1991 Legislative Session: 5th 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, MAY 8, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

11943 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 11945

Oral Questions

Sale of Fantasy Garden World Inc. Mr. Clark –– 11945

Mr. Sihota

Forestry memorandum of understanding. Mr. Vant –– 11946

Sale of Fantasy Garden World Inc. Mr. Sihota –– 11946

Mr. Clark

Points of Privilege

Minister of Environment and conflict-of-interest guidelines.

Ms. Smallwood –– 11947

Mr. Mercier

Former Premier's ownership of Fantasy Garden World Inc.

Ms. A. Hagen –– 11948

Mr. Vander Zalm

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Huberts –– 11949

Mr. Kempf –– 11951

Mr. Harcourt –– 11953

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. S. HAGEN: This afternoon I would like to welcome to the

House members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation board of directors with

whom I'll be meeting later on today I'd like to introduce and read

their names into Hansard : Ken

Novakowski, president, from Langley; Alice McQuade, second

vice-president, from Delta; David Chudnovsky from Surrey; Maureen

McPherson from Cowichan; Linda Watson from North Vancouver; Jan Eastman

from Langley; Cathy McGregor from Kamloops; Bob Taverner from Prince

George; and Carrol Whitwell from Vernon. Would the House please join me

in making them welcome.

I'd also like to welcome a constituent from my riding, Mrs. Doreen

Gibson from Courtenay, and her friend Mrs. Leah Johnson from Victoria.

Would the House please bid them welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: We, the members of the opposition, have spent

most of this morning meeting with representatives of the public sector

unions in British Columbia. It is my honour to represent all the

members on this side in welcoming them today for the talks they had

with us.

I would also like to name the four people who came from my riding, because they came from so far: from School

District 1, the Fernie District Teachers' Association, President Bill

Fite, from the parent advisory committee, Mrs. Nici Blackwell, from the

Cranbrook District Teachers' Association, President Doug Hogg; and from

the parent advisory group, Ms. Maureen Rae.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It is my pleasure to introduce to you His

Excellency Rudolf Schuster, the Ambassador to Canada of the Czech and

Slovak Federative Republic. Would you please give him a warm British

Columbia welcome.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'd like to welcome a group of teachers and

parents from the riding of Vancouver South. I saw some of these

teachers in my office recently on a Saturday morning, and those two

people were Don Reader and Lisa Duprey. With them, of course, are Don

Briard, Ken Denike and Sheila Pither.

As you'll notice, we have in the gallery today students from Magee

Secondary School. Some 90 of them are here today. About half the class

is up here now, and the other half will come in in a few minutes.

These students get involved in a parliamentary session of their own

in their school. They have ministers for all sections of the Crown, a

Premier and a Leader of the Opposition. They go through the whole

parliamentary process, which I think is a wonderful lesson for them in

how democracy operates. With that, I wish you would join me in

welcoming all these students, teachers and parents.

MR. GABELMANN: In the gallery this afternoon are two

visitors, both now from the greater Victoria area and both longtime

friends of mine. I don't think they know each other, but one is Betty

Donaldson and the other is Kay Ferraro. I would ask the House to make

them welcome.

MR. DUECK: Together with the second member for Central Fraser

Valley, I would like to recognize Vicki Robinson, president of the

Abbotsford District Teachers' Association. Joining her today is Cathy

Goodfellow, a co-chairperson of the Matsqui-Abbotsford committee on

education. Would the House please make them welcome.

MRS. BOONE: In the public gallery today is someone who helps

keep me in line in my constituency, and certainly helps me and many

people in Prince George a great deal: my constituency assistant, Sheryl

Kosymiak. Would the House please give her greetings.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery there are four

legislative interns who are helping our caucus. We've been immensely

impressed with their expertise, knowledge and energy, and we're so

pleased that they're helping us this session. I would like to introduce

them. They are Bryar Smith, Jessica Mathers, Julie Walchli and

Jaqueline Versaevel. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. JONES: I see in the gallery today the Social Credit

candidate for the constituency of Burnaby North. Would the House please

welcome Mrs. Margaret Woods.

MRS. McCARTHY: I want to join with the member opposite in

welcoming Mrs. Margaret Woods, as I was going to do, and to say that

she is sitting in the gallery with one of the outstanding directors of

the Vancouver–Little Mountain constituency, Mrs. Pamela King. I ask the

House to welcome them both.

MR. PETERSON: Seated in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, is a good

friend and a very hard and strong community worker, Pastor Alex Warneke

from the Northwest Langley Baptist Church. Would the House please join

me in giving him a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. RABBITT: On behalf of the government and the

Ministry of Labour, we wish to acknowledge and welcome representatives

of several unions in the health industry: Carmela Allevato, the

secretary and business manager of the Hospital Employees' Union,

Geraldine McGuire, president of CUPE; Peter Cameron, executive director

of the Health Sciences Association; and Debra McPherson, president of

the B.C. Nurses' Union.

From my constituency, I have some very good friends and neighbours

who joined us for the opening yesterday and are here today to witness

question period: George and Josephine Mathieu of the beautiful Nicola

Valley. Would you please give them a warm welcome.

[ Page 11944 ]

HON. MR. MERCIER: I would be remiss if I did not recognize and welcome

to the Legislature my assistant for the past few years, Brenda Budd, who has

been a very helpful person to me. Would you please make her welcome.

[2:15]

MR. SERWA: This afternoon I would like to introduce to the House Monica

Rainey, who is here in Victoria representing the Glenrosa Elementary School

parents' association. I would also like to acknowledge DeLee Cowan, another

constituent from Kelowna, who led a delegation of teachers and public employees

that I met with earlier this morning.

MR. CLARK: Yesterday my seatmate, colleague and friend — the first member

for Vancouver East — re-signed his seat. I assure you that, unlike the former

Minister of Finance, this was voluntary on his part. Mr. Speaker, with your

indulgence, I would personally like to pay tribute to him today.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, hon. members. It's tradition that

we extend people the courtesy of silence during the time of honouring

members who are no longer serving with us, and I would ask that we

continue in that way

MR. CLARK: The main reason that I occupy this seat in this chamber today

is because of Bob Williams.

He may live to regret that; I certainly hope that members opposite live to

regret that.

Bob Williams is an exceptional British Columbian who has served this province

with distinction. As a cabinet minister in the Barrett government, he had a

tremendous impact on public policy. As a minister responsible for recreation,

he doubled the acreage preserved as parkland. He was and is a genuine entrepreneur.

He is a successful businessman, but in the public sector he was an entrepreneur

as well.

In the great tradition of western Canada, he believed in province-building

— in the tradition of Tommy Douglas, Allan Blakeney, Peter Lougheed and, yes,

even W.A.C. Bennett. The province can be a powerful force for economic development.

Most of all, I will miss his passion in this chamber.

Too often, politics in the 1990s is sanitized and homogenized, and I

don't think those words apply to the former first member for Vancouver

East.

Bob had deep convictions, and expressed them forcefully and

articulately. We certainly could do with more of his kind. I know,

however, this is not a eulogy, and he will continue to play a role in

building British Columbia, but outside this chamber.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I really hadn't planned on making any remarks

today regarding the member for Vancouver East, because for most of what I have

to say about the member, I'd rather he were here in the House.

But I find it a little bit ludicrous that the other member would

stand up and heap praise on that member. When you look at the record of

his performance in this House.... It's not as though the member has

departed this earth, and we're speaking of someone who has gone on to

better things. If he has gone on to better things, it's because the

party opposite is glad that he is no longer occupying the seat opposite.

I know that I speak for many members in this House when I can

honestly say that, yes, we will miss the debating skills of the member

for Vancouver East. He was an excellent debater. He always did his

homework; he came into this House prepared. He wasn't always concerned

whether what he said was the truth, and he used to hide behind that

sometimes in this House. So it is with mixed emotions that I say we

will miss the member for Vancouver East, because it's the second time

he has departed voluntarily from this House. I think people should

remember that.

When the member opposite says he was an entrepreneur, I guess he

probably was. Maybe we should examine his record as an entrepreneur and

the kickstart he got in 1975 that made him an entrepreneur.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would say the same if he were sitting in

this House, Mr. Speaker. I have no qualms about saying some of these

things about the member for Vancouver East, because I remember some of

things that he said and that he hid behind the immunity of this chamber

— something that I would refuse ever to do, and most of us on this side

I'm sure would.

But I wish him well in his future endeavours. I have no doubt that

he will surface one day soon. I'll leave it at that, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to respond to the comments that have been

made by the first member for Vancouver East about the departed member for Vancouver

East. I came to this House at the same time as Bob Williams, and I want to pay

tribute to him today as man who came to this House, as all members have, to

serve the province of British Columbia in the very best way he knew how.

Today is a very good day: the beginning of another session, with the throne

speech yesterday. It's a good time to remember people like Bob Williams and

other people on the opposition side, as well as on the government side of the

House, who give up very many hours, days, months and years of the their personal

life to serve. We don't talk about that very much, but it is a sacrifice

that is made by each and every one who serves in this House, no matter which

side of the House they serve.

I think that we can remember Bob Williams for a tremendous amount of

very aggressive debate in this House. But we also must remember that

this is the lace that aggressive and enthusiastic debate should make

place, and also give thanks for the fact that we ave that freedom of

speech in this parliament.

[ Page

11945 ]

I think the creativity of Bob Williams in the time that he served in

the House as a member of the government was in many ways a great

service to our province. I also want to say that as a member of the

opposition, he kept the government side on its toes. Although this may

seem a very interesting person to be giving an accolade to the former

member for Vancouver East, I think that since we both came as green as

grass to this chamber in 1966, we have both learned a great deal. I

like to think that — in the last session particularly — Bob Williams

and I have learned that there has been a great conviviality of

friendship on both sides of the House that we treasure. I'm sure he

will never forget it, and I know that I never will. I do wish him very

well in the years to come.

MR. ROSE: I'll be very brief. I'd like to thank the hon. lady

from Little Mountain for her gracious remarks towards an old adversary

by the name of Bob Williams. We on this side of the House really

appreciate that at least some members feel that although we have tough

debates and tough-minded debates in here, those don't carry over into

our personal reflections on people.

The hon. House Leader suggested that he wasn't really prepared for today, and I think he proved it.

Bob Williams was a tough-minded debater, and when he was here,

everybody listened. This House and the people of British Columbia are

going to miss him.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we are joined on the floor today

by Mr. Lo Chun Yin, also known as Allan Roger, who was the senior

legislative draftsman for the province of British Columbia for many

years and is now the senior assistant law draftsman for the Crown

Colony of Hong Kong. He is a long-term member there, and we wish him

well in his visit to British Columbia.

Hon. Mrs. Gran tabled the fifty-first annual report of the Pension (Municipal) Act.

Oral Questions

SALE OF FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier — a

very simple question. Who directed Mr. David Emerson, the senior public

official in the government, to investigate aspects of the Fantasy

Gardens sale?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The short answer to that question would be that, under direction of cabinet, Mr Emerson sought out certain information.

MR. CLARK: Was that the full cabinet or a committee of cabinet?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm at a loss to be more precise in

answering that particular question. If it wasn't the full cabinet, it

was a committee, but I can't be specific. I believe it was the entire

cabinet.

MR. CLARK: Does the Premier consider it appropriate for the deputy minister in the Premier's office to undertake such an investigation?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It was a fact-finding mission.

MR. CLARK: Can the Premier inform the House why Mr. Emerson

was directed to investigate the sale of Fantasy Gardens, what facts

were asked to be looked into and whether those were reported?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It was for the purpose of clarification.

MR. SIHOTA: In response to the first question asked by my

colleague, the Premier said that Mr. Emerson was asked to look up

certain information. Can the Premier confirm that Mr. Emerson was asked

to inform cabinet to the fullest extent possible of the particulars

relating to the Fantasy Gardens sale?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: What was the question?

MR. SIHOTA: Again, if the Premier didn't hear, could she

confirm that Mr. Emerson was asked to inform cabinet to the fullest

extent possible about the particulars of the Fantasy Gardens sale?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, no.

MR. SIHOTA: Did Mr. Emerson advise the government as to the nature of the vendor financing as it related to Fantasy Gardens?

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew continues.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I hear the Premier saying she doesn't remember.

[2:30]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I didn't say that at all.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sorry, maybe I didn't hear the Premier. I'll

ask the Premier to answer then. Did Mr. Emerson advise cabinet of the

nature of the vendor financing in relation to Fantasy Gardens?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the information given to cabinet is not for discussion in this chamber.

MR. SIHOTA: I note that yesterday the Premier said in this

House that she had nothing to hide — that the government had nothing to

hide — about these types of matters. My question to the Premier, or the

acting Premier, is this: when were you advised... ? Indeed, were you

advised as to the nature of the ownership structure of Fantasy Gardens

prior to its sale?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't know whether this question is being put to me personally or as Premier.

[ Page 11946 ]

I'm rather at a loss to properly respond. But I guess I can answer

in this way: I don't recall the date on the newspaper which provided me

with that information.

MR. SIHOTA: The acting Premier was then Deputy Premier. I'm

not asking about the dates with respect to the newspaper stories;

rather, I'm asking about the discussion and the information that Mr.

Emerson forwarded to you as Deputy Premier in your capacity as a

cabinet member. In that regard, were you provided with information as

to the nature of the ownership structure of Fantasy Gardens prior to

its sale?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIHOTA: I have in my possession a letter dated May 7, 1991, in which Mr. Emerson, through his counsel, advises:

"At the direction of cabinet, our client reviewed

documents relating to the sale of Fantasy Gardens in order to ascertain

and inform the members of cabinet to the fullest intent possible of the

facts regarding the transaction, including in particular the nature of

the vendor financing, the nature of the ownership structure to the

sale, and the reasonableness of the sale price of the property and the

business."

Does the acting Premier have any reason to deny the facts laid out in this letter?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'd like to clarify that there is no such thing as an acting Premier, and I have no knowledge of the letter.

MR. SIHOTA: I will be happy to table the letter at this time,

Mr. Speaker, if I can give it to one of the Clerks. But let me put this

question again to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You mustn't table the letter

first. Hold onto the letter until you have leave. You may wish to do

it, but I must ask leave of the House.

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA: Does the Premier deny the fact that cabinet was

given information with respect to the nature of the vendor financing,

the ownership structure prior to the sale and the reasonableness of the

sale price? As a cabinet member, were you or were you not provided with

those facts by Mr. Emerson?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Possibly the member opposite is not aware

of the oath of confidentiality that we swear as members of cabinet. I

would suggest that his question is out of order.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. Your current deputy minister

has released a letter to the media detailing his involvement in the sale of

Fantasy Gardens at the direction of cabinet. Have you discussed this matter

with your deputy minister? I'll remind you that on numerous occasions you

have cleared Mr. Emerson of any wrongdoing, because he was acting on the instructions

of cabinet. We now have a letter which details exactly — in Mr. Emerson's

words — what he did and what those instructions were from cabinet. We're

asking you to confirm that what Mr. Emerson says is the case.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As I said earlier, I have not seen this letter.

MR. SIHOTA: Apart from the letter, will the Premier confirm

that there were dozens of discussions in cabinet surrounding the

Fantasy Gardens matter prior to October 1990?

FORESTRY MEMORANDUM

OF UNDERSTANDING

MR. VANT: My question is to the Minister of Forests. In view

of the very major problems now being faced by our forest industry —

particularly by the interior softwood lumber manufacturers — what steps

is the Minister of Forests taking to alleviate the tremendous damage

being imposed by the MOU?

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests can perhaps keep the answer brief.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As the member will know, for some time

I've been concerned about the memorandum of understanding with the

United States and the hardships it is imposing on this administration

and the industry. Suffice it to say we are pushing that matter as hard

as we can with the federal government. I have spoken with the Deputy

Prime Minister as late as this morning. My deputy minister will be in

Ottawa tomorrow to further discussions. Beyond that, because of other

political considerations at the federal and American levels, I would

rather not speak any more of it, because every word that we say, Mr.

Member, is reported to Washington and may distort what we are indeed

endeavouring to do with this MOU.

SALE OF FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier has indicated that Mr. Emerson provided certain information to cabinet. I'm not asking about cabinet discussions.

Does the Premier deny that Mr. Emerson provided to cabinet

information relating to the nature of the vendor financing around

Fantasy Gardens, the reasonableness of the sale price and the nature of

the ownership structure? Mr. Emerson says, as a fact, he provided that

information to cabinet. Do you deny that?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by the line of

questioning. I have attempted in a number of ways to explain that

discussions at cabinet are not going to be brought to these chambers. I

find it strange in the extreme that the public statements made by the

member for Vancouver East as well as the questioner have been quoted

extensively in the local

[ Page

11947 ]

papers. It would suggest to everybody and sundry that they have all of this information.

I can tell you now — and I don't know how I can make it any clearer

— that we will not discuss any part of our cabinet function in this

room.

MR. SIHOTA: When the Premier was not so troubled yesterday,

she said she had nothing to hide. Today she's troubled, and she's

trying to stonewall and hide.

Were instructions given to Mr. Emerson to secure details around

Fantasy Gardens? In particular, were instructions given to him to

secure details around vendor financing, the price and the ownership

structure?

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. We're not asking you

to confirm what happened in cabinet. The question is what cabinet's

instructions to Mr. Emerson were, not what was reported back or what

you discussed about it, not how you arrived at it. Mr. Emerson has put

out a version of those events. We're asking you to clarify the record.

The people have a right to know. They have a right to get to the bottom

of the Fantasy Gardens scandal. You have said you have nothing to hide.

Mr. Emerson has put the details into the public domain, and we're

asking you to confirm or deny them.

MR. SIHOTA: Let's go back a bit, then. Will the Premier

confirm that Mr. Emerson was acting at the direction of cabinet to

secure information as it related to the sale of Fantasy Gardens?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has to answer the question. Let me ask....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, don't answer the question, and your words

yesterday that you have nothing to hide ring hollow. Could you advise

the House, then — I'm not asking about the content of the discussions —

whether cabinet discussed on several occasions prior to October 1990

the details of the Fantasy Gardens sale?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the date that has been

mentioned, October, doesn't have any significance in my mind. The

significance of all this questioning, in my mind, is an attempt by

members of the opposition to somehow require me to break the oath that

I swore when I went into cabinet, and I will not do that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Having been given

notice of the matter, the Chair would appreciate it and it would assist

the Chair if we could have silence during this portion of today's

proceedings, because it's important that the Chair be able to clearly

hear everything that is said.

Point of Privilege

MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my rising on this

occasion is threefold: one, to tender material in support of a motion

of privilege; two, to outline why, in my view, these materials

establish a prima facie case that the Minister of Environment

demonstrated a contempt for the rights and privileges of members of

this assembly; and three, to indicate that I am prepared to tender a

motion for your consideration should you find that a prima facie case

has been made.

On July 26, 1990, the Minister of Environment stood in this assembly

and supported the government's conflict-of-interest bill, Bill 66. Hansard , at pages 11583 and 11584, records his contribution to the assembly's debate in principle at second reading.

This is part of what he said on that occasion: "This bill respects

the individual property rights and privacy of individuals who serve,

while still providing for penalties in cases where there has been a

violation of matters considered to be the public trust." He concluded

his remarks with the unequivocal declaration: "So I think this bill

will move a long way in the direction that the public wants us to move

and still allow us the privacy rights. I support this bill."

As everyone is aware, Bill 66, with certain amendments, was passed by this assembly and was proclaimed in force late last year.

Under cover of a letter dated December 21, 1990, the minister, like

all other members of this assembly, received from the acting

conflict-of-interest commissioner a copy of the act, copies of the

regulations that had been made pursuant to that act, four financial

disclosure forms requiring completion and an overview guide prepared by

the commissioner for the assistance of members. In this covering letter

the acting commissioner spelled out when those disclosure forms had to

be filed. The 60-day period referred to in

section 32(2) expired on

February 19, 1991.

[2:45]

Later in that same letter the acting commissioner added these words:

"Prior to filing your statement, I will be available to be of

assistance to you should the need arise."

Mr. Speaker,

section 32(2) is very clear and admits no exceptions

and says: "Members who are in office when this act comes into force

shall file the disclosure statement required by

section 12 within 60

days after this Act comes into force...."

By a letter dated January 24, 1991, the acting commissioner updated

all members with respect to current matters pertaining to the Members'

Conflict of Interest Act. This letter also contained a second warning

to members of this assembly. The letter reads: "The forms that I sent

to you with my letter of December 21, 1990, are to be completed and

returned to me at this office by February 19."

Once again, the acting commissioner offered help to any member who, for whatever reason, might be

[ Page 11948 ]

struggling with the disclosure requirements. The

letter says this: "Some members have completed and filed their forms.

Some have made contact with me seeking information and guidance. If you

have any questions or believe I can assist, please call me."

On Friday, February 15, 1991, the minister addressed a letter to the

acting commissioner and subsequently delivered a copy of that letter,

to all members of the assembly. The minister's letter is striking for

the following reasons: (1) the minister openly and arrogantly refused

to obey the financial reporting requirements that this assembly had

imposed on all sitting members; (2) the minister thought it appropriate

to decide for himself that he was not, and would not be, in any

conflict of interest; (3) the minister suggested that the disclosure

requirements were unfair and should be revised by this Legislature;

(4) the minister said nothing that would suggest that he took advantage of

the acting commissioner's repeated invitation to discuss his concerns;

and (5) the minister totally ignored the only honourable course left

for a member in such circumstances. If he was not prepared to obey the

law and honour his oath of office, he could have, and should have,

resigned.

As he was required by the legislation, the acting commissioner

reported to the Clerk of this assembly on March 21, 1991. He filed 68

public disclosure statements that day. Except for the Minister of

Environment, every member of this assembly obeyed the law. A number of

those members, for a variety of reasons, understood that they would not

be returning to this assembly. Yet they understood their duty and saw

to it.

It was not until April 15, 1991, when the acting commissioner

delivered a second report to the Clerk of this assembly, that we

learned that the minister had changed his mind. This is therefore the

first opportunity I have had to raise this matter.

Why did the minister change his mind? Not because it was the right

and proper thing to do — not at all. It was because the new Premier

wanted the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to join her cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. First of all, I would ask the members to restrain themselves from interrupting.

I would remind the member that when a matter of privilege is being

brought to the House, the matter must be stated as succinctly and

briefly as possible, merely stating the facts. A debate around those

facts will only ensue if in fact the Chair finds a prima facie case.

Now is not the time to argue the case; now is merely the time to

present the facts. I would ask members to bear that in mind and avoid

anything other than stating facts so that the Chair can make a

decision, without the editorial comment.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I suggest that the minister's conduct constitutes

a flagrant and deliberate disregard for the authority and dignity of this assembly.

It is, Mr. Speaker, contempt. As well, his conduct falls far short of the highest

standards of personal and public conduct which the interim Premier says she

expects from all members of cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, I would tender my materials for your consideration and would gratefully wait for your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has the motion?

MS. SMALLWOOD: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: If you would just retain the motion with you and table the information, the Chair would proceed with it after that matter.

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a

few moments to assist in your consideration of this matter. The times

referred to.... The House should be aware that I found some 17

deficiencies in the regulations that would only become evident with

people who own something. I later reviewed those deficiencies with

Commissioner Hughes. Mr. Hughes was quite busy during this intervening

period working on other things; I think the House might remember that.

I did meet with the commissioner, and I did file the required forms. I

apologize now for the delay in filing same, and I hope you'll take

those matters into consideration.

Point of Privilege

FORMER PREMIER'S OWNERSHIP OF

FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising on this

second occasion is again threefold: to tender material in support of a

motion of privilege; to outline why in my view these materials

establish a prima facie case that the first member for Richmond (Mr.

Vander Zalm) displayed a contempt for the rights and privileges of

members of this assembly; and to indicate that I am prepared to tender

a motion for your consideration should you find a prima facie case has

been made out.

Mr. Speaker, the issue I am raising today relates to the conduct of

the first member for Richmond when he rose in this assembly on March

11, 1991. I wish to make clear that it does not relate to any legal

issues of either a criminal or civil nature that may be currently the

subject of any judicial or quasi-judicial review.

Let me now come to the issue. There appears to have been a

deliberate attempt by that member to suppress information concerning a

reorganization of the shares of Fantasy Gardens, thus obstructing and

impeding your parliamentary duty as Speaker in relation to the motion

of privilege I made that day. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I would

refer you to the

section beginning at page 192 of Mr. Maingot's

treatise, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, a copy of which rests in

the Clerk's chambers.

As you are already aware, the first member for Richmond, while still

Premier, published an open letter to the people of the province on

October 5, 1990. In that letter he said the purpose was "to clear up,

once and for all, the facts about the Fantasy Gardens." In that letter

the first member for Richmond made no refer-

[ Page

11949 ]

ence of any kind to the April 1989 reorganization of the shareholdings of Fantasy Gardens.

On March 11, when the first member for Richmond stood in this assembly "to

explain a little bit about how it might have been that I" — referring to

the member — "could have been mistaken about the shares" in Fantasy

Gardens, he again made no mention whatsoever of that April 1989 share reorganization.

Instead, he repeated what he had said in the letter of October 5: that he simply

had been mistaken about what had happened to his shareholdings when he became

Premier in 1986.

Let me come to new information as a result of documents and

transcripts that became publicly avail able for the first time last

week. It was very clear from those documents that the first member for

Richmond was thoroughly briefed immediately to and for the purpose of

preparing his letter of October 5. He was cautioned about the need for

a complete and unequivocal explanation of his shareholdings.

Mr. Speaker, I will describe very briefly what emerges from this material,

and I will be tabling it with you in detail. The member for Richmond was re

minded by his lawyer, Michael Kendler, that in 1986 Mr. Kendler had advised

against any share transfer and received no instructions to effect a share transfer.

This was confirmed by a letter from Mr. Kendler to the member on

September 28, 1990. Mr. Kendler's explanation was that he "wanted to be

sure that before the member gave a public explanation, the member had

my recollection and my file notes about what had been discussed in

1986."

On October 5, 1990, the day the letter was actually released, the accountant

for Fantasy Gardens, John Vegt, prepared a two-page memorandum for the first

member for Richmond. He and the member then met to discuss both the events of

1986 and the 1989 reorganization of shares. In that memorandum the April 1989

reorganization was outlined and detailed. It was designed, said Mr. Vegt, "to

crystallize $400,000 of capital gains" for the member and his wife.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, both the deputy minister of the Premier, David Emerson,

and the Premier's principal secretary, Jerry Lampert, were asked by the

first member for Richmond to review his October 1990 letter before it was made

public. Both did. Emerson — and I'm quoting from the transcript — "found

some weakness in the letter when it came to the question of ownership of Fantasy

Gardens" and "found it hard to explain the discrepancies in the letter

on that issue."

However, Mr. Emerson recalls that the only changes made to the letter were "largely cosmetic."

When the first member for Richmond stood in this assembly just two

months ago, all of this must have been within his memory, yet it

appears that he chose to withhold this important and relevant

information from you. He omitted to tell you the whole truth as he knew

it. Mr. Speaker, such conduct offends the dignity of this chamber, and

it deprives you of important facts crucial to your coming to a just

decision. You, sir, must be able to rely on the complete candour of

those who speak and seek your guidance.

That, I submit, is the nature of the trust that members of this assembly have

placed in the office. If we in this assembly deny the need to speak all of the

truth, we re not only committing a grave contempt of the privileges that we

enjoy in this assembly, we endanger he democratic institution itself.

I file with you, sir, the documents on which I have based my

comments today. I have a motion for your consideration, and I look

forward to your ruling on his matter.

MR. SPEAKER: It's appropriate. I was in error earlier. It's appropriate to file the motion and the information at the same time.

MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm not prepared now to respond to this

motion. It comes as a surprise. I've not been provided with the

material in advance, and I would therefore ask the opportunity to

consider this motion and the material that she is submitting to support

it, and for the opportunity to respond, preferably early next week,

since I will be attending to family matters in the next several days.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Such agreement is normal

in situations like this, if that's agreeable to the House. It's also

incumbent upon the speaker to remind members that when matters of

privilege are brought forward, the Speaker will take hose matters under

consideration and bring back a decision at the earliest possible

occasion.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

MR. HUBERTS: It's with great pleasure that I rise in he House

today and present the following motion, seconded by my colleague for

Omineca, on behalf of he people of British Columbia and the government

of our province: "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and royal subjects,

the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in session assembled, beg

leave to thank His Honour for the gracious speech which His Honour

addressed to us at the opening of the present session."

Mr. Speaker, we've assembled today to once again conduct the

people's business, and we've assembled at time when governments are

called upon by citizens everywhere to show leadership, fiscal

responsibility and a committed, caring response to the needs which ace

families, women and men in our society.

[3:00]

As British Columbians, we have been truly blessed n our resources,

our people and the natural heritage which we enjoy. But with blessings

such as these come responsibilities — responsibilities which this

government has taken seriously and which we heard outlined n the Speech

from the Throne read in this chamber Yesterday.

As I listened to that throne speech, I was struck by he many new and

ongoing initiatives this government has committed to the betterment of

our province. As a caring and responsible government, we have tackled

many problems and made great advances in meeting

[ Page 11950 ]

the needs of the citizens of this province. No

govern ment anywhere has gone to the extent that this government has in

order to consult and to act upon the advice the citizens have given.

We have had a Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. We have had the

Environment 2000 planning process, the Parks Plan '90 process, the Forest

Resources Commission, the Johnstone Strait killer whale committee, the Municipal

Solid Waste Management Task Force and the Special Waste Advisory Committee.

Unlike the NDP, who use consultation and commit tees and who often

use them to avoid making tough decisions, we in the Social Credit

government have listened to the people and have responded with positive

initiatives and timely decisions. We're not afraid to make tough

decisions. That's what this government is elected to do: face the

issues and show leadership.

We — not the members of the opposition — have reversed the province's

historic position on native land claims. They had every opportunity to do that

between 1972 and 1975. We are opting to negotiate and to settle this longstanding

issue fairly, equitably and with finality. We are doing this by participating

in honest, hard-nosed negotiations that will result in timely and affordable

agreements that all parties can accept.

It is our Social Credit government that has acted to reform and to

improve the education, health care and justice systems. It is our

Social Credit government that was the first to appoint a minister

responsible for women's programs and families. Our government — I not

the NDP — produced pay equity programs for the public sector and a B.C.

Retirement Savings Plan Act, and we will soon be implementing a

comprehensive child care strategy. These are actions, not just words

and empty promises.

I respect the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in our

parliamentary system, but I must say with all candour that I have

little respect for those who believe that partisan politics come before

the people's best interests. Integrity and people's trust are earned;

they're not taken from a party platform. None of us has a monopoly on

truth, and no one party has a monopoly on virtue. Let it never be said

that the members opposite are the only ones who care for the people of

this province, for the single mother trying to provide for her family

or for the abused spouse in need of shelter and a person to talk to. We

care and I care, and I was instrumental in being part of building and

assisting with the Transition House in Victoria.

Let it never be said that we don't care about the children in the province

of British Columbia and do not make every effort to give them the finest education

I that money can buy.

This government also has a tremendous care and feeling for the safe

environment of this society so that we may have an even better society.

It is our government that has replaced words with action and rhetoric

with programs to assist those in need.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to examine the policies of the only NDP

government currently in power in the country and see how the socialists

measure up to people's trust. It's always interesting to sit in the

House and to have them come to us: we're the bad guys, and hey're the

good guys; they would do it so wonderfully, and they have such talent

and trustworthiness. We just need to look at Ontario today.

During their short few months in office, we have seen eight major

scandals in Ontario, including two ministers who have been fired and

forced to resign. I was talking to my brother-in-law on the phone a

couple of days ago, and it looks like a couple more may be on their way

out. The NDP in this province would say: "But that's in Ontario." When

I was Minister of Parks, I coined a phrase: "A park is a park." I'll

coin a phrase today: "A socialist is a socialist, whether he's in B.C.,

Ontario or Europe."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We see in Ontario that 26 of 76 promises made by he NDP during the

election campaign have been broken in a period of four months. I think

that's something the people of British Columbia will want to remember

when we get on the election trail. I hope hey remember that on the day

we come to an election. That's despite increases which put Ontario

deeper in debt in one year than the total direct government debt

accumulated in British Columbia since Confederation. Can you believe

it? So much for the model of trust the NDP would have the people of the

province admire and follow.

My hon. colleague wishes to interrupt me and introduce a class from his area. Would that be possible?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member seeks leave to make an introduction.

MR. HUBERTS: That is correct. As I said, we care or the children in British Columbia. Go ahead.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like to thank my colleague or his

indulgence. I ask the House to welcome the grade 8 class from Chandler

Park Middle School in Smithers. The students are under the direction of

their teacher, Mrs. Maureen Stuart, aided by a colleague and several

parents. Would the House make them welcome, please.

MR. HUBERTS: Let me also welcome those students, since I was minister

of state in that area in the last. It's good to see you here.

Mr. Speaker, what the people of this province want, what they

deserve, is a government that is fiscally responsible and able to

manage the people's business in a responsible and caring manner. On

this, no government in Canada has even come close to what as been

accomplished in British Columbia. Fiscal responsibility means a system

that is financially solvent. It means not leaving a legacy of

ever-increasing debt to our children and grandchildren that will

ultimately mean unbearable taxes and a reduction in social services.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think we can brag a little about our

government's fiscal responsibility. It's a matter of public record, as

reflected in the facts outlined in the

[ Page

11951 ]

Dominion Bond Rating Service's report of February

25. It showed that B.C. spends more of its budget on education at all

levels than any other province. It showed B.C.'s education expenditures

rising over the last four years, from 23 percent of the budget to 27.4

percent, while Ontario's have consistently dropped to just 19.8 percent.

How about the Lehman Bros. report, which found that B.C. spends far

more on social programs as a percentage of total spending than any

other province in Canada? We spend 70 percent on social programs, while

the closest province in terms of spending accounts for only 62 percent

— all of this while providing responsible management of the province's

affairs.

Where are the integrity and public trust in the NDP policies being

put forward by their government in Ontario? A government that has sold

out to future generations to finance its massive spending increases

today. A $10 billion deficit in one year. Where is the integrity in

their policies? A government that is proud to double its debt in just

four years. A government that could have reduced its current debt to $2

billion from nearly $10 billion if it had only maintained its revenue

projections while keeping spending increases to the rate of inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you why our government is succeeding while

the NDP will fail: fiscal integrity and sound management, not spending

beyond our means. It's so basic that every one of us can learn that

little lesson at home in our own families. Not spending beyond our

means. Not doing what the NDP is doing or what our members opposite

would be doing if they were in power — increasing expenditures at three

times the inflation rate while revenues are projected to shrink.

The Social Credit government has been able to afford substantial

increases for education, health care, social services and the

environment without raising taxes for two years. We have made tough

choices, and we've shown strong leadership. This throne speech

continues to put forward to the people of this province the sound

management policies of the government, policies which meet public needs

while protecting the taxpayer's ability to pay.

While sound fiscal management is key to the ability of government to

deliver on social programs, it is important not to forget the quality

of life which British Columbians have come to enjoy and expect. I've

already mentioned some of the numerous initiatives and programs which

our government has acted upon to preserve the quality of life that we

enjoy in this great province: initiatives to ensure a healthy economy

and a healthy environment; initiatives to ensure that environmental

needs are balanced with the needs of families and communities which

rely upon the resources of the land; programs which respect the beauty

of our natural heritage and make it accessible to people everywhere

while preserving the integrity of our wilderness areas, initiatives

which show a commitment to the value of family life — something dear to

me and certainly very dear to my constituents.

The family truly is the centre of our society, a fact which I was pleased to

hear affirmed in the Speech from the Throne. I was also pleased to hear of our

government's intention to develop a comprehensive child care program and

to work in partnership with business and community leaders to provide quality

child care services. Women, children, seniors and families — the very fabric

of our province — are all recognized and all listened to, with programs that

respond to their needs. These are the policies of a caring government. These

are the policies of a Social Credit government.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but I'd like to give an opportunity to

my colleague to continue. Before I do, let me say that I'm proud to be

a member of this government, a government made up of human beings

making human decisions and, yes, from time to time human errors. But we

are not afraid of tough decisions or consultation. We consult to

provide better government, not to avoid decision-making. We respect the

taxpayers' ability to pay while providing social services to the people

of this province which are the envy of others across the country. We

are committed to prudent financial management and a caring,

compassionate society.

[3:15]

These are the hallmarks of a government that has earned the people's

trust time after time. I am confident that our programs and our

policies will continue to earn that trust and that we will be elected

as the government of the province for many years to come.

On a final note, it might also be appropriate at the beginning of

this fifth session of the thirty-fourth parliament to encourage each of

us to work together and to lift ourselves out of this room where

sometimes politics clouds our thinking, where sometimes rhetoric and

scoring political points are so important to us. And maybe it would be

wise at this time for us to look at what is happening internationally

and to think about thousands of people dying in Bangladesh, the Kurdish

refugees, and maybe those having difficult times in the Horn of Africa

because of famines — and even closer to home, to think about Mr. and

Mrs. Dunahee as they are wondering where Michael is. When we sit here,

maybe sometimes we should think a little bit more of serving the people

and working together so that we will build a better tomorrow in all

nations, in all of a united Canada, and in British Columbia.

MR. KEMPF: It feels very good to stand once again in this

House and speak on behalf of those whom I represent in this province.

And it gives me a great deal of pleasure, after having done so for the

first time in this chamber in my inaugural speech here some 15 years

ago, to once again stand and very proudly second His Honour's speech —

and to do so from a point one seat away from where I then sat in this

chamber and one seat closer to the back door. Perhaps there's a hidden

message in that. We'll find out some day.

I wish to begin by quoting Woody Allen from his speech to the

graduates: "More than at any other time in history, mankind faces a

crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other

to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose

correctly."

[ Page 11952 ]

British Columbians today are on the horns of a dilemma. They are

surely at a crossroads — or will be in a very few weeks when they once

again go to the polls to elect a new government. And yes, I pray,

particularly on behalf of northerners, most of whom depend for their

very livelihoods on an individual enterprise system, that they have the

wisdom to choose correctly. There is no doubt that the present

government has been plagued with personal problems — some small, some

larger — all of which have been amply portrayed on our television sets

each evening or in our newspapers each morning. And I harbour no malice

toward the media for that. It's their job, after all; they are the

watchdog. There is no doubt that because we in this administration are

human beings and because of our second-to-none news-reporting system,

we have been seen from time to time to stub our toe. But what makes the

official opposition believe that they would be any different or that

they would be immune? What has given them the licence to sit back, say

nothing and stand for very little, allowing the hard-working news media

to do their work while they themselves led the people of this province

to believe they stand for very little? That's the message out there, by

those who would aspire to be the next government in British Columbia.

They've told the people of British Columbia little, allowing the media

to do their job. Hiding out for the last four and a half years — hoping

that no one would notice their absence and hoping no one would notice

what's happening in other jurisdictions all over the world, and now

even here in our own country, where administrations of a like

philosophy have failed. It certainly adds meaning to the old saying:

"No one shoots at a dead duck." No one has shot at the official

opposition lately, and it's absolutely no wonder. Yes, we've made

mistakes. Let us all be large enough to admit that and accept it. But

some very good things were done also, and our economy shows that. Our

economy is second only to that of our neighbours in Alberta, in all of

Canada. That is what is important to British Columbians, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to read from His Honour's speech. I think it's worth

repeating.

"People in all parts of, the country have come to the realization

that the growth of government debt at all levels in Canada has reached crisis

proportions. Uncorrected, the burden of this growing debt inhibits the ability

of governments to deliver universal social pro grams to the national standards

which have become a hallmark of our Canadian life. Changes to eliminate this

problem are pressing and urgent, but solutions a will require sacrifices."

"The government of British Columbia has a long standing

commitment to responsible management of provincial affairs."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, this throne speech is the most explicit, straightforward, clear

and meaningful throne speech I've heard in this House — and I've heard

many in the 15-plus years I've been here. It's a throne speech for British

Columbians: their communities, their families, a the women, the children and,

yes, the wage-earners of this province. It's a throne speech which will

surely go down in history as the first of its kind.

I'd like to read from His Honour's speech once again:

"My Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations will present

to you a budget appropriate to the difficult economic climate we now face. It

will be a responsible budget, and those who can afford to do so may be asked

to contribute a little more so that vital and essential programs can be maintained

and improved."

That's what the people of British Columbia want, as my colleague

just said a few minutes ago: fiscal responsibility. Certainly we've

stubbed our toe, and we've seen that happen very quickly in other

jurisdictions of late. Financial stability, financial responsibility —

you simply can't overshadow that fact in British Columbia by innuendo;

it can't be done.

British Columbians would have us actually legislate annual growth in

spending. I support that. I read from a recent poll. The question was

asked: "Should there be legislation to limit the annual growth of

spending by he government of British Columbia?" The response was that

64 percent of those polled would have this Legislature do that, Mr.

Speaker — 64 percent as compared to 28 percent against.

And what do we see in jurisdictions with philosophies similar to those of the

members opposite? Let's look at our friends in Ontario. What has it been?

About 270 days or thereabouts that we've had a government in the province

of Ontario having a philosophy similar to that of the official opposition in

British Columbia — about that time. The deficit comes in at a staggering $9.7

billion, representing nearly one-quarter of all income. Overall spending is up

13.4 percent or $6.2 billion. The $9.7 billion debt represents 23 percent of

income in the province of Ontario. This one year's deficit is twice as high

as B.C.'s total accumulated debt.

[3:30]

The budget in Ontario is so bad that it's going to adversely affect

the whole of Canada to a point where he experts are now saying that it

may even halt the downward trend of the interest rate. We will all pay

for he Ontario experiment. They chose the wrong path at he crossroads.

I would read again from His Honour's speech....

MR. ZIRNHELT: From Ontario?

MR. KEMPF: I don't think the members opposite would want me to read

from the Ontario throne speech and then compare it to what's happened. I

don't think so, but if they would like, at a later date we can probably do

that and probably will, time after time, as we meet the people of British Columbia

on the campaign trail.

They chose the wrong path at the crossroads. There re problems, yes,

but good fiscal management. No ne can deny that, not even the official

opposition. A throne speech for the future of British Columbia and its

people....

I think we have to repeat a number of things that re said in this

throne speech. I quote: "The Forest resources Commission was

established to advise on

[ Page

11953 ]

my government's approach to sustaining and enriching our forest base as we enter the twenty-first century"

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Leader of the Opposition, you'll have your

opportunity to debate this throne speech. Just be very patient. You'll

have your opportunity as well, and we'll listen with open ears and

bated breath.

His Honour's speech goes on to say: "My Minister of Forests has now

received and released the report of the commissioner. The minister will

initiate a process for public review and comment to guide further

action on the report's recommendations."

The members opposite make fun of me relating that to this chamber,

and I can understand why. I would at this point suggest to the chamber

that this province and that committee could have saved much time,

effort and taxpayers' money had a certain previous Minister of Forests

been allowed to complete a job once started.

This is a throne speech with much emphasis on the environment — a

topic very high in the vocabulary of British Columbians today — a

throne speech which very clearly talks about health care and

improvements to what is now the best health care system in the world

today.

It talks about social housing, and we clearly see the right of every

individual to have a roof over his or her head. It talks about

education; and of particular importance to the people of the north, it

talks about the development of the University of Northern British

Columbia. That is now a reality. We will be soon laying foundations for

the University of Northern British Columbia, something our young people

in the north are eager to see.

The throne speech talks about our aboriginal peoples and the

initiative of this government to negotiate alongside these British

Columbians with the federal government, to rectify longstanding

grievances and to genuinely assist our native communities; not to

accept on behalf of British Columbians the responsibility of land

claims or aboriginal title, as some in this chamber would have us do —

a promise which if kept would tie the taxpayer of British Columbia to

an absolutely impossible debt, or see land of which there is not one

spare hectare not presently utilized for the benefit of all British

Columbians, all our people, promised to one particular user or another.

We on this side of the House realize that to simply throw land or

money at the native problem in this province is not the answer at all.

The answer is to help our aboriginal people, who have met their fate,

Mr. Leader of the Opposition, under a repressive, archaic and

unacceptable Indian Act — to help those people out from under that

dilemma.

Again I say that in my 15-plus years in this chamber, I have not

seen a document entered as a throne speech more attuned to the concerns

and aspirations of British Columbians. It's a breath of fresh air, and

I'm proud, on behalf of those whom I represent, to second this speech.

MR. HARCOURT: Yesterday, on the same day that this government

tabled a throne speech that tried to give the appearance of embracing

integrity, the Finance minister was forced to resign for breaking the

law. The current government continues to have the worst record of

scandals anywhere in Canada. As a matter of fact, in the last nine

months alone, the Premier; the province's chief law enforcement

officer, the Attorney-General; and now the chief financial manager, the

Minister of Finance, have all been forced to resign.

Yesterday's throne speech was at best a list of recycled and unkept

showed that it's time for a change in British Columbia. I'll have more

to say tomorrow morning on the need to change how this province of ours

is governed and for whom it's governed. I'll be speaking about the

positive alternative the people of British Columbia can expect from the

New Democratic caucus in this legislative session, and about the many

positive initiatives we have put forward for quite a few months now, as

this government has been embroiled in scandal after scandal, in

coverups and in trying to survive — doing everything it can except

looking after the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 3:40 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1991, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada