1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 1988

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5129 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Office of the Premier estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 4: minister's office –– 5129

Mr. Williams

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Gabelmann

The House met at 10:07 a. m.

Prayers.

MR. SERWA : Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this morning are

three very special people in my life. They are strong supporters of

mine, and more important than that, they are very good friends. I'm

pleased to introduce my mother-in-law and father-in-law, Herman and

Phyllis Hanson from Kelowna. They are accompanied by Mrs. Hanson's

sister, Jenny Jessop from Vancouver. Would the House please join me in

welcoming them to Victoria.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : In the gallery today is the mayor from one

of my municipalities, Hudson's Hope. I think almost everyone in the

province knows about the hydro dams there, which are the source of

electricity for British Columbia. What people may not know about are

the beautiful lakes that has created and the access to beautiful

scenery. The Peace River is the only river that cuts through the heart

of the Rocky Mountains from one side to the other. Also, I might

mention that it is probably very quickly becoming the world centre for

fox farming as a result of the initiative of people in Hudson's Hope. I

would like the House to give a very special welcome to mayor Les

Braaten from Hudson's Hope.

HON. MR. DUECK : In the precinct today are two people from the

central Fraser Valley. On behalf of the second member for Central

Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) and myself, I would like to introduce Mr.

and Mrs. Ben Epp. Would the House please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

On vote 4: office of the Premier, $6,756,134.

MR. WILLIAMS : This is the most expensive Premier's office in

the history of British Columbia, so I guess if we want to look at cost

effectiveness, we should just see what we get for our dollars there in

terms of results.

It's interesting to reflect on the Premier's first trip to Europe

after becoming Premier. We all recall that those were euphoric days.

When the Premier came back, he announced likely new major projects in

British Columbia. He said, when he came back on February 16, 1987, that

plans for a $50 million meat-processing plant for the Prince George

area to be constructed as early as the summer of 1987 were pretty well

concluded. It was going to make sausages for export to Germany. There

were going to be 600 jobs and the price tag was $50 million. Maybe the

Premier could advise us where that plant stands now.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : This particular group could not get their finances

together without some further government participation. The policy of our government

has been that we will not give grants or continue low-interest loans and the

like; industry has to stand on its own. This policy has been very well received,

incidentally. Generally speaking, a number of industries that might otherwise

have turned to government for some assistance have proceeded on their own in

any event, once informed of the policy now in place. Because of it we are seeing

healthier industries established throughout the province.

The meat-processing plant was well researched by the people from

Germany. They saw a market in that we produce only about 22 percent at

best, and 18 percent at a low, of the meat consumed in the province, so

we can certainly produce and process much more meat for our own

purposes.

We've had a problem with feedlots, in that they found it difficult

to compete with Alberta because of the various subsidies that are in

effect for grain in Alberta to assist the feedlot operators. We've made

some considerable change in that respect, however, because we recognize

that we must try and encourage these same operations here in order to

see the meat-processing and such other activities furthered.

This first proposal has not been lost entirely on us, in that as

recently as April or so further discussions were being held with the

initial proponents about this. In the meantime we have had other people

look at both Kamloops and Prince George. The rationale for Prince

George initially was much that there is a large labour force available.

It's close to the Peace, so they can get their grain for feedlot

purposes. Obviously there is a lot of beef that might be raised in the

Nechako and Cariboo areas.

It has not been lost entirely. In the meantime, as I said, there are

other people looking at it. I'm not giving up. I'm not the pessimist

who throws in the towel and says it must be over. That's obviously not

my nature, and that's not the nature of people on this side. in any

event, We are optimistic. We keep working at it, which is why we're

seeing so much progress in so many areas. Those things don't always

come about exactly as we wished them initially. We don't give up; we

continue on.

I expect that we'll still conclude something and if not, hopefully

we can get back to the initial proponents and find others to pick up on

this. Much of the work has been done, and much of the material is

available. We are talking to at least three parties in total now, one

of which is looking at both locations, another which is looking to

government for advice on location, and the initial proponent.

[10:15]

MR. WILLIAMS : It's fascinating, Mr. Premier; the saga

continues. We don't know where this plant stands now. In the interim,

there have been New Yorkers, and then there is somebody else. Prince

George was interesting because there was a labour force there. Now

Kamloops is interesting because there is 20 percent unemployment there.

The opportunities in British Columbia are absolutely boundless.

Mr. Premier, you said that this project would involve 5,000 hogs a

week — that is, the sausage plant in Prince George. Could you tell the

House if you have any idea how many hogs there are in British Columbia

currently?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I don't have the exact information of

how many hogs there are in the province of British Columbia. I haven't

done a count or a tally of the hogs. Frankly, I expect it changes from

day to day for a

[ Page 5130 ]

variety of reasons, therefore I don't have the

information available for my estimates right now. I should have

anticipated the question of how many hogs there are in British

Columbia. We hear from the member, and obviously there is a great deal

of pessimism there: he doesn't think the area is capable of providing

for a meat-processing plant — be it in Prince George, Kamloops or both.

I will repeat, and perhaps I can best sum it up in this particular

quote: "We won't give up. We're continuing to work for this." Mr.

Member for Vancouver East, better an optimist who falls short than a

pessimist who wins.

MR. WILLIAMS : Well, Mr. Optimist, Mr. Premier, I checked

Statistics Canada and the number for this year in all of British

Columbia is 219,000 hogs. Your plant in Prince George was going to

require 5,000 hogs a week; 5,000 times 52 comes to 260,000. Why, before

a year was up, there would be no more hogs to run through the sausage

factory. There are similar problems with cattle.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS : I see. But we already have other plants that

are only 50 percent capacity, Mr. Premier. Most of our other plants are

running at 50 percent. So all the existing plants with sunk capital and

paid-off mortgages would have a distinct economic advantage over the

new plant in Prince George. They would use the product in their plants.

You wonder what kind of briefing, what kind of data you stuff in

your pockets on your way to Europe. You wonder how you meet these folks

on your way to Europe. You wonder what kind of help you get. Although

you've been firing the civil service right and left, there are still a

fair number of civil servants in this province who might have told you

how many cows there are in the province, how many hogs, and basically

how feasible this idea was of a huge meat packing plant in Prince

George.

On February 18, following your trip to Europe, Mr. Premier, you

said: "The project is definitely going ahead." I wonder if you're aware

of the study carried out in 1984 by the Ministry of Forests that looked

at rangeland in British Columbia. That's the base for cattle, by the

way — forage with respect to the grassland. They said they doubted the

feasibility of ranching expansion. Your own experts in grazing in the

civil service in the province doubted the feasibility of ranching

expansion in terms of producing the number of cattle you're talking

about for that particular operation.

John Berry, the regional director for Agriculture Canada, said: "I

don't know of anybody having done a detailed analysis with respect to

this plant." Mr. Premier, isn't it reasonable that a detailed analysis

should take place before you talk about spending $50 million and before

you say construction will begin this summer?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I'm going to have to remind people here

— everybody's been trying to forget — that the member for Vancouver East

was once a minister, and he was noted for one thing particularly: he

milled out more studies, alone in his ministry, than anyone ever saw

for the whole of government in the history of the province. He was

called the study king. He had more studies on each and every thing, and

he was involved in a number of activities.

As I recall, you came to see us one time when I was the mayor in

Surrey. You were going to establish an oil refinery in Surrey. You had

all sorts of meetings for this oil refinery in Surrey. Of course, we as

a council had some concerns about this, and you weren't too concerned

about the concerns we had. In any event, we did talk about this, and

you had all sorts of studies. Then you went to Richmond and were going

to establish a steel mill, if you recall. The steel mill never came

about, of course, but there was a lot of talk and a lot of meetings.

And you had one proposed for Prince George. I'm not faulting you for

proposing these things. Undoubtedly, all of those studies that you

produced might have filled the whole of this room, because you had

studies for everything. You had bureaucrats and civil servants working

on studies, and you had every consultant in the province employed for

studies. We know all of those things, and we've gone through that

experience. You're now suggesting we should have civil servants

counting hogs.

But forget all of that for the moment. The point I would like to

make is that I don't fault you for all the proposals. Where I would

fault you is that you never saw it through. Mind you, in fairness, you

weren't there that long. But you never did see it through. There's

always that air of pessimism which prevails with members on the other

side, as it did when they were in government as well. Again, we are

pursuing this. We will continue to pursue this. If there aren't enough

hogs in the province, the Cariboo is big country; and so is the rest of

this province. Nechako and all of those places have much opportunity

for increasing farming activity.

The agricultural community can expand in a variety of ways. We saw

greater growth in that community in 1987 than we've seen in the history

of this province. Agricultural income in 1987 was at a record high, and

'88 is going to be better still, and we're going to continue to work

for agricultural people, for farmers to have opportunities in this

province. We want to see every sector of this economy grow and expand

and produce jobs and create economic activity.

MR. WILLIAMS : That's all good fun, Mr. Premier, but it's

become the hallmark of this administration that there aren't the

studies, that there isn't the homework and that the Premier sets

himself up for a pratfall almost every time he opens his mouth. The

problem with this administration is that you generally don't carry out

the studies. You talk before you think, and you pay the price. There's

no question about that.

If the regional director of Ag Canada says there are no studies....

Dr. MacEachern, whom you since got rid of, said no major provincial

studies were underway either. It's business as usual in the Premier's

office.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : You want more studies?

MR. WILLIAMS : I just know that when you spend $50 million,

you'd better do your homework or you're going to lose the money. It's

as simple as that. I hesitate to remind the Premier that when he was

mayor of Surrey he hired yours truly to carry out a few studies in

Surrey that he subsequently followed, which was some of the best work

he did in Surrey.

You talk about how happy this industry is. You talk about....

AN HON. MEMBER : You overcharged us.

MR. WILLIAMS : Sure I did.

You talk about subsidies, Mr. Premier. Come on! What about Western Lettuce Now? Your cabinet approved 500,000

[ Page

5131 ]

bucks in subsidies: $250,000 from the province, $250,000 from the feds. That's

a subsidy. Other people in the industry are concerned about it because it's

a subsidy. You know that's unfair.

There's another kind of subsidy that tells us about the success of

the cattle industry currently in British Columbia: $17 million in farm

income insurance. It's the worst in modern history here. There we are.

The interesting thing is that it wasn't until July 29 of last year

that we were told that that group was looking for $30 million in

interest-free loans. I think that was the plan all along. When you came

back from Europe, we didn't hear any of that stuff. It was gung ho. It

was 50 million bucks, it was private sector money, it was construction,

it was jobs, and it was all going to happen.

The press came out and said: "It's taking a dive. It isn't going

to happen after all." Then you said: "Holy smokes! They couldn't be

further wrong than that." That was said from Fantasy Gardens, so it

might have been tongue-in cheek. You said: "It's slow, but not dead."

Then you said: "Well, there's a New York firm interested too."

I think you knew right from the beginning, Mr. Premier, because

I've looked back in Hansard . When you look at those fudging words of

yours in Hansard on this question from the member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Rose), you said this on March 10 last year. This is what you said

when asked about the sausage plant in Prince George: "What I expect

will be asked of us is that we assist the farmers." Well, everybody

knows that it's fair to help out the farmers; at least that's the

tradition in this part of the world. And then you said: "You can't have

a plant sitting waiting too long." Well no, $50 million, throw an

interest rate at that, it's $500,000 a month. No, you can't have an

empty plant sitting too long. Then you said: "So we need to perhaps" —

the wording keeps repeating itself — "be involved in somehow assisting

the farmers." That's what you said in March.

That was the smell of a scam, Mr. Premier: $30 million worth of help

to farmers. What was the real scheme? The real scheme was to give

farmers money to buy shares, $30 million worth, in the sausage plant.

That's what the promoters wanted. That's not exactly "help the farmers," Mr. Premier.

The same scam, the same exercise, is underway with respect to the

ethanol thing up in the Peace River country. It's the same kind of

game. You can cloud it and say: "We're against subsidies. We don't want

to give industry subsidies in British Columbia. It's free enterprise.

Everybody sink or swim on your own. Use your brains and your effort. If

you win, great, and if you sink, okay."

[10:30]

You'll always buy the scam. We'll help out the farmers, perhaps. We

can figure out a way, perhaps, to help out the farmers, maybe, because

it's reasonable to help the farmers. The industry has declined a bit,

and what we'll do is help them buy shares in the sausage plant. Come

on! That was the scam all along. It's pretty clear now that the thing

was a fiction or a scam. You can say they may be new people from New

York. Hey, if they can con you from Germany, watch out for those guys

from New York. And maybe we'll go to Kamloops.

The world isn't just a world of salesman, Mr. Premier. I'm sorry to

say the modern world is one that requires the studies; it does require that

backup. That really is one of the problems of this administration. You think

you can keep gutting the civil service. You think you can accept the golden

handshake all over the place and not lose great depth in terms of human capital.

Well, you can't, and there's a tremendous rebuilding job to be done

in British Columbia already because of what you've wrought in terms of the

public service to this province — let alone the pratfalls, the one-day wonders

and the comments from between the car and buildings and so on.

I've thought about it. Mr. Premier. and I don't know what kind of

machines they need in a German sausage factory. I didn't get into the

question of the need for analysis of the Subsidies and overcapacity and

tariffs in the European common market because we were going to send

sausages to Germany. Those are only details, and only bureaucrats or

planners would be interested in them. How does it really matter when

you're spending $50 million. That's all that counts. "It's just good

news, and I'm a good-news man."

But I've thought about the kind of machine you need in a sausage

factory. I think a useful item in a sausage factory might be one big

bull-chipper, and I just wonder if the Premier is ready to volunteer.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : We don't need a volunteer; we've got one across the way.

I don't know whether to take all this stuff seriously. It's unreal.

This is such deep debate. We go from counting hogs to buying

bull-chippers. Obviously things can't be so bad when the opposition has

little more to talk about than such trivia.

I want to get back to the studies the member is obviously concerned

about. I appreciate that he wants more studies, and I can well

understand why the steel mill, the oil refinery, the other steel mill

and all those things that were proposed during the NDP years didn't

come about, because with all those studies and all those pessimisms,

obviously it can't happen. There are all these problems in Europe, so

therefore it can't take place. I don't see how anything could ever get

built with that attitude, and it prevailed during those years. Heaven

forbid it should ever happen again, and I'm sure it won't.

I do want to address, as well, a bit of innuendo which is

continually used by some members — particularly the first member for

Vancouver East — about different things. He very casually mentioned in

the course of his remarks that Western Lettuce Now received a grant for

$500,000. You know, of course, that was very carefully.... You'll

remember there was a long delay in the grant being given to.... I

forget the name of the firm it's adjacent to.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Bevo. The critic for Agriculture knows

about this, as does the House Leader and the Leader of the Opposition,

because all these people were, I understand, called by the proponents

for this. I was getting messages back from the proponents: why couldn't

we deal with this, because the Leader of the Opposition and other

people agreed? Since they had talked to them, as well as other members

on both sides, we handled that very cautiously. It did not, nor would

it, go to Western Lettuce Now. It went to another firm. It so happened

that the person that manages Western Lettuce Now also manages the

other. That's where the only connection comes. To suggest that somehow

Western Lettuce received a grant for $500,000 when they've stood well

on their own feet without any government help.... They did it all

themselves. They built eight acres of green-

[ Page 5132 ]

house; they're employing dozens of people; they're exporting

lettuce, cucumbers and peppers to the United States as far away as New

York and California. They're good, taxpaying citizens. They work from

early morning until late at night, and you stand up there, Mr. Planner,

Mr. Member for Vancouver East and put these people down to somehow

having accomplished this because they got government help. That's what

you do all the time. You put people down and you don't care who they

are, where they are, how hard they work or how much they contribute.

You always, in the course of it, have to put somebody down.

You sit there — the majority of you — and spend your time and have

your researchers find people whom you can insult, put down and belittle

and whom you can make out to be people who live off government, as you

do, people who always need to get assistance from someplace else and

who aren't being given credit for their own efforts. Why do you have to

do this all the time? I wanted to address that other innuendo which you

so nicely slipped in, and it's too bad this happens so often.

MR. HARCOURT : You should speak about innuendo.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : That's right, Mr. Member for Vancouver

Centre, Leader of the Opposition. I guess you remember last night, when

the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) started the whole

thing again with innuendo. It doesn't matter whether innuendo is given

by question or by comment. Innuendo is innuendo, and if you start that

stuff, I suppose we could probably — and it's very difficult for us —

follow on the same course. We're not that way. Somehow you always have

to play that game, and I regret that, because you bring in other people

— not people in the House but people outside the House who don't

deserve to be involved, who really shouldn't be dragged into it.

MR. WILLIAMS : It's interesting, you know. The problem, Mr.

Premier, is not a subsidy particular to any company. The problem is you

talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are the one who paraded

around this province saying, "I don't believe in subsidies and I'm not

going to give them," and at the very same time you've given them.

Whether it's Bevo.... I don't know who they are and I don't care.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : If you don't know who they are, why do you stand up and say it?

MR. WILLIAMS : I'm standing up and saying it because it's

Bevo, and there was some involvement with Western Lettuce. At any rate,

the important point is that $500,000 in subsidies was granted in the

last six months by this administration, half of the money coming out of

the coffers of British Columbia and half out of national revenue. You

go around the province spouting off about no subsidies, and then you

dip into the till and give them. Well, make up your mind, Mr. Premier.

Are you for subsidies or are you against them'? Answer. If you're

against them, will you take the $500,000 back from the lettuce outfit'?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : We still have a subsidiary agreement in

place with the federal government. We have attempted to change some of

those agreements whereby there would not be the involvement with them

on a subsidy basis, but hopefully we could take another approach. We

have not been successful in getting these changes made. These

agreements supply across the country, and obviously British Columbia is

going to try and work and do whatever is necessary to get its fair

share of federal programs. These are available because we paid for

them. We are not getting as much as we should in many of those areas,

so where they have such programs — unless they want to change them as

we would seek the changes — we are going to try and get a fair share of

them.

Let me say as well that you made reference to Agrifuels. Agrifuels

was supported by the mayors and the councils locally. We had

delegations from the agricultural community. We put a proposal to them

and said: "If you can meet these requirements, then our participation

will be as follows." They haven't been able to come up with that

package or with those conditions, and until they do, there is no

involvement by us. But it was the agricultural community that sought

some involvement and our participation in that particular project.

MR. WILLIAMS : It would be interesting if the Premier could

advise the House what studies his Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis)

carried out with respect to Agrifuels and whether he ever recommended

the project. I'm sure he didn't, because the Ministry of Economic

Development turned it down seven times, so you shunted it off to the

agricultural boys who don't have any background in this kind of work.

Ask the Minister of Energy, Mr. Premier, how many of these plants in

North America are occupied and producing that product now. Fifty

percent capacity, Mr. Premier. You check with your Minister of Energy.

He'll tell you that agrifuel plants across North America are running at

50 percent capacity. Doesn't that tell you volumes about whether you

should add to that industry? Doesn't anything register? Is it

unreasonable to ask for a study from your Minister of Energy on the

viability of an ethanol plant up there? No, I guess it doesn't. You

keep up that game you're in, and you'll have us broke in no time.

I'd like to get back to the other good news you keep telling us

about. Remember back in November 1986 when you promised us South

African prefabs? You said that there was a deal worth hundreds of

millions of dollars after you met with Mr. Babb, the ambassador to

Canada from South Africa. What happened, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. REID : You're against that too. You're against everything.

MR. WILLIAMS : I'm just waiting, and there are people all over

British Columbia just waiting. The people in Prince George, Vanderhoof

and now Kamloops are just waiting for these big projects and these big

plants that the Premier has promised us. After you met with Mr. Babb,

Mr. Premier, you said that you were going to get a more firm proposal

this time from other representatives. Could the Premier advise us what

other representatives he met with regarding the firm proposals for the

hundreds of millions in investment from South Africa?

[10:45]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Again the member calls for more

studies, but he's against meat processing. He says it won't work. He's

against agrifuels; he says it won't work. He's against prefab housing

for South Africa because I

[ Page 5133 ]

suppose it's a philosophical thing. But we did pursue it, and we did

have private sector people look at this. As a matter of fact, I met

with the Hon. Joe Clark, and the advice I was given was that it would

be difficult to obtain export permits for prefab housing to South

Africa. So if a private entrepreneur was able to arrange or to arrive

at an agreement with a purchaser in South Africa and was able to design

the sort of unit they are seeking.... These units, as I understand it,

were to be used for the very low-income people in South Africa.

If that arrangement could be arrived at, the message given us by the

Hon. Joe Clark is that it would be difficult — if not impossible, I

gather — to obtain an export permit. So now you know the history of

that. It certainly wasn't something that the private sector wished to

pursue, given that information from the minister responsible in Ottawa.

Having said that again, I don't think we should give up attempting to

see what other opportunities might exist for prefab housing elsewhere

in the world or, for that matter, to try to convince Ottawa that if

50,000 houses could be sold to assist lowincome people in South Africa,

this could be a good deal for those people as well as for people in the

province working in this industry.

I know we disagree philosophically on that, and we can debate that

separately. I don't have any problem with that debate. The bottom line

again is that you appear to be against all of those things and say that

it can't be done, or that we must have a lot of studies — but given

that, it won't happen anyway because of conditions in Europe or Africa

or wherever. I don't believe that we should be so pessimistic about all

things. You continue on this pessimism, but despite your pessimism, we

in government have a great of optimism, and the results are showing.

The forest industry has never been healthier in that we are seeing

expansion in pulp and paper and of sawmills, and we're seeing logging

activity growing throughout the province. There is lots of activity in

the forestry sector. The mining sector is picking up. For the first

time in many years, there is growth and new activity in the mining

sector. I've already mentioned that 1987 was a record year in

agricultural activity as far as income was concerned. In 1987, tourism

was at an all-time high, except for Expo 86 which was a little ahead.

That was certainly a wonderful but unusual year in that regard, but

1987 led history otherwise in numbers and revenue.

In manufacturing activity, we led the whole country in relative

growth. We're ahead of Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and the Maritimes;

we're leading the country. All of this activity didn't come about

because we were a bunch of pessimists looking for studies. All of this

came about because we have in Victoria now a very optimistic, positive

government that isn't looking for studies and commissions and

committees, but which says British Columbians are capable of doing

these things.

Whether it's Vanderhoof, Quesnel, the Okanagan, the Kootenays or the

Peace, things are happening throughout this great province because we

have capable, positive people and an entrepreneurial spirit. Despite

the NDP and your comments, that entrepreneurial spirit will prevail,

and we will continue to see the economy grow.

MR. KEMPF : As I sat in my office listening to my monitor, I

really wasn't going to enter this debate, but I've heard some words

bantered around this morning that I think require a little

clarification. One of the words used a number of times in that gallant

speech we just heard from the Premier is "pessimism."

I guess I've got to ask this House this morning if the 65 loggers

who will show up tomorrow at 10 o'clock at the B.C. Forest Service

office in Burns Lake boycotting the small business sales going up at

that time are pessimistic. They're not pessimistic, Mr. Premier;

they're fighting for their very lives. They're fighting for their very

livelihood, which this government, through its actions, has taken from

them and is giving to the multinationals. If that's what you call

progress in this province, and you throw at this side of the floor that

we're pessimistic....

You know, I never thought, hon. members, that I would ever advocate

carrying a placard, but I'll carry a placard tomorrow morning along

with my constituents in Burns Lake for the first time in my life. I

never, ever thought that I would do that in the province of British

Columbia, but those loggers, those small mill operators, have their

backs to the wall. They have nowhere to go. Their livelihood is being

taken from them — and they're called pessimistic?

I want to talk a little about the meat-packing plant for Vanderhoof.

The story I heard thrown across from that side of the floor this

morning is absolutely false, Mr. Premier, and you know it. I was very

involved, as you very well know, because I set up the meetings. I set

up the two-day tour you had to look at those kinds of plants in

Germany. You know perfectly well that it was not money for the

meat-packing plant they were looking for. They were looking for

government to support the agriculturalist.

All they wanted from this government was a little help to ensure the

agriculturalist, the farmer, a place in that scenario. All they asked

for was a little backing to ensure that feedlots could become a

reality, so that plant would not run out of the raw material necessary

to keep it going. Yes, there weren't enough hogs in this province to

support it; there weren't enough cattle in this province. But there

could have been with just a little support from government.

Don't you tell this House that the financiers from Germany weren't

about to put up the whole amount to build that plant, because they

were. It was my constituent, whom I have been a friend of for many

years, who was behind it, and I knew the ins and outs of that proposal.

That proposal was dashed.

HON. MR. REID : By you.

MR. KEMPF : If it was my involvement that dashed it, and if

that's why the government of the day put it down, that's a real

indication of the kind of government we have.

You know, I wasn't going to enter this debate, hon. members, because

it isn't necessary to throw innuendo across this floor in order to tell

what the people of British Columbia think about the present

administration. All you have to do is go out there in the hinterland.

They'll tell you in no uncertain terms what they think about this

administration.

We have to get straight in this House exactly what happened with

respect to the possibilities of that plant in Vanderhoof. That plant,

that employment, that $50 million windfall to the province. that

building of a future for our agriculturalists, which they don't have

now.... In fact, Mr. Premier, you'll find out in the next X number of

months, because the policy of your Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Parker) with respect to stumpage asked on agricultural leases

[ Page 5134 ]

will land back in your lap. Much of that land could have been turned

into a very prosperous industry for the agriculturalist, growing what

is necessary in that area — it's the best grain growing area in British

Columbia, outside of the Peace River — to support that plant. You'll

get that agricultural land back in your lap, because you have no idea

what you're doing to the agriculturalist out there by stumpage rates.

You have no idea what you're doing to the small mill operator and

logger, the very people that we went to the polls, Mr. Premier, back on

October 22, 1986, to support; the very people I went around my riding

telling that the administration you had was going to support them. That

hasn't come about. They've got their backs to the wall, those little

guys who may seem unimportant, who aren't great in numbers and who

possibly don't support, in a monetary nature, a particular party. But

they are very important to me as the member for Omineca. They're very

important to this province, as you will see come the next election.

Asking $25 a cubic metre — in many cases, more than they can get for

the end-product at the mill gate. And you call them pessimists.

Mr. Chairman, we've just got to get a few things straight here. Mr.

Premier, on behalf of those small operators I ask you at this time to

reconsider, to redirect your Forests minister in what he's doing to the

small business person in the forest industry of this province; to go to

Burns Lake tomorrow and say: "We've made a mistake. We're not going to

break you. There is a place for the little guy in the forest industry

of this province." I ask you this today in this chamber in all

seriousness, because those people have nowhere to turn. It is their

livelihood. It is not just their livelihood, hon. members; it's their

way of life. You will be eliminating a way of life in this province,

and I think that is worth talking about in this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before we proceed, hon. member, I think it

only fair to caution all hon. members that.... Although I recall

with a great deal of clarity that when this debate started yesterday it

was suggested that it would generally be a free-wheeling kind of

debate, I would just like to remind members that we are in fact dealing

with the estimates of the Premier. We're not dealing with the estimates

of the Minister of Forests; neither are we dealing with the Ministry of

Agriculture. Just so that everybody will know where we stand, we're

dealing with vote 4, the office of the Premier.

MR. HARCOURT : Yes, indeed we are dealing with the office of

the Premier. That's the whole point of why this government is in such

dreadful trouble — the worst we've seen in this province.

I want to deal with an involvement of the office of the Premier, not

just in every aspect of British Columbia government and business but in

international affairs too. I am referring to some comments the Premier

made about South Africa. He stated that there was a philosophical

difference between him and the member for Vancouver East. Mr. Chairman,

it's not a philosophical difference; it's a question of morals. It's

the moral issue of 26 million black people being enslaved by three

million white people; that's the issue.

It was the Premier who said we were going to sell prefab homes to

the people in Soweto and in the black townships. What a ridiculous

Fantasy Garden idea! They're going to be sold to the white enslavers of

those black people; that's who they're going to. When he meets with the

ex-Ambassador of South Africa, Mr. Babb, he legitimizes that enslaving.

He also said that it was Joe Clark who blocked the bid to arrange

the export of prefab homes, and he went on to say that B.C. should

lobby the federal government to change its views so that we could again

encourage the export to South Africa. We don't have a philosophical

difference, Mr. Premier. We have a moral difference about an immoral

state called South Africa. I would like to ask the Premier whether he

disagrees with the federal government's position on the economic

sanctions against South Africa. Is that what he's trying to change?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : That's interesting. I've heard that

member, the Leader of the Opposition, say time and time again that the

Premier is trying to impose his moral views on the people of the

province, that somehow what he's saying will be an imposition; when he

expresses his views it's an imposition on the people of the province.

Even my expressing an opinion on a particular moral issue is an

imposition on the people of the province.

[11:00]

Now he says exporting homes for the poor people of South Africa is a

moral issue, and that's why we're against it, and that's why we'll

block it, and that's why we'll deny the manufacture of 50,000 homes in

this province, and that's why we'll deny employment to people in the

forestry sector, and that's why we'll stop a factory being built in

Chilliwack or some other place manufacturing these homes — because it's

a moral issue. It's our moral issue, he says, and therefore we're going

to stop it; it won't happen.

I don't know where he's coming from. Frankly, I guess, it's the same

old stuff. It's a bit of fence-sitting, and you sit a little bit

depending on which way the wind blows when you're sitting on the fence.

That's the sort of thing that I don't think helps a great deal.

I don't think we need to pursue this particular issue a whole lot.

We know now that it's a moral issue for the NDP, not a philosophical

issue. We know that because it's their moral issue they are going to

try to do whatever to Put a stop to it. We won't get into where he gets

his information as to which people will benefit by this, but I think

most thinking people will appreciate that a 600-square-foot prefab home

is not for the rich of South Africa. But be that as it may, he'll

figure this out. Common sense doesn't mean a whole lot in any event, I

guess.

We don't have to discuss this any longer except to say that if we

can provide jobs for people; if we can provide economic growth; if we

can provide opportunities for people to manufacture prefab homes to

send to people regardless of where they are; if there are people in

need, be they people in South Africa, in Europe, in South America,

Russia, Asia, you name it, we should not say because it's our moral

view we'll somehow deny them this opportunity.

Anyway, he related all this to the Premier's office by saying that

it's because of the Premier that we're in such great trouble. Let me

remind the Leader of the Opposition again that if having a healthy

forest industry.... We're seeing expansion in building in the forestry

sector, and the building of hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of

pulp mills and paper mills throughout the province. If that's because

of the Premier's office, I don't think it's so bad; I don't think

things are so bad. If having new growth in the mining sector and

finding employment for miners, keeping miners employed, finding an

opportunity for them to meet their mortgage payments and to buy their

food and to do things for their

[ Page 5135 ]

families, for their children, is bad because of the Premier's

office, I don't feel so bad. If growth in the agricultural sector and

in tourism, a record growth in manufacturing, leading the country, is

so bad because of the Premier's office, hey, I don't make too many

apologies. I say, give me more of the same, and I think people

throughout the province will say, give us more of the same.

MR. HARCOURT : If the Premier really believes that, he has

indeed taken on the persona of his Fantasy Gardens. If he thinks he can

control the international price of copper, if he thinks he grew all the

trees in this province, if he thinks that he's out there being the

farmers of this province, if he thinks he's doing all that work out of

his Premier's office, then indeed he has missed the whole point of our

internationally based provincial economy. The Premier's office has

grown to a proportion that even that kind of an ego shouldn't be able

to contain.

Let's return to the Premier's office. We're not talking about the

British Columbia economy; we're talking about the Premier's office in

British Columbia. Let's talk about what's wrong with this province.

This Premier and this Premier's office and this government are what's

wrong with this province — not the people, not the provincial economy.

You're what's wrong with this province, Mr. Premier.

I'll tell you why: because you don't understand your job. You don't

understand what a Premier should and shouldn't do. A man who believes

in morals and moral convictions should practise them. Practise them;

don't just say it. And let's talk about where you're wrong.

I would like to let you know that your behaviour in the B.C.

Enterprise Corporation sale of the B.C. Place lands and your

involvement on behalf of your friend, Peter Toigo, was demeaning,

unacceptable and an abuse of your office. It should never happen again.

Let's make it clear; there is no innuendo here. We are not talking

about Peter Toigo at all. We have never said that what he did was

wrong. He was being a businessman. He was looking at a business deal,

and that's perfectly proper. What was wrong was what you and David

Poole did on behalf of your friend. That's what's wrong, Mr. Premier.

You're what's wrong.

Let's look at the chronology of events, just to refresh your memory.

On December 2, 1987, the Premier brings Peter Toigo's offer to the

cabinet, saying that it was supported by businessman Sam Belzberg. On

December 9, 1987, the cabinet decides to forward Toigo's offer to the

B.C. Enterprise Corporation board of directors. On December 11, 1987,

your own Economic Development minister discovers that the Belzberg

claim is false and decides against the Toigo offer. Instead of leaving

well enough alone, the Premier keeps it going.

On February 4, 1988, at a B.C. Enterprise Corporation meeting, the

board is told that Mr. Toigo's offer is still on the table until

February 29. The B.C. Enterprise Corporation decides to focus on one or

two other bids. On March 4, not leaving well enough alone again, the

Premier blindly blunders on with this interference from his office by

appointing his principal secretary — directly, not indirectly anymore —

to the B.C. Enterprise Corporation board, as though he hasn't got

enough to do.

On March 11, 1988, Mr. Poole tells the board that Mr. Toigo's offer

is still on the table. The board is absolutely shocked, after having

already rejected Mr. Toigo's offer. On March 16, 1988, the cabinet is

told of two offers — Mr. Li Ka-shing's and the Vancouver Land Corp.'s — and agrees that the

offer from the highest bidder, Mr. Li, should be negotiated further.

The Premier asks questions, not about those two offers but about Mr.

Toigo's offer, once again not seeing the total inappropriateness of his

involvement in this matter.

On March 17 and 18, 1988, the Ministry of Economic Development office receives an inquiry of how Mr. Toigo can reach Mr. Li.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : What was the date?

MR. HARCOURT : March 17 and 18, Mr. Premier; I am sure you are

aware of them. I am sure you are aware of these involvements of your

office for your friend. The Ministry of Economic Development officer

receives an inquiry on how Mr. Toigo can reach Mr. Li. The Ministry of

Economic Development and the B.C. Enterprise Corporation board discover

that Mr. Toigo has gone to Hong Kong, and Mr. Li is phoned to remind

him, as the Premier knew full well, of the confidentiality clause in

the bidding procedure, and advise Mr. Li not to meet with Mr. Toigo.

On March 21, 1988, Mr. Toigo phones Mr. Vander Zalm and tells him

he was barred from meeting with Mr. Li. Mr. Vander Zalm calls an

emergency cabinet meeting and asks why his friend can't get in to see

Mr. Li.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : When was the emergency cabinet meeting?

MR. HARCOURT : March 21. A cabinet minister asks how Mr. Toigo

discovered that Mr. Li's bid was the final one. Conflict between the

Premier and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy),

which is well documented, starts over the B.C. Enterprise Corporation

decision-making. On March 21, 1988, in Hong Kong, Mr. Li's office is

told that the only way that they can get the deal done is to combine

with Mr. Toigo. Mr. Li rejects that involvement.

On March 21, 1988, the Minister of Economic Development calls an

emergency meeting of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation representatives

and informs them of the cabinet meeting, and the board's response is

extremely angry. That is when, Mr. Chairman, we made it very clear that

that was an inappropriate, wrong involvement by the Premier and Mr.

Poole in the bidding process for the B.C. Place lands.

Mr. Premier, you don't know how to be Premier. You don't understand

the complexity. You don't understand the duty that you have to the

public. You don't understand what's right and wrong. You don't

understand that you can't ignore the rule of law and the Supreme Court

of Canada, as you tried to do with the abortion matter in this country.

You don't understand that you just can't wander around poking into

boards, independent commissions, on behalf of friends. You can't sic

your office staff to run interference for your friends to do their

business deals.

Mr. Premier, if you think you are so right and you're so moral and

you're correct, let's draw the line right now. If you think that the

people of British Columbia feel you're listening to them, that you're

in touch, that everything is rosy, let's draw the line right now,

outside of this House. We'll step up to it. If you think you're right,

let's call an election right now, Mr. Premier. I'll tell you, Mr.

Chairman, I'm a fair man.

AN HON. MEMBER : And you're a loser.

[ Page 5136 ]

MR. HARCOURT : That's right, you're a loser, Mr. Minister.

Let's talk about winning and losing. Let's talk about 1984, the

mayoralty campaign in 1984, Minister of Tourism. Let's talk about

winning and losing: 1984 in Vancouver, a two-to-one margin. A visit

from Fantasy Garden for three weeks into the city.... The Premier got

whipped. He got whipped two to one by the mayor of the time, who just

happens to now be the Leader of the Opposition.

Let's talk about the next time we had a chance to go to the people.

We had a chance, the Premier and I, to go and talk to the people about

the way this province should be run. It's called Boundary-Similkameen.

Do you know what happened there? The Premier got whipped. The Premier

got so whipped and he was so shocked, because he didn't want to listen

to bad news; he didn't want to listen to negativism; he didn't want to

listen to Mr. Poole bursting into our dinner with the

Lieutenant-Governor, giving him this terrible news that he didn't want

to hear from the people of Boundary-Similkameen, who sent him a

message, almost two to one again, that he's wrong, that he's not

listening, that he's unfair and that he's interfering on behalf of his

friends.

I say to you, Mr. Premier, that if your Minister of Tourism wants to

talk about winning and losing, and wants to find out who's right and

who's wrong, let's go to an election. I'll give you a third chance, Mr.

Premier. Let's go for an election right now on whether you're right or

wrong.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Well, Mr. Chairman, this is most

interesting. I find that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is still

wanting to be the mayor of Vancouver, because he keeps repeating what

happened in 1984. Being mayor of Vancouver is not the same as being

Premier; there is a difference. When you're the Premier you have to

think about the whole of the province; you can't be concentrating

simply on Vancouver. Being Premier means that you care about the

Cariboo and you care about the Peace and you care about the Nechako and

you care about the Kootenays, and you care about all of those areas

throughout the whole of this great province. Being Premier is not being

mayor of Vancouver; there is a difference. You keep going back to being

mayor of Vancouver. And you don't make reference to the fact that you

ran in Vancouver-Little Mountain twice for provincial office and you

were thumped. You don't make reference to that. That's fine. You keep

coming back to the fact that you were the mayor of Vancouver. Enough of

that. But I know you'll mention it again probably. You'll probably

again make reference to it at some time.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : If it weren't for Gary Lauk's resignation, he wouldn't have a seat.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : That's true. What would have happened

if Gary Lauk had stayed on, if he hadn't resigned? I wonder where the

mayor of Vancouver would be today.

I respect you for having said.... "Mr. Toigo did nothing wrong," you

said. Mr. Toigo did nothing wrong; he acted as a businessman and he

did....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Fine. It's a good point, and I

appreciate that. And I agree with you. It's too bad that he has been

dragged through so much and had so much publicity. He's a man who

employs a lot of people in this province — I believe between 3,000 to

3,500 people. He has invested a lot of money in this province. He in

fact for a time, because of all of the statements being made in the

House by the opposition and by the media, left the province, spent a

great deal of time elsewhere, and said he wouldn't invest again. He was

a very discouraged man. He was very distraught at all of this — and

understandably too. So I appreciate you saying that. I think it's very

worthy, and I appreciate those comments.

[11:15]

Then you say the onus is really on the Premier. All of that which

happened was the Premier's fault, and it was wrong, you say — many

things wrong, terrible, enough that really all of this publicity and

all of the things said and all of the things done and all of the

innuendo and all of the columns by some of the people in the newspapers

and the coverage on TV was worthy of it. The Premier really did a

terrible wrong. So let's go over it, because you gave a good outline.

You obviously did some homework. You've got all of those dates. Some of

them I would question, but you're close enough. We'll go by your dates

and accept them as given.

MR. HARCOURT : They're your dates, not mine.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : It doesn't matter so much about the

dates. You go on to say that on December 2 the Premier's office

received an offer from Mr. Toigo and took it to cabinet — a terrible

wrong. That's not becoming of a Premier, you say. I guess people in the

media have suggested the same thing, because they've listened to much

of this from the opposition. Let me tell you that when somebody makes

an offer of that magnitude, because there is a process, or because

there is a statement — a government — that they wanted to see something

done, and they're a citizen of British Columbia and they want to become

involved, and they address this to cabinet, I will take it to cabinet.

Whether it's a friend or whether it's from you, Mr. Leader of the

Opposition, or somebody else, I think I owe it to take it to cabinet. I

don't believe it would be right....

Now that's my reading of being a Premier. Obviously you read it

differently. I don't believe it would be right for me to say: "I don't

think, although it's addressed to cabinet, that it ought to go to

cabinet. I'll stick it in my pocket, or I will file it away in a bottom

drawer, because I don't think that should go to cabinet." I guess

that's what you are saying. I disagree. I don't think it was wrong to

take something addressed to cabinet before cabinet.

Then you say that cabinet decided to present the offer to BCEC. Is

that so wrong? Why shouldn't cabinet, who owns the shares in this Crown

corporation...?

MR. GABELMANN : Cabinet doesn't own the shares. The people do.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The people own the shares. The

government is responsible for the shares on behalf of the people.

That's how it is. That's right, and I agree with that. Therefore why

shouldn't the owners of the shares take it to BCEC — a Crown

corporation — which is considering the disposal of a part of what was

being offered for? Is that so wrong? Hopefully you will answer that.

Then you go on to say the cabinet was advised that Mr. Belzberg was involved. I respect Mr. Belzberg. He's a great

[ Page 5137 ]

entrepreneur. He's done much by way of investment

in the province. He has certainly contributed to a lot of worthwhile

events and efforts in various parts of the province. I think he's a

wonderful man, and he was involved in some of that process.

I believe that it was in that other offer you mentioned from the

Vancouver land company that he was involved with. In any event, whether

he was involved in the offer presented by Mr. Toigo, or in the offer

presented by the Vancouver land company, what makes it so wrong that

Mr. Belzberg be involved, or that the Premier or anyone else mentions

in a meeting that Mr. Belzberg is involved or supportive of a

particular proposal? What's so wrong about that? Is that such a federal

case? What's going on?

I don't quite follow what you're saying by suggesting that I didn't

know what I was doing, when obviously you don't understand the process.

You go on to say that on February 4, 1988, the table was advised that

Mr. Toigo had extended his offer to February 29. Is that so wrong?

What's the big deal? Mr. Toigo, Vancouver Land Corp., Li Ka-Shing — I

don't care who or where. Is it so wrong that they say, "We made an

offer; we're now advising you that we're extending this offer," even

though no one is prepared to accept the offer? That could well be, and

that's the prerogative of BCEC and cabinet in the final analysis.

What's so wrong with him saying, "I'm extending the offer" and the

recipient of this advising the body responsible that the offer has been

extended?

Maybe you're reading something very sinister into all of this

because you seem to come at things from that angle. We hear so many

innuendos all the time that it could be, Mr. Leader of the Opposition,

that you're reading something into all of this. Then I feel sorry for

you because that's bad for you; it makes you lose your hair.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Order!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Oh, sorry about that. Well, I've got the same problem.

Then you go on that at a meeting on March 4, we appointed the

principal secretary to the BCEC board — a terrible thing. It was a

decision of cabinet. The order gets passed in cabinet that the

principal secretary should be.... Frankly, I think that's a tremendous

help because it provides an opportunity for ongoing communications

between a body which is very involved in the privatization process and

the principal secretary, who is head of the privatization

implementation committee for government. So the combination, Mr. Leader

of the Opposition, makes perfect sense. You have the person that leads

the implementation committee in government and the person who's also

involved with the privatization by the Crown corporation most involved

with it, BCEC. You say that's wrong.

I see you're consulting the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Blencoe). You've really got troubles now. However, go ahead: consult

the second member for Victoria. My goodness, you've got problems.

Then you go on to say that on March 11 the board hears that the

offer is still on the table. A terrible thing — something awful. I guess

Mr. Toigo has advised the board through the government that the offer

he had submitted to government earlier would be available until the end

of March — you say March 11 was the date. A terrible thing: he extended

his offer. I don't know how or where that involves the Premier or how

that involves the Premier's office, but you've already said it's not

Mr. Toigo's fault, so I have to assume there's something I did wrong in

accepting the offer or somehow in government advising BCEC that they

had been advised that the offer was extended.

Then you go on to say that on March 16 the cabinet considers two

offers and makes a decision. One is from Li Ka-shing and the other is

from the Vancouver Land Corp. What's so bad about this? Obviously you

bring it down to one in the end, because you can only select one. There

were two considered, and we selected one. It's very important, I guess

you say. But I don't know what's wrong with this.

The offer was accepted. Then you say: "Premier asked questions about

Toigo offer." I don't know what this means. Maybe you'll wish to

elaborate on what you mean by that. As I understand it, the offer by

Mr. Toigo was considerably different and simply the Expo lands. What

the questions, I don't know. Then you go on to March 17, and Economic

Development receives an inquiry on how to be in touch with Mr. Li

Ka-shing. I gather that's from Mr. Toigo, and that Mr. Toigo will be

making contact. He wanted to see Mr. Li Ka-shing. You've already said

Mr. Toigo did nothing wrong. Mr. Li Ka-shing did nothing wrong, so I

guess I figure into this somewhere. But it's a terrible thing. I don't

know.

Anyway, Mr. Toigo tried to make contact with Mr. Li Ka-shing. Great

case you've built, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. On March 21. Toigo

phones Vander Zalm to say that he was banned from a meeting by Mr. Li;

Mr. Toigo did not phone Mr. Vander Zalm, but I did hear about it. I did

hear that he in fact could not have a meeting with Mr. Li Ka-shing.

When he arrived there he was told, or he was advised, or there was a

message, that he could not meet with Mr. Li Ka-shing. Mr. Li Ka-shing

had been advised that he could not meet with Mr. Toigo. That's fine.

Big deal.

Anyway, I wanted to respond to that. I don't know whether I've

cleared up anything because there's really nothing to clear up. But I

did want to respond to this heavy case that the Leader of the

Opposition put forth. I thought it should be responded to. Mr. Leader

of the Opposition, it's a lot of trivia. I don't know what it all adds

up to or what you think it might add up to.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. House Leader, I'm not belittling; I'm just responding to what was said.

MR. ROSE : It's a very serious charge.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. members.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : What's the charge? He said there's no

charge against Mr. Toigo. He did nothing wrong. He's admitted that he

simply acted in a businesslike manner, and all was fine, Then he went

on and suggested that all of these dates somehow said that the Premier

did something wrong. I don't think he's identified anything, but now

that he's consulted the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), maybe

they'll come up with something. It's interesting.

I want to reiterate that I'm really enjoying this heavy debate on my estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before we proceed, hon. members, would the Leader of the Opposition please take his seat. I just

[ Page 5138 ]

have one thing I would like to remind all hon. members. The Chairman

of this House is appointed by all of you to sit here and try to ensure

a nice even flow of debate and to recognize people who stand on their

feet and want to enter into the debate. It would be nice, I think, if

from time to time the Chair was recognized rather than the people

speaking directly to each other across the floor.

Also, I would like to suggest to all of you that I have been

listening to interjections from both sides of the House. These also, I

guess, are bound to happen once in a while and we have to accept them,

but when they become a regular routine, I think we should proceed in

the proper manner. If we do have something to say, if we stand and are

recognized by the Chair, then we have the opportunity to say it.

[11:30]

MR. HARCOURT : Two points well taken, Mr. Chairman.

I will repeat it one more time. Obviously the Premier isn't

listening to or hearing what ordinary people throughout this province

are saying, what the media's saying, what the New Democratic Party are

saying, what members of his own party, including the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the board of directors of

B.C. Enterprise Corporation, are saying. Some of the top business

professional people in this province have said: "Butt out, Mr. Premier.

It's not proper for you to get involved and to use and misuse your

office when we conduct the affairs of the people of British Columbia,

which you've given to us." You've entrusted to those people the

disposition of the assets.

I'm saying to the Premier that he was wrong to do what he did. He's

totally unrepentant. He doesn't see it. It's sad that the Premier

doesn't learn. He doesn't learn from experience. He thinks what I've

just brought up is trivial. It isn't trivial, Mr. Chairman. I don't

think it's trivial; members of the New Democratic Party don't think

it's trivial; the people of this province don't think it's trivial;

members of his own party don't think it's trivial; members of the

fourth estate don't think it's trivial. He's the only one that thinks

it's trivial, and that's why this province is in trouble. His party

loyalists back him. They're part of his misuse of the Premier's office.

The other point I was trying to make to the Premier, Mr. Chairman,

is who he represents. He represents wealthy friends. He doesn't

represent the ordinary men and women in this province. If he did,

instead of in speeches and clichs, you know what he'd do? He would

show it by having the ordinary people represented in the selling off of

their assets and privatization. That's what he'd do. He would not just

have the wealthy and the powerful represented there, who are put into a

very difficult situation because they're just the people who may

potentially be bidding on the sale of these prime assets of the people

of British Columbia. We don't have the owners of those assets, the

ordinary men and women of British Columbia, represented; we just have

the wealthy and the powerful. The Premier is not listening to that or

hearing that, and I think it's sad that he's not capable of learning

from experience.

He says that there are other places in British Columbia than

Vancouver. That is really a revelation. I've been to most of those

places, and most of them that the Premier was referring to — for

example, Rock Creek, Grand Forks, Greenwood, Midway — are very proud of

their communities. I'm proud of those communities too. I enjoy the fact

that my office is British Columbia and that I'm prepared to listen and

to learn. I'm prepared to go throughout this province, not with an

entourage, not with a circus atmosphere, but to go into the homes,

businesses, farms and ranches of the ordinary men and women who create

the wealth. It's not the Premier's office.

I'm prepared to listen to them, and they're prepared to listen to

the Premier when he says, supposedly in good faith: "Have a plebiscite

on banning uranium mining." And they do. Eighty-five percent of the

people in those communities vote for a ban on uranium mining. They then

go to the Premier, and he says: "Guess what? I've changed my mind. I

didn't like your vote, so because you had an overwhelming majority

vote, I've got to protect you from yourselves. I've got to protect the

ordinary men and women from themselves, because I want them to be

employed." Do you know what they're saying to you, Mr. Premier? They

don't want to be employed in uranium mining or exploration. They want a

ban on uranium mining, and you won't listen to them.

You talk about the ordinary people of Boundary-Similkameen. You

didn't listen to them. They gave you an overwhelming message. You were

totally unrepentant, uncontrite. Your statements on the night of that

by-election were absolutely pathetic. What you said to the people of

Boundary-Similkameen will come back to haunt you.

I have been making a very simple point here. The Premier is wrong in

misusing his office for his wealthy and powerful friends, in only

having the wealthy and powerful involved in the disposition of our

assets, which he's wrong in doing in the first place, because he never

had the courage to seek a mandate from the people of this province to

do all those things. We'd like you to go out and try to get a mandate,

Mr. Premier.

Mr. Chairman, I'm quite prepared to take the risk of an election. If

the Premier is a risk-taker, and he believes so strongly in what he is

trying to do, let's find out what the people have to say. You didn't

have the guts to take it to them in the last provincial election.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, that's completely unacceptable; I'll ask you to withdraw.

MR. HARCOURT : I will withdraw that.

Mr. Premier, you were not able to take before the people of this

province what you really wanted to do in this province, because you

knew you would have been beaten. So let's go and face the people.

The last thing that I'm trying to say to the Premier, Mr. Chairman,

is that it is totally improper, when he is asked a question — as he was

yesterday by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) — for

him to bring an insult and call into question that member's oath, as a

lawyer and as a member of this Legislature, and his personal integrity.

It is totally unbecoming of the Premier of this province to do that and

to then refuse to repeat it outside this Legislature, thereby demeaning

the rules of this Legislature.

I'm saying that this Premier is unfit, that he doesn't understand

his office, and that's the problem with this province. He, as the

Premier, and his government, which lets him do what he is doing to the

people of this province — the ordinary men and women — and the Social

Credit Party, which foisted him upon us with an election platform that

they wouldn't bring before the people, because they knew what would

happen to them.... They had to hide it and bring it out after the

election. Well, people have seen that smile, and

[ Page 5139 ]

they have seen, as I said at the time, the political cavities inside

that smile. They've seen Bills 19 and 20; they've seen decentralization

and privatization; they've seen the Coquihalla coverup; they've seen

the Premier not being bound by the rule of law in his approach to the

abortion issue; and they've seen what happened with Peter Toigo.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, terms

applied to a member of this Legislative Assembly which refer to coverup

or not obeying the law are unparliamentary and must be withdrawn.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Can we have quiet, please? Personal allusions

are, of course, never acceptable, so the government House Leader is

correct in what he says.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Chairman, it was Doug MacKay, the

commissioner of inquiry appointed by this government, who said there

was a coverup. I will show you the reports. He said this Legislature

was misled. That statement was made in the commissioner of inquiry's

report. I did not say the Premier covered it up at all. That was not

the statement I made. I said the Coquihalla inquiry....

AN HON. MEMBER : Backtracking.

MR. HARCOURT : No, I'm just saying it in more detail.

Obviously you haven't read the Coquihalla report, because you don't

care. You're not listening to the people. You're not listening to the

commissioner of inquiry. All of you. You're all into it.

Mr. Chairman, I don't take back anything I said about the Premier

not listening, about being out of touch, about not being capable of

being the Premier of this province. The issues aren't the fine people

of this province and the bountiful resources that God has given us; the

issues are this Premier and this government. They're the problem; not

the people, not the resources, not the media. not the New Democrats.

Look in the mirror, Mr. Premier. You're the problem.

MR. R. FRASER : I look forward to taking my place in this

debate. Since we're likely going to hear all the words again, I thought

I would use them myself. How about 1984, abortion, and one or two other

things that you guys like to talk about quite a bit? Now that that's on

the record and we've talked about that for a while, we can move on.

Oh, Boundary-Similkameen; we want to talk about that, too, because

there's a lesson there. The Leader of the Opposition, speaking on the

Premier's estimates, talked about special interest groups. If there

ever was a party of special interest groups, it's that party across the

floor, in my opinion. It's the party that says: "We don't like

regionalization, we don't like decentralization. It's all bad for the

province, and it shouldn't happen." When you look in the newspapers,

you see great write-ups about the Leader of the Opposition, who says:

"Oh, yes, we need great regional strategies to boost B.C.'s economy."

That's the story we hear more and more — the contradictory remarks from

the opposition. He says, for example, on Boundary-Similkameen or on the

abortion issue, that we never learn.

Then you look at some other reports and see that the superintendent of brokers

says that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) has committed an

alarming number of factual inaccuracies and allegations. What does that member

say? The member says in a later newspaper report: "I don't care, because

I am going to go ahead and do it anyway." I thought that that was kind

of interesting and that we might want to talk about it,

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) said that Audrey Moore,

mayor of the Kootenay town we all know, says: "I'm horrified at

regionalization." If you happen to look at this little book here, what

do you find? On page 31 you will find that that same mayor, Audrey

Moore, serves on three of the committees for the regional economic

diversification task force for her area. Not too bad. Obviously she is

working on it, not just rejecting it. She's working on it, and I kind

of like that idea.

The point we get all the time is that although the opposition

leader's words sound quite important sometimes, they don't have the

ring of sincerity that I think they should have. I don't think he

actually believes what he is saying himself. It's a constant thing with

the New Democratic Party. They now think they are going to form the

national government, and they say: "We're against NATO, but just in

case we should get elected, we'll think about it later." Their leader,

Mr. Broadbent, comes out to B.C. during Expo and says: "Workers unite.

Don't go to Expo." The very next day, when I am at the Expo site, he is

getting VIP treatment, going in the back door ahead of all the lineups

at one of the pavilions. What does that tell you about the NDP? Let's

do this; let's say that — it really is quite unbelievable.

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) said: "Let's not

have any of that phony Asian investment here." It's in the book; it's

in Hansard . The leader says: "I'm going to go to the Orient and

encourage people to come and invest in British Columbia." Now which is

it? The special interest groups....

He accuses the Premier of imposing his moral views on the public.

Well, well, well, isn't that interesting! "And you never learn," he

says. You know, there are a number of people around the province who

really didn't think the government's policy on abortion was very good.

And guess what: it's changed. But you don't change; the government

changes. The government learns and the government thinks, and from the

apparent loss in Boundary-Similkameen the government will learn more.

In fact, if we lose a by-election or two, we will learn even more,

because every event, whether it's an apparent win or loss, is an

opportunity to learn something new, and we should never let those

chances go by.

[11:45]

The member from Victoria said: "Where does the mayor of Kamloops

live?" This is really important for the Premier's estimates. We went

through it a number of times and found out where a number of the mayors

live — very important. We have more important things to talk about than

that.

I would like to ask the Premier to give us some information about

the activities of the intergovernmental relations that he looks after.

I want to find out what we're doing with respect to our connections

with Ottawa, what staff complement we have with respect to keeping in

touch with Ottawa, because it does disturb all of us in this chamber —

all of you across the floor as well, I'm sure — when we see that 98

percent of the frigates are built in the province of Quebec. It does

concern us when we see General Motors Corp. getting $250 million, and

it does concern us when we see big programs going to Ontario.

[ Page 5140 ]

While we are not a big population and while our influence on the

federal government will not be very significant, there is no doubt

about the fact that British Columbia is an important contributor to the

economy of Canada, and because of that, our connections with the

government of Ottawa should be very strong. I want to hear what we're

doing about it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : As you're aware, Mr. Chairman, we did

bring intergovernmental relations, which was a ministry, as a branch

into the Premier's office, because most of the negotiations with

Ottawa, be they on issues of trade, free trade, Meech Lake or the like,

really involve the Premier's office. So all of that work is being done

through the office — and very effectively, I might say.

As you are aware, of course, we have been able to accomplish

something that I don't believe any other provincial government has ever

accomplished: the establishment of a federal-provincial council of

ministers to address the inequities that exist between Ottawa and the

province of British Columbia. We've long talked about these inequities

and the fact that we're not getting a fair share from all of the

programs that emanate from Ottawa; that we pay far more to Ottawa than

what we get back. This is not anything new; it's been thus for a long

time. We've heard examples of where we pay something like $640 million

annually to Ottawa in highway taxes and get back, on average, from $25

million to $35 million annually on highways. That's largely spent on

the Alaska Highway, with some being spent on Highway 16 and some in the

parks.

We have those sorts of inequities, and I'll grant you that they've

existed for a long time. We have the inequity in agriculture where, for

example, in industrial milk we're only permitted to produce about 3.7

percent of that which is produced in all of Canada. So we don't have

butter being manufactured in B.C. It comes from Alberta or Ontario,

even though it has a B.C. wrapper. You look at it: it says Fraser

Valley or Dairyland. You'd think it was a B.C. product, but it's really

from Alberta or Ontario, because we're not allowed to manufacture. We

don't have enough industrial quota to manufacture butter. So it is also

with cheese and ice cream, which we have to manufacture with powdered

milk brought in from Ontario, because we don't have enough quota from

the federal government to produce our share of these products.

We've attempted to address all of this. We've raised it time and

time again, and fortunately, in fairness to the government in Ottawa

today, they did recognize that and have established this council of

ministers which meets fairly regularly. It's now being headed up by the

Hon. Gerry St. Germain, who's a tremendous help and a tremendous

minister for British Columbia. He is very concerned about bringing

about this equity, so I'm sure we'll see it increasing and growing — an

improved relationship between the province and Ottawa. But there's much

to be done, so our office is working on this consistently.

We have also strengthened the office in Ottawa where we have B.C. House. Mr.

Tim Kuash is in charge of the office. He certainly has with him good people

that follow through on the various things that need to be negotiated, so that

as these things are being discussed between ministers, they're also being

discussed between our people in Ottawa and our deputies in Victoria and the

deputies in the bureaucracy in Ottawa. There is a good rapport developing, which

will better our chances to get a fair share. We'll continue on that course.

MR. R. FRASER : I have a couple of questions. We talked about

some conflicts, and the Leader of the Opposition has asked you on a

number of occasions if you would obey the law of the land, etc., and

I've asked you that myself. I note with great interest that he points

out that illegal strikes are no problem in his mind.

Apart from that, one of the questions that I want to ask you relates

to some comments by him. I gather he has said that he would increase

the spending in health care and education and social services by some

$3 billion, and further, that he would increase the welfare payments

about 50 percent. My information on that is that a 50 percent increase

would cost the taxpayers of British Columbia about $500 million. With

respect to fiscal responsibility, could you comment on those two items,

please?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I don't know just exactly what the

figures would be for the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition

that welfare payments be increased by 50 percent and some of these

other suggestions that have been made. I can't give you an exact

figure. I can take that question back and get more information on it,

but I suspect half a billion dollars might not be unreasonable. Also, I

suppose there are other issues that were raised by the Leader of the

Opposition. I'll try to get some information as to what the cost of

these would be, but I'm sure they would be considerable. Hopefully,

before these estimates are finished we can get that information back to

the House.

I do want to respond briefly to a remark made by the Leader of the

Opposition that the Premier doesn't care about the poor and is only

working with the wealthy. I want to make it very clear here — although

I don't think I need to explain it to people in my constituency or

elsewhere in the province -that I care about all of the people and that

I work for all of the people — and all of us do. When I get a call from

someone in my constituency or elsewhere who has a particular problem —

be it a welfare problem, a social problem or a health problem — I go

out of my way to pursue it. I've achieved some things in life, but I've

achieved them because I worked hard at it. You don't, Mr. Leader of the

Opposition, with all due respect, have to have been a legal aid lawyer

all your life to understand the needs of people, regardless of the

level of their income. So I take exception to that comment.

You also made reference to a plebiscite. I don't recall this

comment: "You take a plebiscite on uranium-mining, and whatever the

outcome of the plebiscite, we'll do whatever it is you wish to see done

that you've expressed in the plebiscite." We have repeatedly said that

there's a fair process in place, and that we're providing through the

regulations that exist today more protection to the people and to

industry than we've ever seen — I'm sure you have discussed this — anywhere else in Canada. I've also said there will be no

uranium-mining in B.C. without these hearings, and the minister has

said that many times. There's a process, and it's a very stringent

process. I've also said that as long there's uranium available, as it

is so easily in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, there won't be

uranium-mining here.

But it's easy, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, to say: "If there's a

plebiscite, we'll do something." You took a plebiscite in Vancouver:

"We're going to declare Vancouver a nuclear-free zone." Then after the

outcome of that

[ Page 5141 ]

plebiscite, you placed signs all around the city so that whether

you're coming from Richmond, Surrey, Burnaby or Coquitlam, you know

when you get there that you're entering a nuclear-free zone, and

there's a great feeling of relief. That was your response to a

plebiscite. You can use this for political purposes and do all sorts of

things. When it comes to the uranium situation as it exists in the

communities where you've been speaking about all these dangers and

where you've perhaps — from what I've heard from others — thrown the

scare into some of these people, there are good regulations in place —

very effective and very stringent regulations, more so than what exists

anywhere else in Canada.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Chairman, there was a question asked and a

comment made by the member for Vancouver South — and the Premier

answered — about me saying that there should be a 50 percent increase

in welfare rates. That's a fiction. I said — as a matter of fact,

yesterday on my monthly hotline show — that this government has given

some insulting minuscule increases over the last six or seven years. I

said there needs to be an increase in welfare rates. I said very

distinctly that the government's finances could not afford what people

need just to get up to the poverty line, but there needs to be an

increase, I would just like to correct the record of that mischievous

question and mischievous answer.

MR. GABELMANN : Before I begin — and I'm obviously not going

to get very far today — I want to ask the House for its indulgence in

making a couple of brief introductions.

Leave granted.

MR. GABELMANN : In the gallery this morning listening to us in

this debate are four people from the Sayward Christian School. I'd like

the House to welcome Berna Friesen, Carrie Friesen, Janet Rainbow and

Rita Rainbow, if they would; and secondly, welcome a group of students

here from Zeballos Elementary Secondary School in the community of

Zeballos, accompanied by their principal Mr. Toporowski.

I just want to begin to take a couple of minutes that we might have to ask the Premier whether the Vancouver Sun on June 8 quoted the Premier fairly in terms of his....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN : So the implication is that everything that's in the Vancouver Sun is wrong.

Let me just read a statement and ask if this fairly reflects the

Premier's view: "The ILO is made up of labour organizations, and they

tend to view it a little differently than the general populace would,

the Premier said" — in response to the ILO declaration about the

validity under international legal standards of our labour legislation.

Does that fairly reflect the Premier's view?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Good for the Sun . Not bad.

MR. GABELMANN : The Premier's agreeing that he's quoted

generally accurately in saying that the ILO is made up of labour

organizations. I wonder if the Premier would care to tell the House who

in fact does comprise the membership of the ILO.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : This is a group made up of

international labour organizations, and they are asked from time to

time to make comments or recommendations on labour initiatives,

legislative or otherwise, in various jurisdictions. These requests,

I suppose, by and large might come from other labour organizations

within that particular jurisdiction.

My comment, as reported in the Vancouver Sun , is quite accurate.

They obviously view it in a fairly narrow way, I would think, and that

would tend to be reflected in their expression of opinion on that

particular matter.

[12:00]

MR. GABELMANN : I wonder if the Premier knows that the ILO was established as a result of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.

MR. MICHAEL : On a point of order, I would like to bring to the attention of the Chair that the hour of adjournment has been reached.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed.

MR. GABELMANN : I'll take a minute, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder if the Premier knows that the ILO was established by the

Treaty of Versailles in 1919, re-established in 1946 by the United

Nations, and is in fact an organization comprising 50 percent

representatives from 146 governments around the world, 25 percent

representatives from the business and management organizations in those

146 countries, and 25 percent labour organizations in those 146

countries. Twenty-five percent of the influence in the ILO is from

trade union organizations, yet the minister, encouraged by another

minister of the cabinet, talks about it being an organization of trade

unions, an organization of labour interests. This sums up clearly what

is wrong with the Premier in his operation of this government. The

Premier constantly opens his mouth and speaks before he knows what he

is talking about.

I'll have more to say about this in the continuation of these

estimates on another day. I move the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1988, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada