutions to this province for

the aboriginal people?

[2:30]

[ Page

11443 ]

MR. SPEAKER : The question is out of order.

FERRY PURCHASE

MR. SIHOTA :

It's not only in the community of Lillooet that jobs are disappearing

as a result of the policies of this government. The same is happening

in our shipyards in Esquimalt by virtue of the decision announced

yesterday by B.C. Ferries to acquire a new ship that will be in service

next year.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries,

now that members opposite are quiet and she can listen, is: could the

minister explain why the corporation chose not to lease a ferry to

provide service during the summer while building one here in British

Columbia, and why the corporation has chosen to buy a ferry from

Norway, transport it over here and spend $3 million to refit it, when a

ferry can be built in our shipyards for approximately the same cost?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Before responding directly, I would like to remind the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew once again that the precedent was set in 1974,

when the NDP were government and they purchased what is now known as

the Queen of the North. That has subsequently turned out to be a very

good move, and certainly I don't hear them criticizing the offshore

purchase made by their government. Having said that, there's no

question about the fact that we place a great deal of importance on

keeping the jobs in British Columbia whenever we can.

The

first question was: why did B.C. Ferries not lease a vessel? B.C.

Ferries had searched round the world for available vessels. There were

none available for lease. Ferries are not like a car, where you go onto

a car lot and just say that you want a vessel of this size and this

type to provide....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Are you interested in the answer, hon. member, or do you just want to talk?

(1) There were no appropriate vessels available.

(2) The statement made by the

member opposite that the purchase price and the conversion costs for the Norwegian

vessel equated to a sum that would have seen one built in a local shipyard is

not accurate. The two 85-car ferries for which the contracts have been awarded

to local shipyards will total in the area of $52 million for both vessels. We

are paying $10 million for the Norwegian ferry; we'll be spending $3 million

to bring it up to Coast Guard standards. So there's a considerable difference.

In addition to that, the Norwegian vessel is far more versatile than the 85-car

vessels that we are presently having constructed here and will be far more serviceable.

MR. WILLIAMS :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when my colleague the hon. member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was asking his question, the member for

Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) raised the issue of the Komagata Maru ,

which he is somewhat familiar with. It complements the kind of hissing

activity we've had from cowardly people on the government benches. It

smacks of a prejudice which I and you abhor, and I would expect these

members to be brought to order.

MR. SPEAKER : The

Chair heard the remark. It is not unparliamentary, although it may

offend other things. It is not unparliamentary; therefore I left the

matter alone, but I did hear the remark.

MR. REID : Mr. Speaker, if the comment offended the member, I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member.

Hon.

Mr. Fraser tabled the annual report of the Law Reform Commission of

B.C., 1989-90; the annual report of the Ministry of Attorney-General,

March 31, 1990; and the annual report of the Legal Services Society,

1988-89.

Ministerial Statement

CARIBOO FIBREBOARD LTD.

PULPWOOD AGREEMENT

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I rise today to make an announcement of significant importance to

British Columbia. It has a direct bearing on jobs in the interior of

this province, and I think it is a good-news announcement that will be

welcomed by everyone.

We have today signed an agreement

between the government and Cariboo Fibreboard Ltd. of Williams Lake for

a 25-year, non-replaceable pulpwood agreement. At this moment in

Williams Lake a special event is underway to celebrate this

announcement. As I speak here, the first member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant)

is speaking on my behalf in Williams Lake.

Cariboo

Fibreboard will construct a $140 million, medium-density fibreboard

plant in Williams Lake. This plant will generate 160 direct and 200

indirect jobs — that's 360 jobs — in the Williams Lake area.

Construction will start within the year, and the plant will be in full

operation within 30 months.

I want to emphasize that under

the signed agreement the company will not be able to harvest any timber

for the first ten years. The needs of the new fibreboard plant will be

met primarily through ten-year chip supply contracts that Cariboo

Fibreboard has negotiated with local mills. Most of these contracts are

already in place.

Cariboo Fibreboard has also secured

15-year agreements with local sawmills for the supply of sawdust and

shavings. It is probable that these contracts will be renewed, and

harvesting may not even be required over the remaining term of the

agreement.

[ Page 11444 ]

Finally,

I want to mention that in addition to Cariboo Fibreboard's use of

chips, sawdust, and shavings, the new NW Energy thermoelectric facility

that will be constructed adjacent to the Cariboo Fibreboard plant in

Williams Lake will use wood residue such as sawdust, shavings, and

bark. The goal is to completely eliminate the need for waste to be

burned by using wood waste. As we reach our goal of 100 percent

utilization, we will ultimately do away with wood-waste burners.

The

Cariboo Fibreboard plant and the NW Energy facility are prime examples

of sustainable development and a prime example of how this government

is turning a waste problem and air-quality problems into jobs.

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Speaker, clearly the situation in the Cariboo needs to be addressed

and is somewhat grim in terms of a number of factors, particularly the

continuing availability of the amount of timber that the processing

plants in that region require. As well, there is room for additional

processing capacity using residuals.

I have several

concerns, not about the announcement that this plant is going ahead,

but tangential, and I just want to register those in relation to this

announcement; that the industrial policy is missing in terms of

rationalizing the processing capacity in this province with the annual

allowable cut; that there are concerns about harvesting — and I

appreciate what the minister says in terms of that harvesting not being

undertaken immediately, particularly in that fragile area — and about

what we can replace the existing stands with.

In light of

the earlier discussion we had, there needs to be an established

obligation imposed on the licence-holder, who, in return for receiving

this access to Crown resources, undertakes additional responsibilities

to employees and the region. That clearly has not been established in

this province.

Finally, in commenting on the question of

tenure, I would note that the whole question of tenure arrangements is

currently under review, following a very tumultuous time in this

province. I question the wisdom of entering into those similar types of

tenures prior to arriving at a policy decision about the future of

British Columbia.

Having said that, I am sure that the

plant will be welcome in an area that is very concerned about its

future employment prospects in the forest industry.

Presenting Reports

MS. MARZARI :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fourth session of

the thirty-fourth Parliament. I move the report be taken as read and

received.

Motion approved.

MS. MARZARI : Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

MS. MARZARI :

Mr. Speaker, I now move that the report be adopted. I make this motion

on the first report from the Public Accounts Committee, which is

obviously the last report from the Public Accounts Committee this

session. I make this motion with some ambivalence — in fact, with some

chagrin. The Public Accounts Committee, as I have stated on three

previous occasions, is not the best possible functioning committee this

House could have to serve its needs for accountability.

believe that although the committee has done an excellent job this year

with the time that has been allowed, a number of things could be done

to seriously improve the quality and quantity of work done by this

committee. If the House would turn to page 8, they will see that this

committee has met only ten times this year, early on Tuesday mornings,

for a sum total of only 12.7 hours. This is one meeting less than the

committee had last year, and it's about average for the last four

years. If I might say, Mr. Speaker, the committee should have met in

one year as many times as it has met over four years.

It is

not for lack of material in the public accounts or in the

auditor-general's report; it is not for lack of substantive,

qualitative content that this committee has met only ten times this

year. In its perusal of the casino and lottery functioning and of

Transportation and Highways functioning, the committee has established

a good working relationship with the comptroller-general, the

auditor-general and with heads and senior people in various ministries

of the government. I think the committee has been very credible and has

established that relationship, despite some of the difficulties it has

in its own structure. In fact, the ministries have done very credibly,

as they have come to the committee to explain how and why they are

improving the situation that the auditor-general very often has

uncovered. It has been an impressive committee.

But let me

tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are ways in which the functioning of

this committee could be improved. This is the appropriate time to do it

since this is the first report of the Public Accounts Committee and the

last. It is probably the last time I will be standing as Chair of this

committee in this House, and I would like to.... [Applause.] Thank you.

Such accolades from the other side.

The recommendations I would like to make at this point....

[2:45]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

This is a debatable motion. Those of you who wish to speak on the

motion merely need to wait until the member who is currently speaking

is finished, and be recognized by the Chair. Interjections

[ Page

11445 ]

are not in order. Would the member please continue.

MS. MARZARI :

Since it is the last time I'll stand before you to speak to the public

accounts, let me suggest the four things that I think could be done to

seriously improve the functioning of this committee, which now operates

as something between a circus and an early-morning breakfast session.

The

first thing that needs to be done is to allow this committee to meet

year-round, whether or not the House is in session. This one move alone

would assist the committee to develop a long-term strategy for working

with the material presented to it. It might take the hard edge of hard

politics out of the committee, although there is obviously politics in

the committee. It could provide the public outside with some better

picture of how accountability is done and seen to be done.

Second

recommendation. Ministers should not be sitting on this committee. When

ministers sit on the committee or have their names on the committee it

very often suggests, when ministerial representatives come to speak,

that they are compromised. Often the minister is compromised and often

the committee operates under a shadow of ministerial or cabinet

disapproval.

The third recommendation I would make to close

the loop of accountability which is desperately lacking in this

government and in this parliament is that the committee be given

neutral research staff — staff which should be provided, as it is in a

majority of other provinces around this country, to assist the

committee in developing its agendas and doing the appropriate research

on each item as it comes forward, so that the committee is given its

own legitimacy as a committee.

The last recommendation I

would make is that when and if television is allowed in this House or

brought to this House, the Public Accounts Committee be the first thing

to be televised. The public accounts committees in Ontario and Quebec

find themselves televised, and I must say that from what I've seen, the

behaviour and the decorum of those committee meetings is substantially

different from what we witness in our committee here in British

Columbia.

We only met for 12 hours this year. They were a

hard 12 hours, but they were 12 hours more than most other committees

meet in this parliament and this government. With some ambivalence,

some joint grief and pride, I therefore move the motion that this

report be adopted.

MR. MERCIER : Mr. Speaker, it sort of fits the pattern that the Chairman

of this committee has followed. As everyone in the House realizes, the opposition

chairs this committee, and I serve as the Deputy Chairman on behalf of the government

side It fits the pattern. I didn't know she was presenting this report today,

ignoring the courtesy that should have been extended to let me know in advance

it was being presented at this time but I'll do my best to respond.

was noteworthy that in the remarks that were made by the Chairman she

admitted the committee was not the best-functioning. Well, everyone in

politics knows about committees. How well they function is definitely

the responsibility of the Chair. So I really apologize for the Chair,

for not having these well-functioning meetings.

As another

example of how this report came forward, the normal procedure to

present the recommendations that were just presented by the Chair would

have been to bring them to the committee and have the committee deal

with those recommendations. But because, I presume, she realized that

not enough homework had been done and a proper presentation would not

have been made, the Chair did not bring those three recommendations to

the committee. So I ask the House to disregard them, because they have

not been debated in the forum where they should have been debated. It

was a distinct lack of courtesy for the Chairman to make those

recommendations unilaterally. Those recommendations to this House were

just made unilaterally; in other words, they are the opinion of the

Chair, but they don't have substantiation in the very committee she's

representing or purporting to speak on behalf of.

As to one

of the recommendations, it's something about the opposition that they

think by having longer or more meetings of this committee, somehow it

will function better. I don't think that meeting longer or more often

would guarantee quality. The House should realize that it's supposed to

be a non-partisan committee for reviewing the accounts and the

auditor-general's report. I can guarantee you that during the year the

partisan comments from the Opposition members were a real distraction

in that committee.

What did we deal with in the public

accounts? Our statements were so clean and so good that they had very

little to criticize. The following were asked to come to the committee:

Solicitor-General, public gaming, Provincial Secretary, the Lottery

Fund and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. At the wish of

the Chair, the last three meetings dealt with highways, and I regret

that the Chairman said that the auditor-general "uncovered" anything in

the Highways ministry, because all we proved was that the Highways

ministry staff are competent and excellent, and that the department is

running well.

There may be other people wishing to speak on

this report. I want to end this session by saying that we're proud on

the government side that we had a surplus in our financial statement,

that we had debt reduction and that we have the lowest debt-carrying

charges of any government in Canada. This is why the committee found

very little to do. The Chairman couldn't find much wrong, so what's the

purpose of having additional meetings? Other members will want to

speak, but I would like to compliment the auditor-general. The

auditor-general is filling his role in an admirable fashion. His report

was very clear, and the responses by the ministries were very clear.

[ Page 11446 ]

I certainly encourage members not to have a greater number of meetings of the Public Accounts Committee in the future.

closing my remarks, I want to announce that the government has agreed

to a major policy change. Here are just a few points on this policy

change. Our statements are among the best in Canada, but one of the

things we did not do was release them in a timely fashion. The major

change in policy is that, commencing with the fiscal year ending March

31, 1991, the public accounts will be issued along with the

auditor-general's report immediately after their preparation,

notwithstanding that the Legislature may not be in session. This means

that ours will be among the earliest-released financial statements and

auditor-generals' reports in all of Canada.

To summarize,

it also means that we now meet all the major requirements in the

guidelines set by the public sector accounting and auditing committee

of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, and we were among

the first provinces in Canada to do so. So Madam Chair, I wouldn't be

so disappointed in the report of this committee, because that was a

major recommendation I put forward. The committee supported it, and the

government supports it, and now it's done.

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to support the motion, because my

constituents — the people of Point Grey — are very proud of the work

that their member, the Chair of this committee, has done.

MR. BRUCE :

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to offer a couple of comments — one in

respect to the committee and the makeup of it. I would like to say that

I appreciate how difficult it would be to chair a committee made up of

such an illustrious and witty group of politicians as sit on that

committee, and the Chairman has done a remarkable job in keeping the

peace among us all, with good humour, and still getting a job done. So

I would like to commend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee

for the job done.

I think it's also important that, in

reporting on the public accounts, the main point discovered in the 12

hours of debate is brought to this chamber, because it reflects on

every one of us. The job of the Legislature and the jobs of the elected

representatives of the people of British Columbia are to make sure that

the money is spent wisely, effectively and efficiently.

I would like to read this into the record, because we've heard much in

the preliminary statements about what the auditor-general had to say. I

think it is important for all here in this chamber to know what was

said by the auditor-general in summation about the financial affairs of

the province of British Columbia. These are the direct words of the

auditor-general:

"I would like to reiterate what I've said on other occasions.

The financial statements of the province are, in most people's view, the

best in the country. If they aren't, they're awfully close to it. We

have three sets of financial statements, including this consolidated set. Many

other jurisdictions have not seen fit to consolidate their accounts whatsoever.

I think it is important to keep things in perspective. We are all endeavouring

to improve these financial statements and reporting to the Legislature and the

public. My office has a responsibility to point out improvements that can be

made.

"The

statements are in good condition, and I am pleased that I am able to

present an auditor's opinion without any reservations. That is not true

in any other jurisdiction."

I think it is important that

all of us know, with great comfort, that the financial affairs of the

province are in good hands, and so says the auditor-general of British

Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER : The question is that the report now be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On behalf of the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands, I wish

to ask leave that that committee be allowed to sit this afternoon at 3

p.m.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OPERATIONS

On vote 4: office of the Premier and executive council operations, $3,812,000.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I rise to present the spending estimates of the office of the Premier.

This is an excellent opportunity to review the good this government has

done. This is not a moment of false pride, but a time for reflection on

what we have done to improve the lives of British Columbians.

[3:00]

realize it is also an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to

undoubtedly take some exception to some of the things I have to say or

to some of the views I hold — how he sees the province and the

prosperity we enjoy as opposed to how we see it. But I would ask him to

go through his notes once again while I am speaking, because I had an

opportunity to take a brief glimpse at something said on B.C.

Television at the noon hour. I noticed that he — inadvertently, I hope

— was a little confused when he said taxes had increased by $500

million for individuals and decreased by $500 million for corporations.

What he intended to say was that these were budgetary changes, not tax

changes. It wasn't a tax increase of $500 million or a decrease of $500

million; it was

[ Page

11447 ]

budgetary changes. I know that perhaps different

things can be said in different ways, but obviously that is a fairly

easy one, and he may wish to deal with this before he speaks from the

notes that he has available to him.

Similarly I notice that

he had some comments — or, certainly, comments were made — about the

increase in the spending estimates, but no reference was given to the

fact that there was a restructuring of the Premier's office several

years back. That should perhaps be enlarged upon by the Leader of the

Opposition when he comes to comment.

Speaking for myself

personally, Mr. Chairman, and for myself as Premier, the most

impressive accomplishment of our government has been its commitment to

consult and to act upon what the people of British Columbia have told

us. Consultation remains critical to this government. It is through

consultation that we can push beyond the bureaucratic interests of

government, beyond the agendas of big business and big unions, and

beyond the demands of self-serving special interest groups.

Premier, I must hear, understand and champion the concerns of the

British Columbians whose interests are not pushed by big public

relations budgets and well-heeled lobbyists. Frankly, it disturbs me

greatly that the opposition, who seek to control the office of the

Premier, are so captive to special interests that they dare not tell

the people of British Columbia what their agenda really is.

is a disgrace for the Leader of the Opposition to openly court union

money, as he did recently at the CUPE convention in Nanaimo at which a

CUPE delegate said: "We should be voting in our interest and providing

the political funds to ensure our interests are enshrined in

legislation. I believe every dollar spent getting the likes of Mike

Harcourt elected will yield ten dollars in our treasury." This was Mr.

Jack Hughesman, delegate to the annual meeting of the B.C. members of

the Canadian Union of Public Employees, quoted in the Victoria Times-Colonist on June 9, 1990.

is to ensure that this government does what the people want and not

special interests with deep pockets that I have talked to miners in

Kimberley. I've heard the concerns of mothers and their children in

Terrace. I've spoken to homesteaders in Clinton. I've listened to

homeowners in the Okanagan hurt by the floods. I've had numerous

meetings with the Chinese community in East Vancouver. I've taken their

concerns back to government and worked with my cabinet colleagues to

ensure that those concerns are addressed, and continue to be addressed.

have never discounted the shortcomings of government. I have always

sought to do what must be done and to get on with the business of

meeting the people's needs, not the wants of special interests. No

Premier can do it alone. He or she needs the support of cabinet, caucus

and competent staff. Government can only work when all of us commit to

consulting British Columbians with an open and receptive mind.

Before moving on to more fully explain the process of consultation we have

in place, I would just like to take a moment to thank in this House the efforts

of Mr. Frank Rhodes. Mr. Frank Rhodes is a fine gentleman who has been a tremendous

help as deputy minister to the Premier. His professionalism and knowledge of

government have been greatly appreciated. He served honourably and he served

well.

I said, a prime duty of the Premier is to move beyond what he or she

hears from business, union and special interest lobbyists, and to reach

into the concerns of every British Columbian. To achieve that requires

a commitment to consultation: find out what the people want, and do it.

can cite several examples to prove my point. The Sullivan royal

commission has provided a blueprint for our children's education into

the twenty-first century. One only has to look at it to wonder at the

hard work and clear thinking that went into that particular process.

meet emerging post-secondary demands, the minister responsible

initiated and completed a comprehensive Access for All report. Funding

for the Access for All program will nearly double in 1990-91 to $68

million, providing 2,400 additional post-secondary student places and

introducing degree-granting status at Kelowna, Kamloops and Nanaimo. In

Prince George, we are well on our way to establishing the university of

the north. That's something that I made a commitment to in 1986, worked

tremendously hard in the interim, and I'm pleased to see the tremendous

progress that's being made now.

In health care, our

government has launched a royal commission that will explore new ways

to improve treatment and prevention, while at the same time allowing

the system to retain its international reputation of efficiency and

cost-effectiveness. The Royal Commission on Health Care could have the

same positive impact the Sullivan commission has had in education.

women's issues, we have appointed a minister responsible, whose first

duty was to begin an extensive program of consultation — I commend her

for the tremendous consultation, the groups she met with throughout the

whole of the province, groups that had various involvements in

furthering the needs of women in the province. The directions coming

out of those consultations will guide policy on such critical issues as

pay equity, day care and pension reform.

One highly

successful process of consultation and action has been the justice

reform initiative. It has placed B.C. in the forefront of accessible,

fair and equitable justice in Canada.

To improve both the

environment and the standard of living of British Columbians, this

government began a major initiative with the establishment in 1988 of

the Task Force on the Environment and the Economy. Its action plan,

"Sustaining the Living Land," was released in June last year. It

contained many positive suggestions. These suggestions have been acted

upon.

We have created a permanent round table to bring together community, environmental, academic and

[ Page 11448 ]

business leaders to provide advice on how to balance sometimes competing concerns.

have established a single sustainable development committee of cabinet

to bring together all my fellow ministers with responsibilities and

interests relative to the environment. We have before us a mighty task

of cleaning up environmental hazards, preserving our forests and our

forest-based jobs, and trying to find workable solutions to real

conflicts. These solutions need honest discussion, not empty promises

or a blank cheque with a signature on the bottom. We are starting to

see those solutions in the implementation of the Task Force on

Municipal Solid Waste Management recommendations, such as the creation

of a hazardous waste management corporation.

Total

government spending on the environment and reforestation in 1990-91

will increase by a substantial 24 percent to $553 million. Our way of

life has two outstanding features: an attractive environment and a

strong forest industry. Some say that one is incompatible with the

other. They assert we cannot sustain one without sacrificing the other.

We believe the doomsayers are wrong. Yes, there are trade-offs, but on

balance, both our unique environment and our successful forest industry

can continue to flourish if we approach problems in a cooperative and

not confrontational way.

To explore the common ground in

our forests, we have initiated the Forest Resources Commission, which I

believe will lead to changes not just in logging practices but in what

we do with our B.C. timber. Our focus, in my view, should be in helping

the small entrepreneur in the forests: the man or woman who is

supporting a family with a single truck and small mill.

emphasis on value-added production was a focal point in our small

business advisory task force that recently came back with its report.

That report has led to a new program of small business assistance that

is understandable, flexible and accessible to all entrepreneurs with a

dream and a plan.

In other economic areas, our tree-fruit

commission has shed light on one of B.C.'s most famous industries, and

we are working with that industry to find real solutions to develop a

competitive tree-fruit sector.

Other examples include our

Freedom to Move initiative. It went out and sought what British

Columbians wanted in new transportation facilities over the next ten

years.

Consultation with native leaders on the role of the

provincial government in helping our first citizens achieve greater

economic and social independence has also been a major and very

successful initiative.

The recommendations of a major task

force on housing are now being implemented, as we have all witnessed in

new tenant legislation and the construction of new social housing.

Our hearings on property taxation led to relief for homeowners in school property

taxes that will double next year. We have new initiatives coming up in overall

tax reform providing pensions for all British Columbians, and possibly in many

other topics of concern to British Columbians.

government in the history of British Columbia has consulted as widely

as this government has. No government in the history of British

Columbia has made as strong a commitment to act upon what it has

learned during all of those consultations. No government in the history

of British Columbia has acted as swiftly and decisively on the wishes

of the people of our province.

However, I will be the first

to admit that in some areas, I suppose, more could have been done, and

there's still more to be done. I refer specifically to constitutional

issues. What we learned from the whole Meech Lake process is that the

everyday citizens must be more closely involved and want to be more

closely involved, particularly when it comes to constitutional matters.

That is why we have introduced a bill to allow for referendums and

another bill to allow for the election of Senate candidates.

[3:15]

know that we've heard some opposition and some negative comments from

the members opposite about the referendum process, but again, I believe

that any process which will allow our citizens a greater opportunity of

input is certainly worth the effort and the try, and is something we

will always support. Any opposition to anything that might enlarge the

process for public participation I would certainly be very critical of.

This is why I've often commented on the remarks that have come from

members opposite which seem to be so much in opposition to this whole

referendum process or the opportunity for people to be more involved in

the process.

Obviously, when it comes to Senate selection,

the Prime Minister of Canada is under no legal obligation to appoint as

Senator the candidate freely chosen by the people of B.C. I realize

that, and I'm sure we all do. But the Prime Minister would have to

explain to the people of B.C. why he chose to ignore their wishes.

that end, the Prime Minister of Canada will also have to explain to the

people of B.C. why the government in Ottawa is still intent on

proceeding to implement the goods and services tax that a great

majority of people in this province and every other province, it seems,

oppose bitterly. He will have to explain it to all the people and to me

not as Premier, but as one of many thousands of everyday British

Columbians fed up with a federal government that is looking at more

taxation, rather than at all of their spending programs and their

attempts to somehow provide greater duplication between what we do

provincially and what they wish to see done federally. The GST is just

one more dark cloud from the east trying to push its way over our

lovely Rocky Mountains, across our interior and on to our sunny Pacific

shores. You don't need to be the weatherman to tell which way that wind

ought to be blowing.

Our economy in the last four years has

been the strongest in Canada. As I speak to people in other provinces,

whether they're from Alberta, Saskatchewan

[ Page

11449 ]

Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec or the Maritimes, or

whether they are Conservative, Liberal or New Democrats, they look to

our province with great envy. They realize that we have a record no

other province has been able to achieve. They marvel that our

unemployment rate has dropped from 12.5 percent to 7.9 percent. We

heard today yet another announcement by the Minister of Forests (Hon.

Mr. Richmond) that will provide further opportunity in the Cariboo for

still more people to be employed. We're hearing it every day. That

particular example is 375 jobs, but we see jobs in the Kootenays, in

the Okanagan, in the Cariboo, on the coast, in the lower mainland, on

Vancouver Island. It's happening everywhere at a pace such as we've

never seen before and such that people elsewhere in this country marvel

at the success.

Last year alone, B.C. created half of all

the new jobs in the country. Annual investment has increased from $9.6

billion to $15.7 billion in a very short period of time. The government

debt, Mr. Chairman, has been reduced by about $800 million, which means

a dividend of $400 for every taxpayer in our province. Yet, as I

mentioned, there are storm clouds gathering on the horizon. I am an

optimist, and I always will be an optimist. I believe there is a chance

that we in B.C. can avoid the worst of what might happen. But I can't

help but be aware of what's happening to the economy in Quebec, in

Ontario, in the Maritimes and in other parts of western Canada. I can't

help but realize that much of what happens in Ontario somehow always

affects what we do and how they react to the needs of British Columbia.

So we have to be aware of this, and we have to be realistic. If we are

to maintain our fragile prosperity, we as government must work harder

than ever. We must keep a firm hand on the government expenses, and we

must keep a firm hand on taxation.

As I said a little

earlier, I'm pleased that we were able to, because of a good economy

and good management by government, reduce the property taxes for people

this year — school taxes. We can double this again for next year. It

makes me happy, as the Premier. It makes us all very happy, as members

of the Legislature. But it makes me especially happy too, as a citizen

of this province.

I'm also pleased that we've been able to

reduce sales taxes from 7 percent to 6 percent, eliminate the sales tax

on restaurant meals and make many other positive changes, while in

other parts of the country they've had to increase sales taxes, and the

federal government is proposing to enter this same area with a vast

increase in consumer taxation. I'm happy that we have countered the

trend, or at least have done the opposite of what we've seen elsewhere

in the country, and as Premier I'm proud of that. We all ought to be

proud of that, as legislators, but I'm especially proud as a British

Columbian.

I'm also aware, Mr. Chairman, that we must reach out to help those most

in need. We must assist British Columbians to meet their economic challenges

and to realize their fullest potential. That sounds very stirring, I'm sure.

But still I'm asked: what do we do? Let me say again, we have provided additional

benefits in all areas, and we've debated this over the last number of months

in the House. When you look at the budget for Education, Advanced Education,

Social Services and Health; when you look at the budget, which provides assistance

to those in municipalities that receive grants through the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs; when you look at the programs that we've provided to add to recreational

programs and opportunities for a healthy populace; when you look at the budget

we've provided for cultural activities and how we've helped various

groups in the province; when you look at the budget and the tremendous increase

we've provided for the Ministry of Environment in order to address the concern

that all people have for a clean environment and maintaining a quality of life

second to none anywhere on this continent, and which we as a government are

committed to maintaining; when you look at all of those budgets, you realize

that we as a government have cared and that we've approached those problems

very effectively and have had dramatic results like no other place in the country.

have proven it time and time again, and we can show that record as

we've done in the House, to the members opposite, to every person in

this province. I would hope that perhaps sometime the Leader of the

Opposition would do likewise: show and tell the people of the province

how well we've done; show them that we as a people have managed better

and more effectively than any other people anywhere in the country.

There's no harm in doing that, because I assure you, Leader of the

Opposition and all of you listening now, that if we continue as you've

done — too often, I would suggest — preaching doom and gloom, and

talking about how bad things are in the face of the tremendous record

we see in this province, then we will get doom and gloom. We will get

doom and gloom if you keep preaching it.

I'm sure you

wouldn't fault me if I go out, when I speak politically, and say this

about your party: you can still change. There's time to change and to

take another approach, to be positive with the people, to tell the

people what a great province we have and what a wonderful job they're

doing. Let's tell the people that we're proud of them, whether they

live in Richmond, Surrey, Quesnel, Cranbrook, Prince Rupert, Terrace or

any place in this province. We're proud of what they've done, because

after all, it is the people that have made it possible for this

government to have such a tremendous record and to be the envy of this

nation. It is the people, through their work, through their initiative,

through their entrepreneurism, in their support of free enterprise, in

support of this government, in their support when they talk to me and

other members here, that have made all of this possible.

should speak positively. We can't always be negative. We can't be doom

and gloom. If we follow the doom-and-gloom approach, then we'll see in

this country what happened in Sweden under a social democratic

government, where they're going fast down the tube. Where at one time

they were a proud

[ Page 11450 ]

people

doing extremely well, they are now at the bottom of the totem-pole in

Europe. I would suggest that for a good

part it is because the social

democrats were too often preaching doom and gloom. Be positive!

Mr.

Leader of the Opposition, when you get up to speak, and if other

members get up to speak in response to my statement here, please try to

have at least a few positive comments, because the people of our

province are listening. There are many people....

[3:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. Premier, I must inform you that your time has expired.

MR. REID :

Mr. Chairman, I am excited by the comments of the Premier. I'd like to

hear more, so I would like him to continue. I'm inspired by his words.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Let me repeat, and I say this not only for the Leader of the Opposition

or for the members of the opposition; I say this for all of us in the

House and the people out there. Our tremendous success, the fact that

we are the envy of this country, the fact that people elsewhere on the

Pacific Rim, in Asia and Europe and elsewhere in the Americas are

looking to British Columbia for a place to invest, a place to do

business in, for a place they trust and want to be a part of.... All

this is so not only because of the Premier and the cabinet or the

Social Credit government. We are the vehicle. We are only the vehicle;

I would suggest — I have some bias — probably the most effective

vehicle anywhere in this country. I suppose the reason we are the most

effective vehicle in this country is that we aren't tied to somebody in

Ottawa. We don't have to phone the leader of the New Democratic Party

in Ottawa before we make a policy decision and say: "Is this all right.

Can we do this? Do you mind if we do this? Will this somehow affect how

you might fare with some big union in Ontario?" We don't have to go

through that process, so we have a decided advantage, and that's why

Social Credit was elected in '52. That's why Social Credit was again

elected in '53, in '56, in '60, in '63, in '66, in '69, in '75, in '79,

in '83 and in '86. And we will be elected again.

As a final

comment — and I didn't want to be political in all of this, and I

realize others are anxious to speak, so I don't want to occupy more of

the time — I want to repeat for all of us here: as I started to say,

certainly we are the vehicle. We make it happen, but it's the support

of the average British Columbian that has made it all possible, and I

thank all those British Columbians out there who have made it possible.

It's not big unions. It's not big companies It's not special interest

groups that have made it possible. It's average individuals throughout

the whole of the province that have made it happen. Mr Chairman, I'm

sure you can tell — I'm sure everyone here can tell — I'm proud. I'm

proud of this province. I'm proud of what we've achieved. I'm proud of

all of our people, and I'm proud of this tremendous team I work with.

Thank you very much.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Chairman, I was

commenting to some of my colleagues earlier about how fast four years

pass. It was four years ago that many of us walked into this House for

the first time. In fact the majority of us were rookies, and walked

into this House and endeavoured to do the public business, and we've

seen a lot happen over the past four years. It's fair to say — and I

say this in all honesty to the Premier and the members opposite — that

we've all learned a lot over that four-year period. We've had our

debates. We've had our comings and goings in this House, and there have

been some heated exchanges and some very rational exchanges in the

House. I'm sure history will comment in the future on how successful we

were in looking after the needs and the aspirations of British

Columbians.

This, of course, will be the last opportunity

we'll have before the next election to canvass the estimates of the

Premier, and it would be appropriate to reflect on some of the stuff

that's happened — I don't want to go over all the last four years, but

some of the stuff that's happened, particularly in the last year or so

— and canvass the Premier as to policy and administrative changes that

have come about as a result of some of the things we've seen in British

Columbia, particularly, if I may say, around the way in which the

Premier and his office functions and the way in which cabinet

functions. We've come a long way from regionalization and the united

states of British Columbia to the way in which things function today.

Over

the last four years, we have seen a number of resignations of various

cabinet ministers. I think I read the other day that nine cabinet

ministers in total had resigned. I don't know what kind of record that

is overall in terms of other governments, but in any event we have seen

nine ministers resign. Some say it has been part of the Guinness Book

of World Records.

I won't get into that kind of stuff

except to say that this government has had a history of scandal with

respect to various ministers. I don't want to get into all the details

involving all the various scandals. However, I do want to talk about

one instance that we haven't had the opportunity to reflect much upon

but which I think raises a number of very important public policy

issues in terms of the way the administration of government is run.

That is the problem that arose surrounding the Siemens Electric

situation. I want to canvass not the details of the events, but the

kinds of changes that should flow from that and the kinds of practices

one would expect from government with respect to that area of public

policy and administration of government.

I want to start by

simply putting a question or thought to the Premier. Because there is

public policy that needs to be developed around these areas, I am

wondering if the Premier could explain what the process is. How is it

that cabinet — or his office, if it is indeed his office that makes

these decisions — arrives at decisions as to when cabinet ministers

will be flying overseas? Are there any rules or policies

[ Page

11451 ]

that exist within your office with respect to how

those costs are covered? What changes have come since the Siemens

Electric situation? I would like to know how that works in terms of who

makes those priorities. Who decides which cabinet ministers are to fly

off overseas to take a look at various matters? We see them all the

time: the Minister of International Business and Immigration (Hon. Mr.

Veitch) and so on. How does that work? What is the process involved in

that?

Before I sit down, I have just one other question to

the Premier. Usually when we get into estimates.... I think the Premier

was remiss in not doing this, and I was remiss in not asking at the

outset. Perhaps the Premier would be kind enough to introduce his

staff. I think we have a bit of a tradition here that staff who are

here are introduced. I think the Premier could do that and then perhaps

deal with the questions I have asked.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am very pleased to introduce the staff.

We have Dr. David Emerson, who is my new deputy minister, and we have

Jan Hemming, who looks after the office accounts.

Now I

would like to try to respond to your questions, and I will begin with

the last. It's interesting that you should ask about who or what

decides when or which ministers travel. Obviously a province such as

ours which is growing and which is export-oriented and has many

overseas markets and investors.... As a matter of fact, I should add —

thank you for the opportunity — that unlike every other province in the

country and unlike the national average which is, as you are aware, 78

percent dependent on the U.S. for its exports, we now are less than 40

percent dependent on the U.S. for our exports. We have diversified so

much in the last three years that the Pacific Rim is now our single

largest customer and, interestingly enough, you may like to know that

of all provinces in Canada, we export more to Europe than any other.

Obviously, given all of this, there is a need from time to time for

ministers to travel in order to make various contacts, whether it is in

Asia, Europe or other parts of North America.

I became

somewhat influenced in my views on ministerial travel when I was

invited with a group of people to travel Europe with a minister. In my

travels with this minister through Europe, I saw the waste and the time

that was really not put to good effort at all. I could see the waste of

expense, and I became very critical of all of this. It was in 1973 when

I travelled with Mr. Jim Lorimer, the then NDP Minister of Municipal

Affairs. When I saw the waste and the futility of it all, I said: "If I

were ever given the opportunity to be Premier in this province, I would

not do it like the NDP; I would do it differently." So I guess that has

influenced me, and it has made me a little more cautious and has

allowed me to control the amount of travel fairly effectively. I am

sure that if you check and compare....

Perhaps a fair way to compare would be to put the travel record of the ministers

in B.C. up against the travel record of the ministers in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec

or any other place in Canada — even on a population basis. You will see that

despite the tremendous amount of economic activity and all the things we have

been able to accomplish, we travel a lot less. It's because the Premier

approves and monitors the travels. Absolutely, there needs to be a control in

that whole effort because, as we saw during the NDP years, when ministers were

allowed to travel willy-nilly to wherever at whatever the expense to do whatever

they wished, you can't do that, because you'll end up with financial

chaos such as we saw at the end of the NDP years.

The

member for Esquimalt — I'm not sure he's the Leader of the Opposition

yet, but.... Anyway, he talks about nine resignations, scandals and all

of that sort of thing, and then he talks about Siemens and explains

Siemens. He says to me: "Well, you know, I think it's appropriate, when

there's a question of propriety with respect to a matter and a minister

is concerned, that he should step aside or step down until the matter

has been thoroughly investigated and a report has been provided to

government or the Legislature — whichever the case — and we've seen

that in this government perhaps more so than elsewhere in the country."

[3:45]

suppose if you wanted to use numbers you could use Ontario and Quebec

and get similar numbers, but I don't think that's really what matters.

What I'm saying is that I believe we practised what I set out to do in

the first place. When there is a question about propriety and an

investigation taking place, the minister steps aside or steps down.

don't call that a scandal. You call that a scandal, and it's convenient

and nice for you to use the word "scandal," and you'd like to use it

over and over again, because you think that somehow you can con the

people of the province into believing there were all of these scandals.

That's why the word is used over and over. I'm sure that not only you

but other members — perhaps including the Leader of the Opposition —

will use that word again and again because it suits your political

agenda. But what you're forgetting is that the people out there are not

dumb. They know; they understand.

What I think is perhaps

more scandalous than all of the things you might raise — I don't know

what it is yet, but I'm sure you will be talking about all sorts of

things that you'll try to make appear as some sort of scandal — is to

begin talking about Siemens, for example, when we have an investigation

into the activities of a former deputy minister because certain charges

or allegations were made.... This is being investigated, and what's so

nice about a democracy and why I support our democratic process so

vigorously is that people have a chance to go through a process before

they're somehow accused of being guilty of something. Whether it's here

in the House, whether it's you on the hustings or whether it's somebody

out there saying things, there is the opportunity for investigation. In

the case that you referred to — Siemens, as you call it — there is an

investigation

[ Page 11452 ]

taking

place. It would be totally unjust and completely inappropriate and

irresponsible for me to comment on this, because I respect the process

and intend to see that democratic process, that right of the people,

continues.

MR. SIHOTA : I just want the Premier to

understand a couple of things. First of all, I want him to understand

that I'm not going to go through the Siemens situation involving Mr.

Dubas, nor am I going to be talking about the first member for Central

Fraser Valley (Mr. Dueck). I want him to understand that. I've started

to ask him some questions, and I'd like some answers to those

questions, but I use that as an example.

Let me also say,

because you refer to the word "scandal" and it's a point of language

and debate between us in the House, that I want to make it clear that

in my estimation of the nine ministers who have left, the one who

handled it in the most honourable fashion of all was the member for

Central Fraser Valley. I must also say that I enjoyed working with him

when he was Minister of Health, and I think he did a good job of

listening to us on the opposition in terms of responding to some of our

concerns.

What I'm trying to find out from the Premier is

this: do you have guidelines that set priorities for travel of cabinet

ministers? Are there guidelines along those lines? Do you have anything

published as a policy in terms of what gets approved and what doesn't?

Do you have any policies with.... I'll give you another example: do you

have any policies for things like gifts? I know you have some rules

about gifts for government employees. Do you have those kinds of

published policies for ministers, or is that something that is

exclusively dealt with on an individual basis by the Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

One of the reasons we have to have an overview of requests for travel

is that obviously we need to avoid duplication. Secondly, if a ministry

proposes to travel to, say, California or wherever, to have various

meetings, it could well be that they might at the same time do some

things for other ministers or ministries, and therefore their trip

might be more effective. The judgment call in all of this is: do we get

value for money, and are the people of the province well served, and

will they benefit?

MR. SIHOTA : Are there any published guidelines? Or is it just the general rule of thumb — do we get value for money?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, the protocol office certainly has its internal guidelines.

But I think it would be a mistake to say we have a book or a brochure

or some pamphlet that says where and why one might travel. It's too

important a responsibility on behalf of the taxpayers that I should

leave it to a book or some policy statement somewhere to determine what

the travel.... It needs to be coordinated very effectively. As I said,

it's important that the people of this province get value for money. If

you write a policy, then obviously some of that might well be

overlooked. I think a Premier has the responsibility of overseeing the

various activities in the various ministries, to make sure there's no

duplication.

I would also say, Mr. Chairman, that what

might serve us best — because I realize there are a whole lot more

questions coming.... I'll make note of a number of questions and answer

them all at once, as opposed to getting up each and every time.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA :

I take it from what the Premier has had to say that there are no

published guidelines. I use the example of gifts because it has come up

before. There are rules, I know, with respect to government employees

and the acceptance of gifts.

I can understand what you're

getting at, and I'm not going to fault you in depth here. But am I

correct that there is nothing written; that you don't have any policies

or any guidelines, as exist in the case of government employees, where

you've got some guidelines with respect to gifts and travel and that

kind of stuff? You can nod and I'll continue, if that's the case.

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

MR. SIHOTA : I'll assume it's the case, unless the Premier says otherwise.

want the Premier to understand this. It's hard for me to continue

unless I get some answers from him. I want to make sure that I've got

it all understood, and I don't want to make any false assumptions.

When

you talk about value for money, I take it that you're saying value for

the public dollars expended on a particular trip. I take it that's the

way it works. Is that what you were trying to get at when you talked

about value for money?

Those are my two questions: (1) do

you have published rules; and (2) when you talk about value for money,

are you talking about the public dollars expended? Am I to understand

it in that fashion?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The member is correct in that we do have conflict-of-interest guidelines for ministers and parliamentary secretaries.

MR. SIHOTA :

I have here the conflict-of-interest guidelines, eight of them,

starting with one that says ministers shall ensure that their ability

to exercise their duties and responsibilities objectively is not

affected, and ending with the guideline that deals with family members.

Is that the guideline that the Premier . . . ? I want to make sure

we're talking about the same guidelines. Are these eight the only

guidelines that exist for this type of matter?

MR. CHAIRMAN : On vote 4, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

[ Page

11453 ]

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Chairman, I asked the Premier a question, and

I want to make sure, because I don't want to quote from something that

is different from what he's got. If it would help, I could send this

over by a Page and have the Premier take a look at them in order to

make sure we're talking about the same thing. But I quoted them; there

are eight guidelines. The first one deals with ministers ensuring that

their ability to exercise their duties is not objectively affected by

financial interests, and it ends with one that talks about family

members and guidelines applying to them.

Is that what we're

talking about? You can simply nod, Mr. Premier, if we're talking about

those guidelines. If they're different, I would appreciate it if you

could.... Are we talking about the same ones? Okay, I'll send this over

to the Premier with the Page and show him the guidelines he's got, to

see whether or not the guidelines I've got....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I can't talk when you're speaking.

MR. SIHOTA : Okay, I'll sit down, and maybe you can answer my question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Yes, we have the guidelines, and I think we're referring to the same

guidelines. We also have the Constitution Act and the various

requirements thereunder. But if the member is asking if we can somehow

write the rules in order to cover each and every circumstance, I guess

not. I suppose there has to be integrity on the part of members, and

that's so regardless of where we sit in this House. Without that, the

guidelines or anything else don't matter much, I'm sure. The guidelines

are there; the Constitution Act is there, and I'm very pleased with the

material available to us as a guide and the rules.

MR. SIHOTA :

Again, I want to make sure that I've got this down, and I want to make

it clear that I'm not talking specifically about the case. But one of

the issues that arose out of the Siemens case was the whole issue of

payment, whether there was double-dipping and that kind of stuff. That

came up during the course of the Siemens case. Double-dipping, of

course, is a concern, and so it should be; that's why the matter is

being investigated, as I understand it. I would hope, with the Premier,

that there are no other examples of double-dipping going on.

want to ask the Premier this question: am I correct in understanding

that with respect to expenses, the rule in the public sector as opposed

to business is that the government pays for all the expenses associated

with a cabinet minister's trip, whether it be to California or

wherever? Is it the basic rule that those costs — airline, food,

accommodation — are paid for by the public sector?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : On government business, yes.

MR. SIHOTA :

Of course that applies to government business. I take it that when the

Premier says government business — and I would assume I am correct on

this point — it's not accepted that individuals would go, let's say, to

California. I don't want to use that as any particular example; you

mentioned it, so I'm using it as an example. Am I to understand that

when people go to whatever destination abroad, the expectation — given

what you said earlier on about Mr. Lorimer — is that they go over for

business, and they are not to engage in any personal business while

they are abroad? But is it all expected to be government business that

you travel on when the public sector is paying for it?

[4:00]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

That's not what I meant when I referred to my travels with Mr. Lorimer.

Obviously there were weekends and things people might have done

personally. I think that's quite legitimate. So if you took from my

comments that I was condemning Mr. Lorimer or those with him because

they had their weekends or they did their own things, that's not what I

intended.

MR. SIHOTA : Apart from the weekends, where

I would concede there may not be a lot of activity going on, for four,

five or six days members of the executive council are not expected,

when the taxpayer is paying the bill, to do anything but government

business. When you're over there you're supposed to do government

business and then come back. Isn't that the general rule of thumb?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

We're probably going through a process that this member enjoys, because

he sees himself in a court of law, leading up to something. Why don't

you just come out and ask the question? I don't know what you're

saying. Don't try and act like a courtroom lawyer; you're a legislator

now. Tell me what the question is.

MR. SIHOTA : I need the reply from the Premier, and I understand he's listening to Mr. Emerson now.

Let

me put it to you this way. I take it that, as we had in the Siemens

case, the expectation is that corporations, societies and whatever that

are not associated with government.... Nobody else is supposed to pay

the expenses. I'm not talking about picking up an occasional meal, but

about things like we saw in the Siemens case: hotels and accommodation,

that kind of stuff. I take it that the rule is that the public sector

is supposed to pay for that in order to avoid the perception of the

problem you ran into when you got into Siemens.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Perhaps the member can give me a specific example. I'm not used to this courtroom stuff.

MR. SIHOTA :

Okay, I'll give you a very specific example, Mr. Premier, one that

you're very familiar with and one that relates to Siemens. In the

Siemens

[ Page 11454 ]

case,

as I understand and recollect the facts.... I could be wrong, and I'm

sure the Premier will correct me if I'm wrong. Basically there was a

concern that a company — I believe it was Siemens, obviously — was

picking up hotel bills and that kind of stuff for ministers who were

travelling. It was my understanding at the time that that was deemed to

be improper; that the government is expected to pay those costs when

ministers are travelling, to avoid any perception of conflict. Is that

the rule of thumb? Is that the way it's supposed to work?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Again, Mr. Chairman, I wish the member would ask the question. Once

more he refers to Siemens and uses it as an example. Frankly, I find it

very distasteful to be participating in debate on some issue that is

under investigation.

He says, "as I understand the facts,"

as though the way he understands it is okay — those are the facts. I

thought it was the job of the investigators — whomever it is we charge

— to determine the facts and the validity of those, and it's not for

somebody here to stand up and say: "...as I understand the facts,

therefore this or what about this." I'm not prepared to discuss

something that's under investigation, and he as a lawyer by profession

should know better than to do this.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Just before we proceed, before the last speaker got to his feet the

Chair was about to mention that we must be careful of the rule of sub

judice, because we're all aware that there is an investigation being

conducted related to the firm that was mentioned, and it might

prejudice that investigation. I guess there's no one who should know

better than the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew that it could

prejudice that investigation. Bearing that in mind, I will turn it back

to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't realize the Siemens case was before the courts.

any event, let me give the Premier a hypothetical.... I was using

Siemens because I thought it was a situation he would be familiar with.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm going to, and here's the real question. In terms of expenses

relating to hotels — and I'll give that as the example — it's my

understanding that when ministers travel abroad, the government picks

up those expenses. There's a policy on gifts which allows people to

accept certain gifts of a token nature, but with respect to hard

expenses like accommodation, as I understand it, the policy is that the

government pays those expenses. Am I correct in that understanding?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Chairman, I wish he would be specific. It's not part of my

estimates that I'm aware of, but let me say it again. Obviously, when

people travel they're not expected to work seven days a week, 24 hours

a day. I cited the example of my travel with Mr. Lorimer in 1973: there

was time off for people and they did their own thing. I expect it's

reasonable. It's a judgment item, I'm sure, for each individual.

We've

had no difficulties, to my knowledge, with any of this. If you say

there's some difficulty, or if you're leading up to suggesting that

there might have been some difficulty that somehow has something to do

with my portfolio, by all means let me know.

MR. SIHOTA :

As I understand it from what the Premier said earlier, he oversees all

of this kind of stuff in his capacity as Premier of the province, which

is fine, and in his capacity as Chair of the executive council. It's a

simple question in terms of policy. I give you the example of hotel

accommodation costs. Those are to me like airline costs; they're hard

costs, which I always understood to be borne by the taxpayer and not

paid for by a corporation or a society, because it creates the

impression — and we've seen this in another case which I won't mention

now — that there are favours being granted to government. Here's my

question to the Premier, and I want him to listen to my question with

that preface. It is very straightforward. Is it the policy that, for

example, with respect to hotel costs, those costs are paid for as a

hard cost by the taxpayer when ministers travel and not by corporations

or societies, to avoid the perception of favour?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : This would certainly be ruled by the conditions of Treasury Board.

MR. SIHOTA :

Then I want to ask the Premier what, to his knowledge and

understanding, are the conditions of Treasury Board with respect, for

example, to hotel expenses?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Chairman, there was an opportunity to debate that issue when the

estimates of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) were up. I do

not intend to go through the estimates of ministries that have already

been dealt with. If he failed to ask questions about the policy of

Treasury Board on a particular issue at the time the opportunity was

available to him when the Minister of Finance sat in his chair, I can't

help that.

If there is someone on either side who has any

questions that relate to my estimates or if someone wants to make a

statement with respect to my estimates, I'd be pleased to deal with it.

On the other hand, if the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew simply

wants to sit there and act like a lawyer in a courtroom, then I'll save

all the questions until the very end. If he has something specific,

I'll try to answer. That's how it is.

MR. SIHOTA :

Very well. Thank you for that response, Mr. Premier. I appreciate that.

When the matter was canvassed by my colleague the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) with the

[ Page

11455 ]

Minister of Finance, certainly during question

period and I believe during estimates — but I could be wrong with

respect to estimates — it was always my understanding, and I would

think it would also be the understanding of the Premier, who has

obviously had occasion to travel, expenses such as hotel accommodation

costs are paid for by the public sector.

Let me make it

clear here. As I understand the practice, policy and principles behind

the government policies and practices to date, you don't want major

suppliers of government to be paying the costs of travel or

accommodation — to use those two examples — because you would be

obviously concerned if people were able to come back to you and say:

"Look, the perception that's created here is that this company is

paying for this in return for government work." Because of that

concern, it was always my understanding that policies were drafted that

airline costs, hotel costs and that kind of stuff would be picked up by

the taxpayer. That was my understanding, for the reasons that I've

outlined. Does the Premier have a different understanding of it than I

do?

I don't expect the Premier, in his capacity as the

chief executive officer of the province, to know every rule. But I

would ask the Premier to either confirm what was my understanding —

which I asked him to do a minute ago — or to use examples of when he

has travelled. I am sure you have travelled. What is the rule?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Chairman, I made a note of the question. It's on a list, and I've got lots of pages so I'll keep adding to it.

MR. SIHOTA :

Perhaps I could ask the Premier whether we can expect an answer to this

in a few minutes. Or are we going to have to wait until we go through

all of your estimates before we get an answer? I think it's fairly

important that you just tell us what your policy is. I don't see any

reason that you would think it inappropriate for you to tell us what

the policy is.

I think the Premier will understand this as a business person, because he has

also played that role in life — and perhaps more about that later, when we get

into his estimates with respect to other matters. I think it's well understood

that in business there is all sorts of give and take, and people will pick up

other people's expenses for various business trips and that kind of stuff.

It's sort of part of the arrangements that people enter into when they enter

into business. If you're going overseas as a purchaser to buy something,

it's not always unusual for a major contractor to say: "Look, we'll

pick up your costs for coming into town and staying in town." They write

that off against their taxes, and you don't have to pay for it Although

that arrangement happens in the private sector, I would ask the Premier this:

does he expect the same type of arrangement to exist with respect to public

sector travel?

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Just before the Premier responds, this line of questioning has gone on

for some time now. It's become quite repetitive. I'm also having

trouble with relevancy. We're dealing with the Premier's estimates,

vote 4, which is the office of the Premier and the executive council

operations. It seems to me that this doesn't fit into that particular

category. If the Premier chooses to respond, that's fine.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I'm interested specifically in the 1989 trip to Europe, Mr. Premier,

that you took on behalf of the province. Could you advise what the main

purpose of that trip was?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : What was the date?

MR. WILLIAMS : That's January and February of 1989, Mr. Premier,

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : That was a trip to Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum.

MR. WILLIAMS : You left Vancouver January 21, and you returned February 11. Where exactly did that trip take you?

[4:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I don't have that particular detail. I don't know exactly. You have to

depend on the flights. Can you be specific? Is there something specific

you want to know?

MR. WILLIAMS : Your original ticket

indicated Vancouver-Amsterdam, Amsterdam-Zurich, Zurich-Paris,

Paris-Amsterdam, then Munich-Amsterdam, Amsterdam-Vancouver. I presume

that was the pattern you followed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

That could well be. I suppose I flew — I don't know exactly; I'm

guessing — Canadian Airlines, Pacific or one of those. I have no say in

that.

MR. WILLIAMS : The purpose of the trip was essentially government business. Is that the case, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I understand the activity in Davos. That's significant and was reported

quite well in the papers. By chance I ran into Mr. Bell, the chairman

of B.C. Hydro, who spoke favourably of that meeting.

This

was a 21-day trip, and Davos was not something that took three weeks.

Maybe you could advise where else business took you on that trip, Mr.

Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I don't have all the specifics, but it was certainly an investment mission.

[ Page 11456 ]

MR. WILLIAMS :

I remember the Premier coming back from an earlier trip to Europe and

talking about the sausage factories he'd inspected in the north-central

interior and housing projects for the poor in South Africa. I just

wondered what kind of positive things the Premier did, because he's a

booster. I'd be interested in the work you saw as important throughout

that trip.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : As I recall it, I

spoke to.... We were one of the official presenters at Davos. There was

a delegation of business people, largely from Vancouver, as well as

Minister Jansen and myself. We made this presentation at Davos. It was

tremendously well received; it was enormously successful.

I'm

not sure exactly whether I did stop to meet with the people in our

office in Germany; I can't quite recall that, but it could certainly

have been. I do recall that I spoke to the Netherlands Canadian Chamber

of Commerce in Amsterdam. I met with a business group in Amsterdam and

again in The Hague, as I recall. I also I spoke to a group of Canadian

companies that are represented in Holland at The Hague. I can't recall

all the details, but that is some of it.

MR. WILLIAMS :

In Amsterdam, Mr. Premier, you were at the Amstel International Hotel

on February 2 and 3, 1989. You went to Coevorden in between by vehicle,

and then you were at the Hilton hotel on February 5 at Schiphol, which

is the big airport in Amsterdam. Then you proceeded on a tour. What was

that tour, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr.

Chairman, it seems to me that we're debating the estimates for 1990. 1

don't recall everything about 1988 and 1989. I'm sure there was ample

opportunity then for the members opposite to have inquired about some

of these things. I don't have all the details. Yes, I guess I was two

days and two nights in Amsterdam and one night at Schiphol. I think

that's reasonable to assume.

MR. WILLIAMS : There was a tour that ended up in Munich prior to returning to Amsterdam to return home to Vancouver. Is that not the case?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 4 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS :

I'd be interested, Mr. Premier, in what the tour was that took place

between your booking into the hotel at Schiphol in Amsterdam and ending

up in Munich and returning home. We're talking about the best part of a

week.

MR. CHAIRMAN : On vote 4, the first member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS :

So the Premier does not recall what the purpose of that

section of the

trip was. Well, your flight

schedule showed to Munich, I don't know

whether you used that part of the ticket, Mr. Premier, but that's

clearly what went through public accounts.

Mr. Premier, you were picked up at that airport hotel by officials from a company. Could you advise us what that company was?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I met with a good many business people in The Hague, in Amsterdam and

in Munich. I don't know just exactly if.... Could you perhaps...? You

have all the information, perhaps.... It was 1989; it's not in my

estimates, so I didn't come prepared for 1989 or 1988.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I appreciate that, but as you know, in public accounts work, we deal

with the earlier fiscal year. That ended in April of last year.

Mr.

Premier, the company officials who came and picked you up at the Hilton

at Schiphol were officials from the Philips company. Is that not so?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Chairman, again I would remind the member that I don't have all the

information about the 1988-89 estimates. I certainly don't have all the

details, and we're not in public accounts, so I can't go through the

public accounts process.

But it's fair to say that I've had

several meetings with Philips representatives in Holland and here. As a

matter of fact, I think I've met them on at least two or three

occasions in the Netherlands, and I've met them at least two or three

times here. It's still my hope that we might convince them to do some

of their manufacturing in British Columbia. They're a good company;

they certainly are a very diversified company. They manufacture a host

of products. Frankly, I think we could serve that company as well as

they could serve us, in that they could, without a doubt, access the

Pacific Rim markets potentially and the U.S. market.

If the

member has any questions on any particulars about that, I can perhaps

attempt to answer them. I can say that whatever expenses are related to

such travel are very carefully vetted through the office of the

comptroller-general.

MR. WILLIAMS : Maybe the Premier

could elaborate on the products that the Philips corporation

manufactures. Since the Premier has indicated he hopes there would be

manufacturing in British Columbia, could you advise the House of the

kinds of products that Philips makes?

MR. CHAIRMAN :

The Chair is still having a great deal of trouble with relevancy in

this debate. It was mentioned a moment ago that these matters were

dealt with in a committee. I would think that matters brought forward

in committee should be responded to and dealt with in a committee. I am

still having trouble with relevancy.

These are the

estimates of the Premier's office we are dealing with. However, if the

Premier chooses to answer the question, that is entirely up to him. I

would remind members that although they can ask

[ Page

11457 ]

any question they please, there is no compulsion that the question be answered.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I would hope the Premier could advise us what the products are, because

I think the Premier has quite a good understanding of what the Philips

company makes. Its international base is in the Netherlands, it has

plants around Europe and the Pacific Rim, and it's a major

multinational.

Mr. Premier, I did ask you: was it not the case at the airport hotel that officials

from the Philips corporation picked you up?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Yes, I would think so. As a matter of fact, I have no difficulty with

this. It's rather ludicrous to assume that somehow, just because I was

born in Holland and left at the age of 12, I could find my way around

all that easily in the Netherlands today. If I am seeing people there

for investment purposes or to have them manufacture here, I wouldn't

hesitate to have them pick me up at the hotel, that's for sure.

MR. WILLIAMS : Then you must be familiar with the plants that Philips has. Did you visit any of their plants or operations?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I don't mind if we take all this week and all next week debating my

1990-91 estimates. However, I don't want to spend all of this time....

I would just as soon we got on to something else, and he can write down

the questions if he is talking about '88 and '89. I don't have all of

the information regarding '88 and '89. Frankly, when he is talking

about the list of products that Philips manufactures, I am sure he has

that information. If he doesn't have that information and he wanted it,

he could have asked the Minister of International Business and

Immigration (Hon. Mr. Veitch) or the Minister of Regional and Economic

Development (Hon. S Hagen), who have all of that information too. They

have had their estimates.

I see the member for North Island

(Mr. Gabelmann) is yawning. I don't fault him. It's very boring, and I

can't understand why there isn't something coming from the opposition

benches that is current and something that is relevant not only to my

office but to this fiscal year.

MR. WILLIAMS : We

have now established that the Philips people did indeed pick you up at

that hotel Thank you, Mr. Premier. I am glad your memory is good there.

recognize what the Premier says about how we really should check with

the Ministry of International Business and Immigration, because that's

where most of these chits get sent. The vouchers all get transferred

over to the Ministry of International Business and Immigration. That's

the way public accounts now work in British Columbia.

Mr. Premier, you actually did embark on a significant tour with Philips officials.

The question is: did you not embark on a significant tour with Philips officials?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Vote 4? First member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS : The Premier has not said otherwise. The Premier has said that they picked him up. Where did you go, Mr. Premier?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Vote 4? First member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Premier, do you not recall this week of the tour? We're talking about a week, Mr. Premier. You don't recall it?

[4:30]

HON. MR VANDER ZALM :

I will say it once more, and then I will simply sit back, take all of

the questions and collect them. You're asking me about '88-89, or '89,

or '88; I'm dealing with the '90-91 estimates. If you want, I'll

collect all of the questions. If we have to get certain information, or

if it's relevant to the estimates now, I'll certainly get that

information.

I just want to clear up one thing, because I

don't know.... I guess we've sat here for already several hours, and

we're not making a whole lot of progress. I don't know what we've done.

I can certainly tell you that I was picked up by the Philips people at

the airport hotel. Frankly, that's something we do for people who come

to invest here as well. We may well pick them up at their hotel. We

don't attempt to necessarily have each one travelling, whether they're

coming here or we're going there, and sort of struggling to find their

own way, wherever they're at. I think the meeting with the Philips

people was probably several hours; I don't know where he gets the week

from.

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Premier, there are no

expenses listed in the public accounts for the period we're talking

about. There are no hotel bills, no flight bills and no expenses listed

for that period after the 5th when you left the hotel at the Amsterdam

airport. Could you explain why that would be?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

The night before the meeting with the Philips people was charged

through my office, but after that and before I left Munich.... I think

that's where your four or five days come in, or whatever it is — three

or four days. That was time I had for myself, and I paid my own bills.

That's why you don't see them.

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr.

Premier, the member of your staff who's here, Mrs. Hemming, obviously

reviews your accounts. Isn't that the case? She would go over these

expenses from various tours before submitting or reviewing them with

various people in the administration of government; that would be the

normal pattern. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, that is indeed what

[ Page 11458 ]

happens.

If you go back to the 1988 tour, the unravelling of that tour actually

went on till September. You went in February; unravelling those

accounts actually took till September, when all of the bills were

shunted over to International Business. It was an ongoing disentangling

of the accounts, but the bulk of that is on the record.

It's

1989 I'm interested in, Mr. Premier. I would note that Mrs. Hemming, in

attached notes, wrote the following with respect to that period. We're

talking about just a year ago; it's not a long time ago. This is from

February '89. February 5, '89, shows, according to Mrs. Hemming's

notes, the Holland Hilton hotel and the price. It was written down as

"Personal, " but that was scratched out in her handwriting and then

"Business" was written. Then the note is as follows, Mr. Premier:

"Prior to the Philips tour, company officials picked the Premier up at

the hotel." Maybe your memory is a little clearer now and you could

advise us how it proceeded from there.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Again, I don't know why we're talking about '89 accounts; but yes, I

was picked up, and the meeting at their offices was several hours.

After that I was on my own for about four days, I guess. For the

clarification of the member, the reason, perhaps, that it sometimes

takes time to sort out what the expenses were and to have verification

of them is that if you use Visa or MasterCard, especially if it's a

foreign use, it oftentimes takes a fair bit of time to work its way

back.

MR. WILLIAMS : I understand that, Mr. Premier,

all too well. The February 6 notation of Mrs. Hemming says the

following: "No business costs. Paid by Philips." How do you explain

that, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The

explanation is that if we didn't pay for it, why would we bill the

government for it? If they provided the travel from the hotel to their

plant, we wouldn't bill the government for it.

MR. WILLIAMS :

It then says: "No out-of-pocket expenses." Of course, that's normal.

There are per diems paid, and we can understand that. But then it

carries on. February 7, 1989, it says: "See above" — in Mrs. Hemming's

writing. In other words: "No business costs. Paid by Philips. No

out-of-pocket expenses." February 8 says: "See above." February 9 says:

"See above." February 10 says: "See above." How do you explain that,

Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : There were no business expenses. It was personal, and I made no claims.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No. He's assuming that, I'm sure.

MR. WILLIAMS : The statement is clear, Mr. Premier. It says: "No business costs. Paid by Philips." How do you explain that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mrs. Hemming tells me that this was with reference to travel from the

hotel at the airport to the Philips plant, which is 75 or 80 kilometres

away, I think. After that it was all on my own. I think it was a

two-hour meeting with Philips.

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr.

Chairman, the notes are very clear. There are other notations that

refer to costs prior to the Philips tour. The interesting thing is....

What about this company and what it produces? Mr. Premier, I'm sure

you're aware that they produce the following equipment: CT scanners

that range in price from $700,000 to $1.3 million; fluoroscopy units

that cost three-quarters of a million dollars; radiography units that

cost $200,000 to $300,000; magnetic resonance imagers — we're familiar

with that term — that cost $2 million or more; and ultrasound scanners

that run in the $100,000 and $200,000 range. Did you view that kind of

equipment at their plants, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Chairman, they also produce radios, televisions, electric razors,

telephones, cellular phones — all those sorts of things. Frankly, my

main interest with Philips has been to try and have them establish a

servicing centre, because that's certainly where the greatest

opportunity is for us when it comes to Philips — as they've said

themselves, and I certainly concur. That has been the view of the

Ministry of International Business and myself. Our greatest opportunity

might be to pursue their establishing a service centre here. The

argument has been that an awful lot of people are producing hardware.

The items you refer to are also manufactured by Siemens and others. It

is obviously a competitive business, and I don't think they are

necessarily looking to establish a new plant in North America. Chances

are that for much of that equipment, they need to be fairly close to an

area that has a tremendous demand due to a heavy population. My view

has been that if we could get this company to establish a servicing

centre for the Pacific coast particularly, but perhaps servicing the

Pacific Rim as well, this is where the bulk of the job opportunities

might be for the people of the province.

If I need to

clarify it again, I have met with Philips as recently as a few months

ago in the office in Vancouver. I met with the Philips people about the

middle of last year or September or October last year. So there is some

work being done all the time, and we're making considerable progress.

On the occasion that I saw them in the Netherlands, I saw them for two

hours. They did take me to the Philips plant from the airport, which as

I say, is probably about 80 kilometres, or thereabouts. It's south of

Amsterdam.

MR. WILLIAMS : Let's remember, Mr.

Premier, that you had a hard time remembering this. You had a hard time

remembering Philips. You had a hard

[ Page

11459 ]

time remembering being picked up at the airport.

Let's get that clear. Now it's becoming a little clearer. Mr. Premier,

you have an able staff. I've reviewed the public accounts. They have

quite a job to go through that material, but they do. When they go

through that material, they write "Business" or they write "Personal",

and it gets segregated, as it does with all other members of the

executive council. The personal is paid and the remainder is paid for

by government.

In this case, the notation is not that way.

In this case, the notation is very clear. It says: "No business costs.

Paid by Philips. No out-of-pocket expenses." Then for February 7, it

says: "See above." It says the same thing for February 8, 1989, the

same thing for February 9, the same thing for February 10, and the same

thing for February 11. Finally, then, there's a Canadian per diem of

$45.

MR. SIHOTA : Was he travelling every day to Philips?

MR. WILLIAMS :

That's the question. The notations seem to me, Mr. Premier, to be very

clear. When you were talking earlier, you were talking about weekends

and things like that. Let's see the days we're talking about. February

6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are the working days of the week in February '89 —

Monday to Friday. Philips officials....

MR. REID :

Point of order. I have been here now for two hours. This has been

repetitious and tedious and has nothing to do with the current

estimates of the Premier. Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to call that

member to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I suppose the member does have a point, but administrative responsibilities are covered under this vote.

MR. WILLIAMS : What Mrs. Hemming is saying in the notes in the file is that Philips paid the bills, Mr. Premier. How do you explain that?

[4:45]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

First of all, they've been talking about this and nothing else for the

last couple of hours. Obviously, when you take me back to '88 or '89 —

or whenever it is, and you've just had the benefit of obviously going

through the records to dig out some of these expenses — it does come

back. It's not because I didn't remember; it's because you've been

going through this. Also, I don't have a warped mind like you, so I

don't necessarily think your way.

MR. G. JANSSEN : Order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Somebody says, "Order." Frankly, I detest

it when the member stands up and says: "I read it that somebody else paid

your bills." That's a lie. I'm not going to stand for lies from

the member for Vancouver East. I get offended by that, and so we should. I'll

put my integrity up against his, and the whole bunch of you, any day of the

week.

can understand now why the Leader of the Opposition didn't stand up —

as has been done for years and years in this Legislature — and respond

to the Premier. That's how it's been done since the day this

Legislature first sat. That's historic. The Leader of the Opposition

has been in and out a few times. He sits in his seat. He hasn't mumbled

one word: silent Mike. We hear from the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), who is so good at this sort of thing, trying to

make everybody look like a crook of some sort, and then we hear from

the member for Vancouver East, who is probably second-best among that

group for doing that sort of thing. Yes, I am offended. I will put my

integrity up against the whole bunch of you any day of the week.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Well, Mr. Premier, the notes are very clear. They are in the

handwriting of your staff person. They say: "No business costs. Paid by

Philips. No out-of-pocket expenses." And then for February 7, 8, 9 and

10 it says: "See above" — duplicated, ditto. So there you are.

think it is intriguing: the Philips company produces very similar

products to the Siemens company. It's fair to say that they are

competitors. The Siemens company is the company that got Mr. Dubas in

trouble in terms of paying bills. They are the reason the member for

Central Fraser Valley stepped down. Clearly there were government

guidelines about the paying of bills. Now the....

MR. CRANDALL : It's not over yet.

MR. WILLIAMS : Well, that's true indeed.

The

whole question is around this area of standards of practice, which the

Premier and his colleagues always seem to have trouble with. The

initial response of the Premier on the question of standards with

respect to expenses being paid was: "Well, you know, there are so many

different issues and so many problems that really they are too

complicated to have standards." In the end it's clear that there are

standards, and in the end these bills should always be paid by the

public, because that's the difference between the public and the

private sector.

Your staff go through this on an intricate

basis — I've seen it for the previous year — unravelling these

expenses; fifteen thousand dollars' worth in the previous trip to

Europe; unravelling them carefully, writing down what was personal and

what was not. It was carefully done because they had a big job to do,

and they sorte