1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd

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, MARCH 13, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 7303 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

B.C. Rail shares. Mr. Macdonald –– 7303

Westcoast Savings Credit Union. Mr. Macdonald –– 7303

Superhost program. Mr. Lea –– 7304

Hotel evictions. Mr. Barnes –– 7304

Social housing. Mr. Blencoe –– 7305

Mr. Hanson

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Michael –– 7305

Mr. Macdonald –– 7309

Mr. Schroeder –– 7311

Mr. Lauk –– 7314

Mr. Mowat –– 7317

Mr. Stupich –– 7320

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 7324

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I do know that each and every

member of this assembly this afternoon would like to join with me in an

extremely warm welcome, an especial welcome, to the newly appointed

consul-general for France, M. Rene Delille. Accompanying him today is

his wife, Mme. Elyane Delille, and his daughter, Mlle. Vanessa.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish the house to

welcome the Pacific Mennonite Children's Choir. They're in the

Speaker's gallery today, and I would like them very much all to stand.

I'd like you to recognize the uniform. This does not signify the member

as being Scottish himself, but rather that this is the B.C. tartan.

They are accompanied by Mr. Fred Hall and some proud parents, and are

under the direction of choir leader Nancy Dyck. This choir, Mr. Speaker

and colleagues, is world-renowned. They have just recently accepted an

invitation to perform in the seventeenth world conference of the

International Society for Music Education which is being held in

Innsbruck, Austria, in July of this year, and they are the only choir

representing Canada at that event.

HON. MR. PELTON: In the gallery today is His Worship John

Agnew, mayor of the corporation of the district of Mission, and Dr.

Norman Cook, the administrator for that same municipality, and Mr. John

Gaims, who is the administrator for the Dewdney-Alouette regional

district. I would appreciate the House making them all welcome.

MR. MOWAT: I take great pleasure today in introducing to you

the 1986 interns assigned to the Social Credit caucus. We are very

impressed with their fine attitude and their excellent work habits, and

we know this will be a great learning experience for them for this year

and for their future. Mr. Speaker, may I present: Laurie Boucher from

Simon Fraser University, from the constituency of Dewdney; Nancy Peck

from the University of British Columbia, from Vancouver South; Brian

Young from the University of Victoria, from Oak Bay-Gordon Head; and

Diana MacGibbon from the University of Victoria, from Oak Bay-Gordon

Head. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, following a very pleasant

earlier meeting with you today, I would like to introduce to members of

the assembly Mr. Rich Jones of the National Conference of State

Legislatures, and Miss Susan Cribbs from the office of my colleague,

the equivalent minister in Alberta, Mr. Jim Horsman. Welcome, indeed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, also visiting with us today are

120 grade 11 students from Delta Secondary School with their teacher

Mr. E Sawatsky. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

Oral Questions

B.C. RAIL SHARES

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, wearing the B.C. tartan also, I

have a question for the Minister of Finance. He brought down a budget

in 1984 that advanced $470 million from general revenue to B.C. Rail —

a subsidiary of the railway company — and on June 13 of that year he

signed the order-in-council guaranteeing, on behalf of all of us, the

repayment of the first preferred share issue. He made that share issue,

which he admits he took full

part in, retractable, which means, in

part, that it's a tax deduction. I don't mean it's a tax shelter, like

the one the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) is

living in. When did the minister buy these shares and how much did he

pay for them? They fluctuate, you know. When did he sell them, and at

what price did he sell them?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In order to be completely accurate in

responding to the member's question, I will take part of it as notice —

that is, the precise date of purchase and the precise date of sale. I

will tell the member that the preferred shares I purchased were sold

prior to the end of June 1985. The balance of the question I'll take on

notice. I'm sorry, I don't have the precise date of purchase.

MR. MACDONALD: In taking this on notice, I hope the minister

heard my whole question. I also asked at what price you bought and at

what price you sold.

I'll ask another question, because I'm glad the minister's in a

forthcoming mood today.

WESTCOAST SAVINGS CREDIT UNION

In 1981 the minister, as Minister of Finance, deposited $36 million

— well above the usual deposit guidelines — in the Westcoast Savings

Credit Union. That credit union had the mortgage on his house, and he

was a depositor and borrower from that particular credit union. Will

the minister confirm that that is basically what took place?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes. I am a member of Westcoast Savings

Credit Union and have been for a number of years.

MR. MACDONALD: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Why did the

government suddenly invest $36 million in a credit union in which you

were personally interested?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the member, before

he pursues this questioning, that he might refresh his memory with

respect to what membership in a credit union means in this province.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask again: will the minister give an

explanation of why suddenly $36 million, which is far above the $5

million limit for investments in credit unions, was advanced to a

credit union in which he had a personal interest at that particular

time? We want a full explanation.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair does not wish to rule

out of order questions, but we must remember that questions must not

evoke argument and be questions.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member shakes in righteous indignation

as he asks the question. I want to assure this House that the two

matters which he has raised in the question are not related.

[ Page 7304 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Just a final supplementary. Does the minister

not think that they are related in the sense that it's improper for a

minister, who in his official capacity can affect the value of shares

or the savings of a credit union, to do something in his official

capacity which has all the appearances of being something that might

benefit himself?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It would be very difficult to reside in

British Columbia, regardless of what portfolio one holds — but let us

deal with the Ministry of Finance as a portfolio — and not deal with

some financial institution which does not have a relationship with the

government of British Columbia. Is the member suggesting that I should

transfer my debts and my assets to another province? If that is the

case, then I reject the thesis.

[2:15]

SUPERHOST PROGRAM

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism in

regard to the SuperHost program. It's my understanding that the

SuperHost program not only puts on seminars for employees in the

private sector but is also putting on seminars for employees who work

for the province of British Columbia in Crown corporations and

government ministries.

Some 4,000 B.C. Transit employees have either taken or are

scheduled to take the one-day seminar. Each employee who takes it has a

day that he or she is paid to take the seminar, plus there's the day of

the seminar, plus a dinner that night supplied by the program. I think

a conservative estimate would be that it would cost about $150 an

employee at least, including the wages, so you're looking at

approximately $600,000 for that one program for B.C. Transit

employees. When talking with one of those employees I said: "What did

you learn?" They said: "We learned how to smile."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: And the question is, hon. member?

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, my question is: how many other public

employees, either from Crown corporations or directly employed by a

ministry, have taken the course, how many are scheduled to take the

course and what is the estimate of the cost of teaching public

employees to smile?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, it's impossible for me to

answer how many government employees or Crown corporation employees are

scheduled to take the course. I can ascertain that information for the

member and find out. I would point out to him that the cost of the

employee's wages are not borne by my ministry, so I have no knowledge

of what that cost is. But I can tell you, Mr. Member, that over 30,000

people in this province have taken the course, and we have had nothing

but good remarks from all of them. They say that it was very much

worthwhile, including some large taxi fleets, private transportation

companies and service industry employees. They find the course very

much worthwhile, and the employers feel it is very worthwhile that they

pay their employees' wages for the one day they do take the course. By

the time Expo opens we will have put some 75,000 people through the

course.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, to the minister, I don't believe that

it's really any of my business or anybody else's business if a private

corporation wants to spend money to take the course. However, when

we're spending those kinds of taxpayers' dollars to take people in....

Sure they say they like it; they get a day off and a dinner paid for by

the taxpayer to teach them how to smile.

I'd like the minister, if he would, to come back to the House and

tell us exactly how many government-paid employees are going to have

that eight-hour, one-day course, plus a dinner supplied, and what the

estimated cost is.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the course is

not mandatory for anyone, private or public sector, so I can't really

tell you how many are going to take the course. It's offered to them;

it's not mandatory.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you a graduate?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm not only a graduate, I am one of the

authors of the course, I will have you know.

I will only be able to tell the member how many public sector

employees have taken the course once they have completed the course.

It's certainly not mandatory.

MR. LEA: The minister said that it's voluntary. Having

checked with ministerial staff this morning, I can say that's

absolutely correct. In the private sector it is voluntary. But it's my

understanding that in B.C. Transit it was not voluntary, that the

decision was made by the board of directors at the top and passed down.

Did I get incorrect information from the ministry?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker-

and I asked this very same question — it is on a voluntary basis by

members of the transit union. There's nothing mandatory about the

course.

HOTEL EVICTIONS

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, after yesterday's diversion by the

government to avoid dealing with the serious problems seniors are

facing in the downtown east side due to the evictions occurring there,

I will give the Premier a rest this afternoon and address my question

to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the minister

responsible for residential tenancies now decided to take action to

prevent these unfair evictions?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm sure the member was here yesterday and

heard the action that the government is taking. I'm also willing to

tell the member that I've received no representation from anyone

whatsoever in this area.

MR. BARNES: I think the minister should enlighten himself

about the seriousness of the situation, because the issue that we are

concerned about is directly under the responsibility of the minister,

who should be responsible for the protection of consumers in this

province — especially senior citizens who are attempting to find

accommodation that is simply not available within their budgets.

Has the minister decided to redefine the difference between hotels

and residential properties with respect to these problems? Clearly

hotels in the downtown east side are

[ Page 7305 ]

having it both ways. They're able to operate as hotels on the one

hand, renting by the day, and on the other hand they are able to rent

by the week, the month, the year, and benefit as though they are

residences. This is one of the problems we're telling that side of the

House all the time. Something has to happen.

Is the minister going to recognize this problem, and what action

does he intend to take?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, if the member wants action on a

particular area, clearly he ought to direct that to the minister

responsible. I would think that in this case it's the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. BARNES: Am I to take it that the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs is saying these evictions of people who are long-term

tenants in those hotels in the downtown east side do not come under his

responsibility?

SOCIAL HOUSING

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were provided with an

attack on social housing by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Ritchie) — somewhat of a cheap ploy to avoid dealing with the tenants

in Vancouver.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair tries to

be as fair as possible during question period, and if we enforced the

very specific rules that guide us, very few questions would be in

order; certainly not the amount of

preamble that we're seeing develop

in the last two days. I would ask the members to bear that in mind and

place their questions before the House.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the real Minister of

Housing. Yesterday the minister said he had been ordered by the

Minister of Municipal Affairs to conduct yet another study on social

housing in British Columbia. Has the minister not read the report

submitted to his ministry on January 22, 1986 entitled, "A Social

Housing Report for British Columbia"? Why do we need more studies? When

is the government going to start building some affordable housing in

the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, the investigation that was

suggested yesterday by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, one which I

agree wholeheartedly should take place is an investigation to be

conducted on the social housing situation in the city of Vancouver.

MR. BLENCOE: This minister and this government, instead of

being on a search- and-rescue mission, are on a search- and- destroy

mission in Vancouver. That's what they're up to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: You've done your studies, spent your money. Why

do you need to do another study? What are you covering up, Mr. Minister?

MR. HANSON: I have a question to the Premier. The recent

focus on the social housing crisis in British Columbia, resulting from

the under-funding over the last number of years.... Last year it was

$15.5 million. My question is with respect to the amount of money spent

on political advertising in this province. Last year it was $18

million. Given the fact that we have a crisis in housing, have you

decided in your upcoming budget to cut the political advertising —

which no one believes anyway — and have those funds, and the $33

million in government travel, diverted to social housing?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm surprised that the member would call

the government information program political advertising. The people's

right to know must be met by a strong government information program.

Other than that, the rest of the premise as to dollar amounts and

others contained in his question are wrong.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. MICHAEL: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to enter

this throne speech debate. I have several areas I would like to cover,

the first one having to do with some comments made by the Leader of the

Opposition regarding northeast coal. He continues to make reference to

the current member for Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Segarty), who was elected, I

believe, in 1979, as one who supported northeast coal. While I am sure

that the current member does support northeast coal, it is interesting

to go back to the dates when northeast coal was first discussed in the

province of British Columbia.

[Mr. Ree in the chair ]

The sitting member from the Kootenays during those years in the

early 1970s, through to 1975, whose name was Leo Nimsick.... It is

interesting to look at some clippings on the original discussion of

northeast coal, going back to December 1975, just a few days before the

election that was called by the then Premier of the day, Dave Barrett

of the NDP, and the announcement that was made by a member sitting in

this House today, the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

This particular clipping from the Prince George Citizen refers to Mr.

Gary Lauk, the economic development minister, and is headed "Northern

Program Applauded." The first paragraph in that clipping says:

"Alf Nunweiler, Minister of Northern Affairs, has

hailed Tuesday's announcement of a $1 billion coal development program

in northeastern British Columbia as great news for northerners of

British Columbia.

"Nunweiler, incumbent NDP Fort George MLA, said today:

'The development will have a lot of positive economic effects,

including, for example, an expansion of rail facilities in Prince

George. With the increased traffic, both CNR and BCR are going to need

expanded switching yards, and they might even explore the possibility

of establishing a joint switching yard here. Elsewhere in the north, '

Nunweiler noted, 'some $95 million will be spent to expand facility in

Dawson Creek and Chetwynd and to establish a new townsite about 60

miles southeast of Chetwynd."'

[ Page 7306 ]

It had not yet been named, Mr. Speaker, but it has since been named

Tumbler Ridge.

"'About $20 million will be needed to improve the

existing infrastructure in Dawson Creek and Chetwynd and about $75

million to develop the infrastructure for a new townsite. Expansion of

this kind, based on coal development, will have a very healthy effect.

It will help diversify our economy in northern British Columbia."'

That is from the Prince George Citizen of December 1975, while the

opposition party was the government of the day, and the sitting member

for Kootenay was none other than Leo Nimsick. And the Premier of the

province when northeast coal was first discussed in the province of

British Columbia was none other than Dave Barrett.

[12:30]

Now going from there and talking about the very important issue of

jobs in the province of British Columbia, if there is one particular

area that we certainly all agree on in this House — all members,

opposition and government — it is the need to create new jobs

throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia. But we also know

that we have had some very serious problems in British Columbia in the

last four or five years with the international economic downturn. We've

lost a lot of jobs in forestry. As a matter of fact, from the most

recent figures I've been able to obtain from the forestry association,

it looks like British Columbia has lost somewhere between 17,000 and

20,000 jobs in the forest sector alone. We all know what this means.

We know there is a multiplier effect from raw resource industries of

about six to one. So it could be said that British Columbia has lost

somewhere between 110,000 and 120,000 workers in the forest sector

alone.

Along with that, we know that we've had a very difficult time in our

mining industry. As a result of the devaluation of international

currency, there have been thousands of jobs lost in the mining sector

in the province of British Columbia — again, with the multiplier effect.

These are very difficult times, and it's a very difficult challenge for

the government of the day to meet those kinds of economic downturns.

The Leader of the Opposition is well aware, if he checks his

research, why the province of Ontario is doing somewhat better than the

province of British Columbia at the present time. He should know that

approximately 90 percent of Ontario's export sales go into the United

States marketplace, where the seller's dollar receives a bonus of about

40 percent. In British Columbia, the Leader of the Opposition should

know, only about 35 percent of our exports go into the United States

market. The other 65 percent are offshore, and he knows full well that

in that 65 percent the Canadian dollar has fared much better than other

international currencies. Therefore, when we sell into those

marketplaces, we are getting less value back for our dollar than we did

six, seven or eight years ago.

Despite those downturns in the resource industries, despite the fact

that in our offshore markets devaluation of the international currency

has hurt the province of British Columbia, the fact remains that

through the aggressive action of this government — the fact that this

government has taken the bull by the horns and put our financial house

in order — there have been 50,000 new jobs created in the province of

British Columbia in the last 12 months. That comes from the Dominion

Bureau of Statistics. I'm the first to admit that of those 50,000 jobs

there are a number that are part-time. There's no question about that.

But while we look at those figures, the same ground rules apply in

British Columbia as apply in all other provinces in Canada. If you want

to do some comparison, go and look at what happened in Manitoba in the

last 12 months, because I can tell you that the figures show 14,000

new jobs in the last 12 months there, as compared to 50,000 in the

province of British Columbia, and they too include part-time workers.

The private sector in British Columbia is doing its job. The

government is doing its job. The one area in British Columbia that I

have heard is cutting back in the last couple of weeks is the B.C.

Federation of Labour. What has the B.C. Federation of Labour announced

in the last couple of weeks? They're shutting down unemployment action

centres. I say shame on them. Of all the times to be throwing people

out on the unemployment heap, this is not the time. This is a time of

growth and positive action. The private sector is doing the job, the

government is doing the job, and the B.C. Fed are throwing laid-off

workers out on the unemployment heap; and I think it's a disgrace. The

Federation of Labour has the ability to raise all the money it wants.

It has a couple of hundred thousand affiliated members in British

Columbia, and the easy ability to go out and add on a little bit of

assessments. Local unions in this province have got hundreds of

thousands of dollars in reserves in their trust accounts, and it's

shameful that they should be laying people off in unemployment action

centres at this critical point in our history. Perhaps it has something

to do with the fact that they feel an election is coming along fairly

soon and they wish to strengthen the coffers somewhat and cut down on

the outflow of money in an attempt to once again defeat the Social

Credit government in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member of the opposition to perhaps

look in Hansard in Ottawa. Try to do some examinations of what the NDP

federal MPs have done for British Columbia in the way of arguing a

better deal. How many times have they stood up on the floor of the

House of Commons and argued a better deal for British Columbia, whether

it be balance of payments, island pipeline or the many other issues

that are needed in the province of British Columbia? Check to find out

the last time one of the federal NDP MPs pointed out to the federal

government that the population of British Columbia represents 11

percent of the population of Canada and yet if you look at the

Purchasing Commission in Ottawa, they are spending 4 percent of their

dollars in British Columbia,

whereas we contribute and represent 11

percent of the population of this dominion.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that if you want to talk about getting

your financial house in order, all the member of the opposition has to

do is take the nine-month statement put out by our Ministry of Finance

here about three weeks ago and look at the operating expenditure

consolidated revenue statement for the nine months ending December 31,

1985. If he would analyze that statement, here's what he would find. He

would find that expenditure in that nine-month period has risen by 3.03

percent. He would note that if you took out the forest fire costs — the

extra money spent on forest fires in 1985 — that figure would have been

down to 1.49 percent. If you took out the extra money spent on the

Coquihalla you would find that the province of British Columbia in that

nine-month period would have had an expenditure less than the similar

nine-month period in 1984 — I suggest to you that that is a clear

signal that the province of British Columbia has got its house in

order. We know where we're going. The private

[ Page 7307 ]

sector has confidence in investing in the province of British

Columbia, and we're seeing it in very meaningful terms.

Talking about having the provincial treasury financial house in

order is not good enough, because we must look at Crown corporations

and other signals in the province of British Columbia. It's interesting

to note that through the efforts of the minister in charge of ICBC,

administration costs are down and premiums are going to be reduced in

this current year by 6.5 percent.

Positive things are happening. Sales taxes in the last twelve months

have gone up 8.8 percent. A clear signal that British Columbia is on

the road to recovery. You can have a look at the business

incorporations — the figures over the last while — to see that the

trend is going up. In 1983 there were 13,787 new businesses

incorporated in the province of British Columbia. In 1984 that figure

rose slightly to 14,052. But in the twelve months ending December 31,

1985, there have been 15, 581 firms incorporated in the province of

British Columbia. That's an 11 percent increase.

During that period I can tell you that other good signals are in the

forefront. Have a look at the export sales of hydro in the last 12

months. Look at the calendar year ending 1985 as compared to the

calendar year ending in 1984. In 1984 export sales were $123 million;

in 1985, $283 million, a 130 percent increase. I would suggest to you

this is another clear signal that the province of British Columbia

knows where it's going.

While the Leader of the Opposition is in the chamber, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to suggest to him that the next time he visits my

constituency he please do a little bit more research than he did on his

last visit. A couple of months ago he was up there in a little place

called Sicamous as a guest speaker at a nominating convention. He

happened to make a remark up there that the lower mainland was getting

all the money; nothing was happening in Shuswap-Revelstoke. This is

what he was quoted on the radio and in the newspapers as having said:

"All the money is going down to the lower mainland."

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a few things about Shuswap-Revelstoke

while the Leader of the Opposition is in the chamber. He didn't do very

good research, nor did he look around while he was travelling through my

constituency. He was about three blocks away from a brand-new Sicamous

seniors' drop-in centre, partially financed by the provincial

government. Had he walked two more blocks to the south he would have

found a little subdivision there that had a very serious flooding

problem; $100,000 was put into that subdivision by the Minister of

Highways to cure that problem, and he says no money is going into

Shuswap-Revelstoke. He must have had some information from some of the

people attending that nominating convention. Some $300,000 has been

put into the Revelstoke ski hill by the Lotteries Corporation, and he's

saying no money is being spent in Shuswap-Revelstoke. Also in

Revelstoke, a brand-new Rotary seniors' housing project opened since my

election as MLA for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

He must have driven down the Trans-Canada Highway, Mr. Speaker,

because he stopped in at the Chase newspaper and introduced himself. He

must have looked to the north as he was travelling along the

Trans-Canada Highway and noticed a new bridge there at Pritchard — an

$800,000 bridge, compliments of the provincial government. Also

improvements to the Pritchard Hall are evident for any of those who

chose to look. He must have been in Chase, because he visited the Chase

weekly paper, and he must have noticed the big sign on a vacant lot:

"Chase liquor store to start construction soon." While he was travelling

down the Trans-Canada Highway I'd be surprised, Mr. Speaker, if he

didn't notice the many signs of people working — activity because of

the Inland Natural Gas extension line that's being put into Chase,

Blind Bay, Sorrento, Tappen, Skimikin and Silver Creek — a $6.3 million

project, Mr. Speaker, the only one in the province of British Columbia,

happening in Shuswap-Revelstoke, made possible by the provincial

government's contribution of $1.3 million as announced in the Minister

of Finance's address in March 1985.

Mr. Speaker, he must have been aware of the Salmon Arm community

centre construction: a new $2.5 million centre started a few months

ago, completion May or June 1986, made possible by a $400,000 lottery

grant. He must have had some insight, Mr. Speaker, having talked to the

people in the community, into the Salmon Arm wharf project — a $400,000

legacy grant that's going to stimulate $1.2 million in economic

activity. A new fire hall has been announced in the city of Salmon Arm.

Chase is getting a new museum made possible by provincial funding. The

new Armstrong museum has been opened, made possible by contributions

from the provincial government. New fire halls in Enderby, Lee Creek,

Deep Creek and White Lake, a new health centre and a new bridge in

Enderby. Major renovations to the Armstrong arena. New horse-barns for

the Interior Provincial Exhibition at Armstrong. Downtown

revitalization projects in Enderby, Armstrong, Salmon Arm and

Revelstoke. Armstrong Kinsmen ball park.

Had he checked with his members from the Enderby-Mabel Lake area he

would have found that that road is completed — fully paved. A new

seniors' housing project right on the Trans-Canada Highway. He drove

right by it — 16 units started construction four months ago, and it's

going to be completed in the month of June.

Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to the leader of the Opposition that

next time he comes to the great constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke,

please ask some questions of research. Don't make a fool of yourself by

making statements that nothing's happening in that constituency,

because you hurt my feelings when you say things like that.

[2:45]

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may, in discussing the Speech from the

Throne, make some remarks about some of the highlights in there that

are going to be good for my particular area and also perhaps offer the

government some suggestions. I think that all members of the House will

agree that the critical industries commissioner has done a very good

job in the province of British Columbia. No one will refute the fact

that he has probably saved the jobs of 1,500 to 1,800 workers and has

been successful in keeping open six forest industry and mining related

industries in the province of British Columbia. It would be my

suggestion to the government that in this session they give some

consideration to slightly expanding the terms of reference of the

commissioner of critical industries to consider including manufacturing

and processing rather than just mining- and forestry-related firms

under the jurisdiction of the commissioner of critical industries. I

have just had personal experience in working with a manufacturing firm

that was in receivership in my constituency. I think we have got the

situation under control and are going to see that firm reopen in the

next week or ten days. But it would have been a lot easier and we could

have actioned the thing much more swiftly had we had the assistance of

a person of

[ Page 7308 ]

the stature of the commissioner of critical industries to assist the

MLA and the firm in resolving this problem

Another point I would like to talk to the government about.... I

know it's been somewhat controversial over the years, but I'm putting a

suggestion forward in a very positive manner. It is the question of the

Sunday opening of pubs during Expo in 1986. If a tourist wants a cold

beer, I don't think he really cares whether it's Wednesday, Friday or

Sunday, and I would suggest to the government that they give serious

consideration to permitting the opening of pubs during Expo for 1986.

I'm convinced that we would see an additional 1,500 to 2,000

part-time or full-time jobs. Without any question, it would certainly

result in an increase in volume for all these owners and entrepreneurs

of somewhere between 16 percent to 16.5 percent by going from six days

a week to seven days a week: lots of jobs, more income tax, more liquor

tax and more sales tax — more money to be spent by the government on

social services and jobs.

One of the other factors would be to cut down on the outflow of

Canadians going across the line on Sundays. I think we're losing a lot

of hard dollars every Sunday. Thousands of people are going across the

border to get a cold beer on Sunday. I think we should keep them at

home in British Columbia where we need the jobs and the tax revenue.

While they're over there, besides having a cold beer they gas up their

car, do a little bit of shopping and buy a few groceries. All those

dollars could be spent in British Columbia.

Further than that, Mr. Speaker, I would say the vast majority of

tourists coming to Expo during 1986, the hundreds of thousands of

people coming to British Columbia.... You will find it is the

tradition in their countries that if they wanted a cold beer on a

Sunday they could get a cold beer on a Sunday.

In looking at the throne speech I notice there's mention of some

further things to be done in forestry. I'm very proud of the progress

that's been made in reforestation and silviculture commitment by this

government since I've been an MLA. I know that in the past year there's

been something in the neighbourhood of 130 million seedlings planted,

and I know that the plans are in place and contracts have been let to

the nurseries so that by the year 1987-88 British Columbia will be

hitting 200 million seedlings a year. I think that's very good,

positive action in that particular area. I'm pleased because that is

one of the things that caused me to enter politics. I want to see a

better job done on our forests. I think the action has been good. I'm

not saying it's good enough yet, but the trend line is certainly in the

right direction.

I also congratulate the government on the efforts, coordination and

assistance they've given the movie picture industry. It's gratifying to

see $70 million spent by that industry in the province of British

Columbia in 1985, and I know and we know that there are bigger and

better things in the future.

I am also happy in looking at page 10 of the throne speech, where it

says: "My government will assist in efforts to extend natural gas

service to rural areas of the province Mr. Speaker, that's a very good

signal, and I would just encourage the minister: please, on that list,

don't forget the community of Sicamous. I have been working on that for

about two and a half years now. I am very happy with the progress made

in Blind Bay, Chase, Sorrento, Silver Creek, Gleneden and Skimikin, but

I would ask the minister to please not forget Sicamous when he's

looking at those extensions.

Another very important thing, Mr. Speaker, something that is going

to mean a lot of jobs in my constituency in the coming year, is the

signal that there is going to be quite a bit of money spent on bridge

replacement. The sentence is located on page 12, and it reads: "In the

spending plans to be tabled by my Minister of Finance, you will be

asked to approve a major program for small bridge replacement

throughout the province." That too is something that I have been

pressing the government on for a couple of years now, and it is an

excellent signal that things will happen in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, another exciting thing that I would Re to comment on

while I am on my feet is the tremendous growth in the aquaculture

industry. We in British Columbia are fortunate to have a shoreline such

as we have, and it gives the indication here that we are now at the

level of $3 million and are expected to hit $150 million by 1995.

That's a lot of jobs, a lot of activity and a lot of things happening

in British Columbia in that particular area.

Mr. Speaker, we should perhaps look at some of the programs that we

have. The Leader of the Opposition was talking about what British

Columbia is doing: look what the provincial government is doing in

regard to encouraging small business and encouraging development by the

private sector to create more jobs.

I would suggest to him that he get some copies of some data from

Industry and Small Business Development. There are lots of brochures

available in that office. I can name a few of the financial assistance

programs for his clarification — just the headings only. There are many

of them here. The first one is the resource industries modernization

program. Another one is the resource industries value-added program.

Another one is the industrial diversification program. Reading on, we

have the small manufacturers incentive program. We have the aquaculture

incentive program, the industrial development assistance program, the

low-interest loan assistance program, the venture capital program and

the tourism incentive program.

Mr. Speaker, there are programs after programs. We have the

management assistance program, the management development program, the

assistance to associations program, the student venture capital loan

program and the technical assistance program. Mr. Speaker, in

conjunction with all of those programs we have the Partners in

Enterprise program — well over 100 municipalities have signed that

already. We have the signing of the ERDA agreement. We have the

activities of the Purchasing Commission, attempting to get more jobs in

British Columbia, more purchasing done in the province of British

Columbia. We have $500 million that goes through the B.C. Purchasing

Commission every year. There is some $2 billion of activity in all

levels of Crown corporations in the government in the province of

British Columbia: lots of opportunities, a good program in creating

more jobs, more economic activity in the province of British Columbia.

Along with that, I think that we have the team in government: we

have the leader in our Premier, we have an excellent track record over

these last couple of years in job creation. We have Expo at the

forefront. We are going to pass the 13.75 million figure before Expo

opens; I can see it coming. Over 11 million passes have already been

signed and 54 countries are signed up. I think we are going to have a

great year ahead of us, and I just hope that the opposition members

will give full support to Expo and the tremendous programs laid out by

the provincial government in working towards what we all

[ Page 7309 ]

desire, and that's more jobs for British Columbians in the province

of B.C.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech very much of

the Leader of the Opposition this morning. I wish that the Premier of

the province of British Columbia had the grace and sense to have been

sitting in his place, listening to the constructive ideas that were

contained in that speech. But unfortunately, at times there was one

cabinet minister present and at times they just showed their contempt

for listening to a good message here.

The speaker from Salmon Arm who has just taken his place attacks the

B.C. Federation of Labour for not keeping open action centres to look

after the unemployed. One of my colleagues gave another quote from him

about a year ago where he said that "unemployment is high in B.C." —

he's trying to apologize — "due to our better weather and better

soup-kitchens." Governments are responsible for giving our people an

opportunity to work and to build and create. To blame the soup-kitchens

and the B.C. Federation of Labour is a pretty lame excuse.

I get the impression, Mr. Speaker, that this government is tired,

smug, arrogant — like extinct volcanoes, occasionally a puff of smoke,

but for the most

part it's just mediocrity occasionally relieved by

rascality and by farce. Where else but among that government would you

have the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) getting up

one afternoon and saying that he was very concerned about people who

were in social housing who didn't have to be there, and then we read

the papers in the morning, and one of the people there is the Minister

of Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf), with his $71,000 a year. Where else but

in British Columbia could you possibly run into anything like that?

MR. SKELLY: He said he was living in Omineca.

MR. MACDONALD: He said he was doing his investigative work,

you see. I hope he's not going to be like that minister of the cabinet

in Alberta who resigned suddenly after they discovered that he'd — as

he said himself — been doing some investigative work on the streets of

Edmonton.

England, but they don't resign here. What have you got to fill the

spaces with? You do musical chairs.

Our new Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing — there's a man who

knows a rip-or from a rip-ee. He says: "I know firsthand the ripoff

that's going on." He ought to write a book and tell us how you tell a

rip-or from a rip-ee. You could call it, modestly, Mein Kempf. Then he

goes on comfortably ensconced in his subsidized housing at $475 a

month, while ordinary people are paying far more, and he says this:

"This is taxpayers' money we are talking about." Mr. Speaker, it was

taxpayers' money, but some of it has now ended up with the minister who

has had subsidized housing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think there's been a little change of tactics, and maybe we should

welcome that. Even the Minister of Finance, when he was questioned

about any of his conflicts — I call them conflicts; that's my opinion —

said: "I'm going to see a lawyer, and the first one who says a word,

he's going to get sued." Three or four of the ministers have already

done that, you know. They've got a gaggle of lawyers working, ready to

issue writs and try to shut off the people of British Columbia from

criticizing or knowing what's going on in this government. It's good

work for the legal profession. The Premier was going to sue. One of

them, I think, did sue. It'll never see court. It's just a dodge, just

an attempt to gag.

The Premier was going to sue. The truth of the matter is that the

Leader of the Opposition said some pretty terrible things about Marcos,

comparing him to the Premier of the province of British Columbia. The

poor guy must have felt awful. As a matter of fact, he went completely

to pieces. I don't know where he is now. I think he's in Hawaii.

We've got to get out of this business of trying to cut back free

speech and free expression by the people of British Columbia by running

to libel lawyers and threatening people — Broadway Bob over there knows

what I'm talking about — that we'll put you in bankruptcy if you say

anything, you bring anything to light, and so forth. That is surely the

last refuge and defence of a discredited government.

So what do they do? They play musical chairs, The minister who is

shorn of his universities.... Maybe being Minister of Universities

wasn't going down too well electorally in the constituency of Point

Grey for that particular member, but he and the other senator from

Point Grey have held their positions. Why weren't they demoted? They

haven't done anything. Why was the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Schroeder) demoted? He hasn't done anything.

They now have, though, I'm glad to say, two in the back bench — a

pretty strong backfield now. They've got the member for South Peace

River (Mr. Phillips) and the member for North Vancouver- Seymour (Mr.

Davis). Pretty strong bench: the Larynx and the Cranium. The hon.

member for North Vancouver- Seymour has been exempted from the cares of

cabinet duty because he happens to possess some brains. He's been very

badly left out, but whatever slings and arrows of outrageous fortune

this government dumps on his head year after year, somewhere he doesn't

seem to have the fortitude to do anything about it.

[3:00]

Even the turncoats are getting looked after. The member for Atlin

(Mr. Passarell) is now bodyguard to the former Minister of Health. Mr.

Speaker, what do you have to do in this government to retain your

cabinet position? Do you have to jump out of a bedroom window into a

flower pot and break your ankle? They've had their musical chairs, and

here we are.

They still run a little bit too much to their lawyers, but not as

badly. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has promised the House

- and I'm glad about this — that he will give an account of the shares

he bought and the loan he guaranteed. The public are entitled to that

information. His first reaction was: "It's none of your business."

Just as the NDP is doing for Expo — because we heard a lot about

Expo — making the thing a success through positive criticism, it's

doing in other fields too, as a responsible opposition. What's it today

for Expo? The thirty-fifth? The member for Vernon can tell me. I think

it's the thirty-fifth executive who has either resigned or been fired.

And the government has never said how much. You know, the NDP is going

to make Expo a success because of their hard-hitting criticism that has

tried to save this government time after time from unbelievable

blunders, some of which are still going on.

At this point I've got to criticize the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Smith). I'm talking about conflict of interest. We have, with respect

to a member of cabinet, a situation where

[ Page 7310 ]

there might have been an offence. To investigate whether or not

there was an offence, the Attorney-General says: "I won't handle that

particular question" — which is fair enough — "I will go outside the

department and get an independent opinion." So he goes out and sets up

an inquiry under a man who's a very good lawyer, by the way, called

Leonard Doust. Doust is a Vancouver lawyer of the firm of Doust and

Smith. But the Attorney-General had just given Mr. Doust the work of

counsel in the Norman Fox inquiry, which is a very considerable

inquiry. And I looked back into the public accounts to see how the

Attorney-General is really operating. Is he really trying for an

independent opinion? In 1981-82 Mr. Doust's firm received $206,146

from the provincial government, in 1982-83, $262,221 — that's a lot of

money — and in 1983-84, $200,067. And the work goes on. And last year

the Attorney-General gave him a QC. Is that an attempt to be fair? Is

that an attempt to have justice not only being done but being seen to

be done, in the best traditions of the law? You don't appoint as an

independent a person who has that kind of string between himself and

the government. It's totally ridiculous.

The former Minister of Forests said in Princeton that anyone who has

done anything or invested in anything is disqualified from holding

public office. That's not the case; the opposition have never said

that. I wouldn't say that now or at any other time. But there are

pretty clear conflict-of-interest guidelines that have been established

through centuries of British parliamentary tradition and history.

They're summed up in the most recent book on the British constitution

by Harvey and Bather, who say this regarding integrity: "It is not

sufficient that the minister be honest. It is vital that he should

appear to be so, and to remove any suspicion that his official position

may be used for personal gain." The suspicion is there. In some cases

it's more than a suspicion.

When you have a Western Pulp Partnership that has a financial

interest in logs in a disputed portion of South Moresby, and the

minister, or another minister on an environmental committee, makes a

decision, or gives them a break in electricity rates, that is a

conflict of interest. That is something that is entirely unacceptable

in other jurisdictions where British justice and parliamentary

tradition prevails. It's quite contrary to what Sir Erskine May says in

his eighteenth edition when he talks about personal interests and votes

on questions of public policy.

Yet I don't detect that this government is repentant. Everybody in

the cabinet shuffle who got into trouble was either shuffled sideways

or promoted by the Premier. That's a contempt for the traditions of

parliament, and I think it's contemptuous of the people of the province

of British Columbia. I think the government has become so satisfied

with themselves, so plush in their own circumstances. Sam Johnson said,

"The insolence of wealth will creep out," and I think it is. The

Minister of Finance destroys the B.C. Housing Corporation, and we talk

about a crisis in social housing. That corporation was making money for

the public treasury. The Minister of Finance would never admit that,

but it certainly was. But it was destroyed.

And the Minister of Finance ought to answer fully to this House —

I'm not sure that he's committed himself to do this — why it was that

$36 million was suddenly invested in the Westcoast Savings Credit

Union, of which he was a member and financially interested, contrary to

everything we know about the traditions that bind cabinet ministers.

You know, I'm asked sometimes: "What about our laws? What about the

laws that we have — are they adequate?" The Speech from the Throne

says: "Oh, we'll bring down some new conflict-of-interest guidelines."

What we have are adequate laws, but they're not being lived up to by

that government. We have the Financial Disclosure Act of 1974; we have

rule 18 of the standing orders of this House, where a member cannot

vote on a matter in which he has a direct pecuniary interest.

The Minister of Finance signed the order-in-council. He couldn't

have voted in this House on that question where he had an interest, and

he still gets away with it in cabinet. The disclosure statements....

I'll just finish what I'm saying. The disclosure act and the

conventions of parliament and the rules of this House are perfectly

adequate if they were lived up to, but what we see opposite, Mr.

Speaker, are scamps and scofflaws who are not living up the traditions

of parliamentary democracy.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) has a company

called Tish Holdings, and after being questioned about it because he

didn't put it on his disclosure statement he said that it was a family

holding company. And you know — tish-tish — he didn't disclose it, and

he didn't disclose what it holds, as the act clearly requires if you

own 30 percent of it.

Now here's a man, a member of this Legislature, who is a lawyer. I

presume he can read; I presume he's a good lawyer. If he'a good lawyer,

if he can read, he was violating the disclosure act in not even putting

in his holding company. Others who put in a holding company, like the

Premier himself.... He puts in W.R. Bennett Holdings Ltd. But if he

owns 30 percent of that company, he's got to go further and live up to

the laws of the province.

There are ordinary citizens out there who have to live up to the

laws or they're prosecuted, or they're fined, or they're sued in civil

court. What kind of an example are we setting in the governmental

regions of the province of British Columbia? The Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), in his disclosure form,

treats it as a big joke. He says, "not applicable," and "these stocks

are dogs," and "same as before," and "the paper war continues." The

paper war does continue for ordinary British Columbians if they fill

out an application for, say, a licence for a party that they're having

and want the liquor administration to grant it, or if they fill out an

application to do with their driving — they've got to do it properly.

They can't treat it as a joke. They can't be arrogant about it, or they

won't get their permit. They can't make false statements or not answer

all of the questions, or they will be in trouble.

[3:15]

Yet all through the list of the disclosures filed by this

government.... Not all of them. The former Minister of Health: "Nielsen

Investments Ltd." That's all he says. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Smith): "Just my law practice." Nothing else declared. Well, maybe

that's all. It's very hard to believe. The Minister of Tourism (Hon.

Mr. Richmond) puts down: "I have my things in a blind trust with the

firm of Mair Janowsky Blair." Well, that rings a bell with me, because

Janowsky, Rafe Mair's former partner, was the one who got that

neighbourhood pub. Do you remember Gramma's up at Gibsons? On the

Thursday it was unavailable to the six applicants up in the Sun shine

Coast because it was too close to a highway and too close to the

Legion. But on the weekend the regulations were changed to make

something called a marina pub, and by Tuesday of the next week, while

the other

[ Page 7311 ]

applicants, five of them, were rubbing their eyes and hadn't heard

what had happened at all, Janowsky from Kamloops had that neighbourhood

pub licence. And the Minister of Tourism says: "I've got mine in a

blind trust with that well-known Socred firm." But he's broken the law.

There's nothing about putting your things in trust allowed in the

disclosure act. You're supposed to declare them.

The former Minister of Agriculture over there puts "NA" — not

applicable. I don't know why it's not applicable; perhaps he'll get up

and tell us sometime why, in his case, the farm wasn't applicable. I

don't know. The former Minister of Energy is engaged now in a tango

with Peter Pollen, so you can't discuss his particular case, but he

should have declared. He says: "I put my finger up in cabinet and I

declared there." But he had a Socred memory and when it came to the

form he forgot. I say no more about that particular case, because Peter

Pollen is seized with it.

Here we have a government that is not doing what it should be in

terms of services, in terms of the rates of assistance. We're still

using starvation rates out there in terms of job creation, particularly

for young people at decent wages. They killed the B.C. Housing

Corporation, and they take as a point of pride the investment, over a

three-year period, of $100 million under the Equity Investment Plan

Act, to be handed out at up to $2,500 per person to the people who

invest in the penny stocks on Howe Street. What a sieve! The

trickle-down theory is bad enough, but this is ridiculous — with all of

the other needs of this province, to take $100 million, almost all of

which will end up in the hands of the promoters.

AN HON. MEMBER: Peter Brown.

MR. MACDONALD: Call it the Peter Brown benefit bill — The

Rabbit, as he is known. Quoting from Peter Newman: "Not yet 40, Peter

Brown is the single most important player on the Vancouver Stock

Exchange, underwriting nearly three-quarters of its new issues, worth a

projected $225 million in 1985 alone. Having earned well over 100

percent of his firm's invested capital...." He gave $6,500 to hear

Jim Pattison and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) play the

cornet. He's part of a top-20 club contributing to Social Credit. He

comes to Victoria and says: "Do something for us" — the Howe Street

hucksters. I can't believe they would pass that kind of a bill. A

little while ago I asked the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) — he was

with Peter Hyndman, the Pouilly-Fuisse Kid.... An incredible waste

of government money.

You know, Peter Brown and Canarim, which dominate the main player in

the thing.... I've never heard from the Attorney-General about New

Cinch. You had the Cheratex lab down in El Paso — which was owned by

two of the main players, Applegarth and White, who are on the Vancouver

Stock Exchange — which salted the mine. The employee was killed by an

assailant who kicked down his door after the thing had come to light.

They never found out who the murderer was. The employee's girl friend

vanished — God knows what happened to her. The stock went up when

Canarim.... Peter Brown underwrote it and it went from $2.50 to $29.

Lac, a big Ontario firm, put in $25 million themselves, and then they

sued to recover it on the basis that they had acted on a statement of

material fact signed by Peter Brown. There was no mention of three

assays by reputable B.C. firms — I could name them — saying that the

gold-silver complex of that mine was practically nil. Instead, they

acted on one by this fraudulent lab, Cheratex, owned by Applegarth and

company, and the statement of material facts was obviously false.

So the suit is on, and Lac, the Toronto company, gets a settlement

of $4 million or something of that kind. Peter Brown has to pay part of

it and the Vancouver Stock Exchange has to pay part of it, and it's

sealed up. The records are sealed in court, and as part of the

settlement all of the participants are sworn to secrecy. A false

statement of material fact.

How much of the $100 million that this government is going to ladle

out to Howe Street welfare burns will really result in productive work

or employment? Very little. This government, Mr. Speaker, is tired,

smug and arrogant. It has sat there, if I can remember Cromwell's

words, too long for any good that it has been doing. And with Cromwell

I say: in the name of God, go.

MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I trust that now we can get to

the throne speech. On page 11 of the printed copy of the throne speech,

toward the bottom of the page, is a statement, contained in a couple of

sentences, that I am keenly interested in. It comes under the marginal

notation "Park Visitors," which by its designation would nearly

obscure, in my humble opinion, the excitement of the sentences that

follow. It says:

The year ahead promises to be an exciting one for our

province's

agriculture and food sector, whose strength lies in its diversity. The

important food production industry will be spotlighted during

Food Pacific '86, an international trade show to be held in early

autumn at B.C. Place Stadium. It is those two sentences that I'd like

to address my remarks around.

In 1982 when I was asked to take on the responsibility for

Agriculture and Food in the province, the year afforded me an

opportunity to mingle with agricultural producers. In the early hours

of my appointment I went to see who they were, how many they were, what

their status was, what they needed, what they wanted and how they would

put in a very few words, in succinct form.... If they had their

druthers, what would they rather have than anything else? They said:

"We would sooner have a more reliable, more predictable, more equitable

return from the market, which would allow us to be more independent and

less dependent on government programs which in themselves do not have

sufficient continuity to anticipate the needs of the farm community."

In the first place, when government programs are drafted, they are

drafted with the wisdom that is available at the time. Conditions

change. Dynamics change. As a result, what looked like wisdom at the

time of drafting may become entirely inadequate just because of the

passage of time. So the farm community said: "My, it would be nice if

somehow we could gain a more predictable return from the marketplace,

rather than depend on injections which are only defined by that clumsy

and embarrassing phrase 'subsidy."'

I suggested that perhaps the only way we could determine what an

equitable and sufficient return from the marketplace was was to go and

do some analytical work in the marketplace itself. Early analysis

indicated that we as producers did not have sufficient feedback from

the marketplace itself to help us determine what shape and what size

the product that we were producing should best be in order to meet the

demands of a changing marketplace.

[ Page 7312 ]

I've told often — and I'm almost reticent about repeating it here —

the story of the apples. It is as great an indicator as can be of what

I'm trying to say to you. We clapped ourselves on the back as producers

and said: "We are the greatest." We were. As long as we only compared

ourselves with ourselves, we were the greatest. We said we had the

finest apples in the world. It was great, as long as you never looked

outside the provincial boundaries of British Columbia. But when we

actually went out into the world — and, by the way, we were dependent

upon the world for a major share of our market in that particular

commodity — to find out how our product was being received at the

loading docks or unloading docks of those countries out there who are

our international trading partners, we found out that our product, in

their opinions, was not number one. It wasn't even number two. It was

scarcely number three.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I stood at some of those loading docks to watch the containers of

our own product being unloaded and opened. I stood with pride as I saw

the boxes and the big green B.C. label. It fills you with pride when

you're over there if you're British Columbian. I waited to see what the

people would do as they loaded the boxes and took them over to their

cubicles in Hong Kong. I waited to see how eagerly our product would be

received. When they opened the boxes, the commodity looked good. It

looked good to me. I thought it was number one. Beautiful, graded,

sized, Red, Delicious apples. They were all red, all the same size and

fairly good quality. They opened the boxes and put the lids back on the

boxes and put them back in the stack. I watched as competitors' fruit

was unloaded, taken to the cubicles, opened up and left opened with

boxes tilted beautifully so that they would appeal to the buyer's eye.

I watched our competitors' boxes move at $129 a box Hong Kong, and I

watched our boxes priced at $89 a box Hong Kong remain in the cubicle.

[3:30]

I said: "Something is wrong." I went to the merchandiser, and I

said: "These are good apples?" He said: "Yes, they are good apples." I

said: "Why aren't they selling?" Do you know, the Chinese are very

gracious people. They wish not to embarrass you if at all possible, but

I pressed for an answer. He finally said to me: "The apples are not the

kind of apples that our consumers believe are good apples." I said:

"Why not?" He said: "Because they're the wrong colour." Mr. Speaker,

they're the wrong colour!

I said: "Hold the phone" — well, I said words other than that, but I

can't use them right here — "you're telling me that we're shipping

millions of boxes of apples to this market and we are shipping them the

wrong colour? How could this be?" The answer was that we were not

getting sufficient informational returns from the marketplace so that

the producer could select the proper root-stock so that he could grow

the right apples so that they would have nice stripes all the way down

their side so that the market in China and in Hong Kong would say,

together with us: "These are number one."

What we saw in China looked completely different when we were in the

U.K. We took our number one apples over there, as I just defined them

for you — all the same size, all with the five little nubblies at the

bottom, all red all the way around, stacked in beautiful boxes. They

opened them up over there and did exactly the same thing. They took the

lid off the box, put the lid along the side, took a look at the apples

and put the lid back on.

The apples remained in the stack while the competitor's apples sold.

And I asked again the very same question. Are you interested in the

answer? "In the U.K. we don't expect that all apples will be the same

size. We want some little ones and some medium-sized ones and some big

ones, We want little ones when we're putting them into the lunch-pail

of the youngster who's going to school. We don't want a big apple. What

are you talking about?"

They said: "When we're peeling apples to make apple pie, they have

to be just exactly the right size for peeling. They should be different

from the ones that go to the lunchpail. When we're having guests in and

we want to impress them with our taste in fruit, we want a nice huge

apple. We don't care if it's red. As a matter of fact, we like them

when they're red and green, and saints preserve us, some of us like

them totally green."

What I'm trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is that there wasn't sufficient

information returning from the marketplace to help our producers make

the decisions that they needed to make in order to maximize their

returns from the marketplace. So I said: "How do we do this? Let's

change the attitude. Let's give our guys the break." How best to do it?

Why not bring our marketplace to our doorstep so that we could compare

our product with the product from around the world, so that we could

see how our product compared. Where we were number one, we ought to

know that we were number one and press hard for those markets, and

where we were not number one, we ought to know why we weren't number

one and by how much we weren't and make those adjustments so that we

could become competitive in the market.

I went to Europe to find out how they did it there. They have a

common market there, and the competitors virtually work out of the same

selling desk. And at ANUGA in West Germany I watched food being

presented to the world in a marketplace under one roof. I'd like to

tell you it was all in one building, but there were as many as 14

buildings, each the size of our agridome. Each had two floors. That was

the size of the food marketplace in West Germany. I asked a few

questions about it: "Who's here?" They said: "Eighty-eight countries

are here." I said: "Who's going to buy?" They said: "From around the

world there are 160,000 buyers visiting this trade show in six days."

I said: "Fantastic. Do we have anything like this on the Pacific

Rim?" The answer was no. I said: "Shouldn't there be something like

this on the Pacific Rim?" The answer was yes. I said: "If it should be

on the Pacific Rim, and it was to maximize the market returns for our

producers, then where should this take place?" They said: "In Canada,

naturally." "If in Canada, then where?" Well, what part of Canada is on

the Pacific Rim? If it was to be taking place in British Columbia, when

should it take place?

I'm not too smart, but I've got this figured out: if you're going to

reach people, the best time to reach them is when there are lots of

them around. In 1986 some 13.75 million are going to visit our province

from all around the world. I'm very conservative. It might be more than

that, but nobody's going to accuse me of stretching the truth. Thirteen

and three-quarter million of them are already going to be here. You

know what I did? This was back in 1983. I called down to find out

whether there was any space on a convention floor available any time

during 1986 when I could invite the world to come and trade food with

us. The people who were down at

[ Page 7313 ]

B.C. Place said: "In 1986? Have you got your head on straight?

Everybody's coming here. There's no room. There's no time."

I said: "That wasn't my question. Is there any time?" They looked in

their calendar and sure enough there were two periods of time that

would allow us five days. Why five days? Because five days happens to

be the ideal length of time for a food show. One of the five-day

periods was in May, and the other five days were the last three days of

August and the first two days of September. I said: "Just a second. Let

me pray about this." I wanted to know when the British Columbia

producers would have their best foot forward in the food business.

Would it be in May or would it be in early or mid fall?" If I'm selling

apples, I don't want to sell them in May. I want to sell them in the

last three days of August and the first couple of days of September. I

said, "Book the time," and from that day forward planning took place

for this food fair which is mentioned in the throne speech we heard a

couple of days ago.

Now we say it was a good idea; how is it happening? May I just

report to you what has happened? We invited the countries of the world

to come. In our fondest dreams we thought we could compete with ANUGA —

perhaps not in the first year, but eventually. So we asked whether or

not we shouldn't do this more than once. If we should do this more than

once, how often should we do it? Ask ANUGA; they are successful. They

said: "We do it once every two years. Biennially." So the commitment

had to be made as to whether or not we could do this more often than

once, and if once every two years was the right interval, then why not

do it in '86, '88, '90, '92 and '94? Good idea. We said to the people

of the world: "Would you come?" They said: "By all means."

We haven't seen anything like this on the Pacific Rim, and on the

Pacific Rim we have over two billion people — more than they have on the

Atlantic Rim. Every year we sell $1.2 trillion worth of food in the

Pacific Rim alone. We're not talking small potatoes here. This is big

business. Every year $1.2 trillion worth of food exchanges hands and is

consumed on the Pacific Rim. We happen to produce the kinds of food

which most nearly satisfy the appetites of the inhabitors of the

Pacific Rim — fish being one of them; can you believe it.?

We invited the world to come. They said: "Who's sponsoring this

thing?" Because, you know, over the past number of years the countries

of the Pacific Rim have been trained to believe that governments lead

the way in things like this. I came back home and suggested to my

colleagues that if this was going to happen it was going to have to

happen under the imprimatur of the provincial government. The idea was

sold — better I should say that they bought the idea — and the first

show will take place in August of this year, spilling over into

September.

We said: "Being Canadian, let's at least involve all of Canada." We

went out to see whether or not the rest of the folk in Canada were as

interested in developing a food market as we were in British Columbia,

and were they ever! The federal government came onside immediately. The

other provinces came onside in step — not all together. But are you

interested in knowing that these are the provinces that are coming to

display their food products in British Columbia for these five days?

Listen to them; here they are: Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova

Scotia, Newfoundland, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and

Saskatchewan. As far as I know, none are left out.

We have put together a major pavilion for the province of British

Columbia. We wanted to have a major share of the floor. By the way,

it's going to take place in B.C. Place, which affords room for some 800

exhibitors on the main floor itself. We thought that perhaps we, as

British Columbians, should occupy the nicest, most convenient, most

accessible and biggest space. So we reserved 40 of those exhibit spaces

for ourselves and built a little bit of a pavilion that would have two

floors rather than one so that we could have a major pavilion in this

exhibit.

The producers, the processors, the distributors and the retailers

were caught up in the excitement of the opportunity, and can you

believe that our pavilion is much too small? We've had to spill over

both sides and either end, and it looks to me like we in British

Columbia will have caught the vision of this opportunity. We will have

our best foot for-ward, and we will have our foodstuffs out in the

forefront to make our comparisons with the rest of the world. They are

bringing their products to us.

And who will be the chief beneficiary? I asked them that in West

Germany, and they looked at me like I wasn't thinking clearly. They

said: "Would we have done this every two years for years and years

without the chief beneficiary being the host? Not to worry; the chief

beneficiary is the host." I said: "Why is this?" They said: "Because

the host country is the only country that has their producers close

enough to the show so that they can become participators and observers.

And they can take an education in five days because it is being hosted

by their own country." In our case, it's our own province. The chief

beneficiary will be the province of British Columbia.

Who have allowed their names to stand as major supporters for this

trade show? Are you interested? We have the Retail Council of Canada,

the Canadian Export Association, the Canadian Importers' Association,

the Meat Packers' Council of Canada. the National Dairy Council, the

Canadian Horticultural Council, the Canadian Frozen Food Industries

Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian

Grocery Distributors' Institute, the Canadian Federation of Chefs de

Cuisine, the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association, the

Canadian Food Processors' Association and the Canadian meat industry.

All of them have put their imprimatur on this show, and they are going

to be here.... The world is coming to help my producers realize

their goal, which is an adequate return from the marketplace.

How many countries? It was supposed to be only for the Pacific Rim,

Mr. Speaker, and we tried to be exclusive. But the people from Europe,

who understand the value of this kind of a trade show, insisted that

they be included. Little countries like Italy made application for 90

exhibits. There are only 800 spaces in all of the floor of B.C. Place

and Italy wanted 90 of them. Do you believe it? They were insistent. We

couldn't possibly accommodate them with 90, but they are taking 66

exhibit spaces for Italy — not even on the Pacific Rim.

Who all is going to be there? Austria insisted. Australia would

naturally be there; they're on the rim. Belgium insisted. Finland

insisted. The U.K. Insisted. Hungary will be there; Italy, Jamaica,

Mexico, Morocco, Holland, New Zealand, Norway....

[3:45]

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they spelled right?

[ Page 7314 ]

MR. SCHROEDER: It doesn't matter. I said them right. didn't I?

The People's Republic of China will be there. Peru, the Philippines,

Singapore, South Pacific Islands, Sri Lanka. These are not the ones

that had intimated an interest, but the ones already signed up at the

time of printing of this brochure. One hundred and twenty-six countries

have been invited; 25,000 buyers have expressed their interest. They

will be here. Major food distributors like Safeway, Nalley's, Weston

Foods — these are the kinds of people who are going to be here. As a

matter of fact, in British Columbia alone 54 major corporate exhibitors

are going to be there.

I think you would excuse me, Mr. Speaker, if I get a little excited

when, on page 11 of the throne speech, I read these words: "The year

ahead promises to be an exciting one for our province's agriculture and

food sector, whose strength lies in its diversity. The important food

production industry will be spotlighted during Food Pacific '86, an

international trade show to be held in early autumn at B.C. Place

Stadium."

Thank you for suffering with me these many minutes while I let you

in on my excitement for the producers of British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: I will take up the debate, after hearing the

commercial by the former Minister of Agriculture. It's interesting,

actually, the way those things develop; how an idea becomes reality,

such as the disclosure act in the province of British Columbia. We knew

what the idea was, and we're rather startled with the reality. I am

more disturbed than anything, and not at....

I'm very disturbed at the conflict-of-interest situation in British

Columbia. I think it's compounded by the, not complete perhaps, but

substantial misunderstanding of what conflict of interest means. Some

weeks ago I was reading an

article by Vaughn Palmer, the Sun columnist,

describing the difficulty in coming to a proper definition of what

conflict of interest really is. If the media in this province and the

public generally don't know what conflict of interest is, no wonder

this government is having a relatively easy time not doing anything

about their actions with respect to it.

The definition of conflict of interest is very clear. Mr. Vaughn

Palmer describes conflict of interest as being an umbrella type of

thing. He's talking about MLAs owning shares, about ministers of the

Crown owning shares and investments, as if they were the same thing.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, it's not just Vaughn Palmer. A Sun editorial on

February 3 was constantly referring to.... "There is no doubt, "

they say in part, "that some ministers and MLAs have been careless,

wilfully or not." Then it refers to three ministers — Waterland, Rogers

and Curtis — several MLAs....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I would draw your

attention to Sir Erskine May, sixteenth edition, page 400: "Certain

matters cannot be debated, save upon a substantive motion which admits

of a distinct vote of the House." Members of either House of the

Parliament and their personal actions.... So possibly I draw that

to your attention, and the debate on the throne speech will continue

accordingly.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of raising a

substantive motion against any particular member of the chamber. I wish

to discuss the public's understanding of the definition of conflict of

interest and how it may apply to our jurisdiction.

In the Vancouver Sun editorial, it refers to ministers and MLAs. In

the body of decisions in the House of Commons of Westminster and

Ottawa, and in the development of — I'll loosely term it — jurisprudence

on the matter of conflict of interest, there has always been a clear

distinction between conflict of interest and personal interests with

respect to members voting in the chamber. There are two separate and

distinct categories of personal interest. The standards for cabinet

ministers are, as you might expect, considerably higher than they are

for other publicly elected officials. I'll point to some of those

statements in due course.

I cannot help but think, though, that the editorial in the Vancouver

Sun , which at first reading is calling upon the government to take some

action.... When they lump together MLAs and cabinet ministers, it's

clear to me that it's softening the impact of what has happened with

respect to some ministers who have failed to disclose or have

improperly disclosed their holdings. It is softening the impact, and

after 14 years in this Legislature I am scandalized by the fact of the

nondisclosure or reckless indisclosure and the way it has been handled

publicly. I am scandalized by the Premier's inaction in dealing with

cabinet ministers who have flouted the law, flouted convention and

disregarded the honourable standards which have been established in the

British parliamentary system and in other democracies throughout

history.

Is the Vancouver Sun editorial a deliberate attempt to soften the

impact of this conflict-of-interest controversy? They are sort of

saying, "Oh, well, they all do it," as if my owning shares in some

company doing business with the government has any impact at all. If

there was a direct bill dealing with the company in this chamber, then

standing order 18, as my colleague from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)

points out, would apply to me. That's the only issue of conflict or

personal interest during a vote in the chamber.

The standards for cabinet ministers are extremely high. The press,

or some members of the press, are either deliberately or inexcusably

ignorant of convention, parliamentary practice and the law when they do

not differentiate between the heavy and high duties of a cabinet

minister and those of the rest of the chamber.

In the book Politics and Money by Drew, there's an interesting

quotation that I wish to share with the chamber. It says, in part:

"A number of senators say they fear that some great

scandal about money and conflict of interest may be about to explode.

In fact, that scandal may already be occurring. It takes the form not

of one explosive event but of many, often everyday, events. The search

for one particular scandal misses the point. It is analogous to the

search for the 'smoking gun' during the Watergate — the one clear

example of criminality in a landscape strewn with evidence of abuse of

power."

That's the issue that I want to talk about today, Mr. Speaker, abuse

of power. The high office of cabinet and the Premiership of the

government of a very wealthy province must have standards that are

higher than those standards of this current administration. They cannot

be any lower; they

[ Page 7315 ]

simply cannot. There is no example anywhere in the Commonwealth

where this kind of conflict-of-interest situation has surfaced with so

little action on the part of the government of the day and so little

public outcry.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What is conflict of interest? Let me refer to some

definitions that

reflect.... In Conflict of Interest by Sandra Williams, recently

referred to in the press, on page 48 there is a question of what

conflict of interest should include.

"The question of shareholding arose in the Marconi

affair in 1913, when three government ministers were rumoured to have

been involved in share transactions for a profit, based on knowledge

acquired in their official capacities in the government. During debate

on this affair, the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, doubted the wisdom of

trying to lay down an exhaustive code of conduct for ministers with

regard to pecuniary matters, but set out certain rules which he felt

were beyond dispute: that ministers should not enter private

transactions where a conflict of interest may arise, should not use

official information for private gain and should avoid speculative

investments in securities which their position and access to early or

confidential information may give, or appear to give, them an advantage

over others.

"These principles governing both ministers'

directorships and shareholdings were further consolidated by Winston

Churchill in 1952... and were reiterated by R.A. Butler on 28

January 1960, when questioned in the House about allegations that the

Minister of Transport held shares in a firm contracting with the

government."

Nothing could be clearer than that. That is conflict of interest. It

goes on to say that the current practice, which this book argues should

be improved, is that ministers should avoid speculative investments and

securities about which they have or may be thought to have early or

confidential information likely to affect the price of those

securities. It says "ministers" for a reason. Why should ministers have

a higher standard? The best expression of why they should is in the

report of the committee of inquiry on public duty and private interest

for the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is dated July

1979, and this is on page 9:

"Ministers, in sharp contrast, can exercise power.

Individually they do this by directing the activities of their

departments, and collectively through the decisions of cabinet. Because

they have direct access to the means of power — the preparation of

legislation, the allocation of funds in the budget, and the application

of general policies to particular cases — ministers' public duty makes

demands upon them of a higher order than is the case with members. This

difference is such as to justify a distinction being made between

members and ministers" — which is the tradition of the British parliamentary system.

Why is it that the press cannot understand those distinctions?

Everybody else does.

I might say that while dealing with the duties of ministers, there

is not only an argument for disclosure, which is now imposed upon

almost every jurisdiction — full and complete disclosure — but that

those disclosures should not mask the real holdings of the cabinet

minister or the elected public official.

"The ministers should disclose in their register of interests" — as

it's called in this case — "the beneficial interest of the minister, or

a member of his immediate family, under any trust, and in any nominee

company, with a statement of the nature of operations of the trust or

company; any trust of which the minister is a trustee, with a statement

of the beneficiaries and the nature of the operations of the trust;

partnerships and joint venture interests...liabilities;

shareholdings under procedures which will disclose the ultimate

interests in circumstances where private companies are used as a screen

to mask holdings directly or indirectly in other companies."

[4:00]

The parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia thought those were

minimal standards for ministers of the Crown, Mr. Speaker. That is

conflict of interest, and that is what we're talking about. When was

conflict of interest a major issue? The administration of the New

Democratic Party government introduced the disclosure act. I remember

the debates. I remember the member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

and others standing up and saying: "Good people will not run for public

office if they have to disclose their holdings. We're not going to get

businessmen" — heaven forbid! — "running for public office if they have

to disclose their interests." We were not talking divestment; we were

talking about disclosing their interests. There was a tremendous debate

trying to force the government to take some of the teeth out of the

disclosure act. I wonder why that debate took place then. It was the

the foreboding — the foreshadowing of what has taken place today.

The Social Credit Party formed a government in 1976 and in that same

year, through heavy debate in this House, conflict of interest and

improper activity on the part of ministers were charged in this chamber

with respect to mining legislation.

I'll read from a press report of June 1976: "Members of the

opposition have disclosed that a Vancouver mining company director

helped draft the Socred government's new mining tax bill and have

charged that 16 Socred MLAs stand to gain financially from it,

including cabinet ministers." They were named: the Attorney-General,

the Education minister of the day, Consumer Services.... They were

all there. All had interests in mining companies with respect to the

mining legislation which was drafted. The minister of the day at first

denied that this particular lawyer, who was prominent in the mining

industry and representing several mining companies listed by the very

cabinet ministers of the day, had anything to do with it. And then

after vigorous questioning by the former Minister of Economic

Development, the minister of the day admitted that this man had indeed

drafted the bill. At first he denied it in this chamber, and then

admitted that a paid gun for the mining industry had drafted the bill

to decrease taxes for the mining industry. The minister of the day is

the current minister.... What is Waterland minister Of?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agriculture.

[ Page 7316 ]

MR. LAUK: The current Minister of Agriculture. Excuse me, you

need a program to notice the change in players from day to day.

In June 1976 we had our first warning of the sloppiness of attitude

of this government, and in particular of that individual. They did not

take it seriously then, and do not take it seriously even today after

the scandal has surfaced. The minister said he knew no reason why the

funny little group of opposition MLAs should object to a member of the

mining industry drafting government legislation. That was his attitude

then; it's his attitude today.

In a democratic system we must have a fundamental reliance on the

integrity and the honour of people who are Crown ministers. They hold

in their hands the powers that the commission in Australia has very

clearly set out, the highest powers in our democratic system. They do

not own them; it's not given to them as a gift. They are charged with

the responsibility of carrying out a trust. There is no proprietary

interest in being a cabinet minister, and if you choose to be a cabinet

minister you must choose not to personally profit from your office,

because the decisions that you make must be for the public good and not

for your personal interest. The decisions that you make must appear

also to be in the public good, and there must be no appearance, no

suggestion whatsoever, that those decisions are being made for your

personal interest. Those are the issues surrounding this very serious

question. Those are the issues that give rise to the suggestion by

people everywhere in British Columbia these days that this government

has been on the road to corruption — that the inability of this cabinet

to recognize their solemn and high duty of trust, of a fiduciary

relationship between them and the public answerable to the

representatives in this chamber, is the road to corruption.

The way in which cabinet ministers have filed their declarations, as

the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has pointed

out, reveals an attitude that the law, as it applies to cabinet

ministers, is somewhat different than for everyone else in British

Columbia. They looked upon the disclosure act as really regulating the

penguins on top of the tip of the iceberg. They did not feel it

necessary to reveal their holdings and their private interests so they

can take their office with the appearance to the public, so the public

can be satisfied, that their decisions were being made in their good

and not out of personal interest.

I wish to reinforce the criticism of the member for Vancouver East

in the appointment of a member of the bar who has received substantial

fees from the Crown, through the Attorney-General's office. It can only

appear to be a charade; it cannot appear to be an independent inquiry.

I cast no reflection on Mr. Doust, but surely he, in all his eloquence

and understanding of the law and practice, knows that no matter how

independent he may be, he is not independent in appearance, having

regard for the fact that he has been on retainer continuously with the

government. You can't have a hired gun masquerade as an independent

inquirer. He does not have the independence of a judge; he has been, as

my friend has pointed out, in the employ of the Attorney-General.

I never thought I'd see the day, to be fair to the press, that I'd

be using the Province as a standard of what the press should be saying

about conflict of interest. However, in their story of January 19, this

statement appears: "When ministers make these kinds of investments,

they put themselves in a position to be influenced by the companies" —

in which they have shares; I interpolate my own words. "Any minister

who doesn't understand that can hardly serve the public any longer."

Amen, I say to that. At least some members of the press understand the

gravity of the allegations that have been made and the issues involved.

What is the effect of the disclosure act? To some extent I agree

with my friend from Vancouver East. The law is there to be obeyed, and

the spirit and intention of the law is full disclosure, and the attempt

of members of the cabinet has been to avoid the spirit and intent of

the legislation.

You know, people always ask us lawyers: "Why are there so many laws

drafted by lawyers? It's to increase their income; it's to increase

litigation so lawyers will have work to do." No, the laws have to be

redrafted and made more particular, examining for loopholes, because of

people who are steadfastly and relentlessly trying to avoid- the

consequences of obeying the law. That's why we constantly have to

expand legislation. It can be argued that honourable elected members do

not need a disclosure law. Honourable members of this House and of the

cabinet do not need laws. People who tend to obey the laws don't need

laws. That's true. The laws are written to capture those who, as I say,

spend 24 hours a day trying to find ways to get around them.

This case would be bad enough if merely the holdings were disclosed

— as they should have been in the first place — and the ministers had

been reassigned.... They most certainly should have resigned. In

the case of the Minister of Forests it was the fastest rehabilitation

period in the history of the British Commonwealth. He walked out one

office and into the other. While he was in the hall walking down to the

second ministerial office, he was going through a period of

rehabilitation. I think the department of corrections could learn

something from the Premier. That's the fastest reformation I think

we've ever seen in the history of corrections in the province of

British Columbia. His road to Damascus was the hallway between the

Minister of Forests' office and the Minister of Agriculture's office.

If that's not bad enough, the appearance of conflict of interest was

not the only problem. There has been actual conflict of interest. Where

have you seen an incident of actual conflict of interest in the British

parliamentary system where those who have committed the breach of

convention, in honour, go unpunished? I say nowhere except in British

Columbia. The former Energy minister, with a $100,000 investment,

secured a deal for electric power last fall from B.C. Hydro — a Crown

corporation for which that minister was responsible; he was a member of

the board of directors as well — and the only comment that we had, the

only action that we saw surfacing, the only defence of the minister in

this actual conflict of interest, was that a corporation spokesman,

Peter McMullen, said Monday that there is nothing special about Hydro

supplying power to such a mill. There is a direct conflict of interest.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once again I will remind hon. members,

quoting from Sir Erskine May, that "certain matters cannot be debated,

save upon a substantive motion," and those certain matters include the

conduct of a member of the Legislative Assembly. A substantive motion

would be required.

MR. LAUK: I'm not going to debate what the House should do,

or put to the House any suggestion of what they

[ Page 7317 ]

should do with the erring ministers involved, Mr. Speaker. I have no

intention of putting a substantive motion.

"Western Pulp Ltd. Partnership's Port Alice pulp mill

on northern Vancouver Island began powering its turbines with

electricity October 28, 1985, under an agreement reached with B.C.

Hydro. The firm was given the normal electricity rate available for

factories using electricity rather than oil or waste wood products. A

review of orders-in-council signed by former Forests Minister Tom

Waterland meanwhile showed he signed two orders allowing Western Pulp

Ltd. Partnership, in which he holds a $20,000 interest, exemption from

a

section of the Forest Act so it could export wood chips."

These are two blatant, outspoken, actual conflicts of interest. It's

an abuse of power. Is there any repentance? Is there any desire to

reform? Do we see any indication at all, from anyone on the government

side, that something has gone amiss? Well, the Minister of Forests was

asked to resign. He spent, as I say, a fraction of the usual period of

time in rehabilitation.

[4:15]

The former Minister of Energy wonders what us little people are

talking about. Why are we bothering him with these things? Don't we

know that he was born to rule? Don't we know that because of family

background and connections he has every right to do what he's doing?

Don't we know that there are two laws, applicable to two different

classes of people in this province, that he is above...? How could

we have the audacity to attack him?

The Premier promises full disclosure rules and guidelines the same

thing he promised in his pamphlet in 1975, when he was running for the

Social Credit Party.... He also said, on August 24, 1977, when the

opposition was pressing him:

With all deference, it's the very fact of dealing with conflict of

interest, the fact that poorly drafted bills would not be acceptable in

such a sensitive area, and the fact that the first attempts made by the

last government in what they called the Disclosure Act have been so

inadequate that it is giving some difficulty in the drafting. I can't

assure the member when those charged with the responsibility of dealing

with this sensitive area will make the legislation available to the

government or deal with what has been a problem for the government.

The Premier indicated that the disclosure act was inadequate. Could

the Premier indicate to the House what loopholes he has found in the

act? "No, but I am sure some lawyers have probably tried to find

loopholes" — and some ministers, Mr. Speaker. This was August 24, 1977.

In closing, I wish to point out that adequate disclosure legislation is

there, that there should be divestment. Both the committee of inquiry

in Australia and the commission of inquiry in the United Kingdom call

for divestment of shares by cabinet ministers in most situations. They

don't fear that it will give a disincentive to anyone running for

public office in any activity.

Mr. Speaker, in 14 years I have not seen the double events take

place — such a clear example of conflict of interest and complete

inaction on the part of the government.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to sit in the

House today as the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain to

speak to the throne speech.

I want to say how much I enjoyed my colleague for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) when he moved the throne speech. I

enjoyed the positive way in which he spoke about the speech, and how my

colleague for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) spoke about the positive things

that were happening in Atlin. Obviously his approach to the government

and his move from that side of the House to our side of the House has

certainly shown a great deal of activity in Atlin, and he has seen the

positive side of what is happening in Atlin.

I would like to talk about the positive things, Mr. Speaker, that

are happening in B.C. I don't want to take the approach that I hear

coming from the opposition, from the Leader of the Opposition, the doom

and gloom, but to talk about the positive things that are happening.

I noticed in the speech this morning from the Leader of the

Opposition that he could see no future in British Columbia. He spoke

yesterday about travelling again through British Columbia and having a

bunch of MLAs touring the province and gathering more information. I

think the people of British Columbia realize that enough information

has been gathered. It's time for action. It's time for partnership.

It's time for the citizens to get together with the government and move

forward. I think we've already seen a number of very positive programs

coming forth in British Columbia.

We must also remember that it was this province that said back in

1982 that there were tough times coming in the world, tough times

coming in Canada and particularly in British Columbia where we rely so

much on our natural resources.

If we look at what is happening in Canada today, we note that the

federal government will run up a debt of $38.5 million. That will be

the exact debt this year. Oh, I must say that it's not million, but

it's billion. It's a staggering amount. The total debt that is now in

Canada is $233.4 billion.

I am not sure how many of us realize what that means in our

pocketbook. Of every dollar that a Canadian pays in income tax, 31

cents of that goes to service that debt. The average adult in Canada

now owes over $10,000 in federal debt. So we are in a very difficult

financial position in Canada, but I am pleased to say that our

government, the Social Credit Party of British Columbia, is looking at

minimizing the provincial debt that we have in British Columbia and

eliminating that provincial debt.

There are three specific areas that I would like to speak on from

the throne speech. One deals with economic development. I would like to

limit my remarks not just to the provincial area but to the lower

mainland. I would like to talk about tourism and the effect that it is

having on our province and also the high-tech industry.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk specifically on economic renewal

in the lower mainland. Economic renewal in British Columbia is

happening today not only in the lower mainland but throughout British

Columbia. A total of 50,000 new jobs have been created during the

period of February 1985 to February 1986. Most of this job creation has

come from small- and medium-sized companies entering or expanding n our

economy. We feel very strongly that it is going to be the small- and

medium-sized businesses that are going to create he jobs that are so

needed in our province.

The lower mainland, I know, particularly demonstrates he confidence

that individuals and companies have in the future of the economy of

British Columbia. Vancouver and he surrounding area has many examples

of innovative entrepreneurs who are creating new economic growth and

employment opportunities in British Columbia. These resourceful

individuals are achieving great success in a variety of new endeavours.

We in government are proud to have been

[ Page 7318 ]

able to participate with them in our Partners in Enterprise program

to give them the assistance and the hand they require.

Small business people and entrepreneurs are creatively making the

most of new opportunities available. They are taking the initiative and

diversifying the economy of the lower mainland. Industries such as

high-technology manufacturing and the service sector are very active

with new business opportunities arising constantly. Over 90 percent of

all high-technology industry in British Columbia is located in the

lower mainland. I'd like to deal with that in more detail later. The

large population base, the superb advanced educational opportunities

and facilities such as discovery parks are some of the factors

contributing to this phenomenon. In such a climate of opportunity the

high-technology sector can work with the academic community to create

an industry that is on the leading edge of new scientific breakthroughs

and developments.

I'd like to point out, Mr. Speaker, if I may, one company that

epitomizes this kind of achievement: Mobile Data International Inc. of

Richmond, known as MDI. Established in 1979, MDI developed a

state-of-the-art mobile digital terminal suitable for use in, among

other things, fire, ambulance and police services. The company lists

among its customers such diversified organizations as Federal Express,

the New York police department, the Hong Kong harbour patrol, Norwegian

Telecom, the great Johnson Wax Company, North York Hydro in Toronto,

the Ottawa police and, I'm pleased to inform the Leader of the

Opposition, the Australian National Roads and Motorists' Association.

They have seen the advantage of purchasing this equipment. MDI has

achieved sales in excess of $27 million in 1984 and employs more than

250 people, making it one of the largest technological companies in the

west. In 1985 the company won a gold medal for excellence in marketing

in the Canadian awards of excellence — the so-called Oscars.

Another high-technology company that has shown tremendous success is

NEXUS Engineering of Burnaby. Founded in 1982, the company, which

manufactures television receiving equipment, has an average growth rate

of over 100 percent per year. The 1985 sales were $3 million, an

increase of 50 percent over the previous year's figures. Employment in

the company has jumped from 25 to 100 jobs in just four years. NEXUS

also has the distinction of being a finalist in the 1985 Canadian

awards of excellence for its achievement in entrepreneurship.

High technology is not the only field in which the lower mainland

entrepreneurs are excelling. The manufacturing industry also boasts

many other noteworthy successes. A good example of a manufacturing firm

accomplishing great economic achievements is the Fitz-Wright company of

Surrey. They produce scuba suits, survival suits and safety equipment

and sportswear for windsurfing. Fitz-Wright manufactures a full line of

water-oriented products. The company, which was founded in 1972,

employs up to 140 people during its peak season. In 1985 sales were $8

million, up 25 percent over 1984. Canada comprises 60 percent of the

company's market, while the United States make up the remaining 40

percent. As well, Fitz-Wright anticipates a future Pacific Rim market

for its product, especially in survival suits, which could be used in

the oil rigs off Korea.

Another different type of manufacturing company that has ties with

the Pacific Rim and is located in the lower mainland, in Vancouver, is

Cheena B.C. Ltd. It was established in 1979. Its major market is a

Japanese market where the company has Cheena Japan Ltd. as its

subsidiary. The company's $1 million worth of sales exports are made up

of diversified seafood products such as smoked salmon, salmon caviar,

herring roe on kelp and smoked or sushi geoduck. Nearly all the

ingredients are of British Columbian origin, and Cheena's salmon

processing and packaging adds considerably to their market value. The

company employment tends to peak during the tourist season, and the

company president, Mr. Wayne Lytton, expresses great enthusiasm

regarding the increased business that Expo 86 will bring to British

Columbia.

[4:30]

Expo 86 has provided the lower mainland businesses with the

opportunity to shine on a global audience. Expo 86 has already inspired

investor confidence to the degree that there's now a billion-dollar

building boom in the lower mainland. I must emphasize that we talk

about what is happening with Expo, but there is a billion-dollar boom

in building in the lower mainland. On Monday we were out to the final

laying of the

section that will join the Annacis Island bridge. We see

great expansion in four-laning the Squamish highway. The improvements

to the Expo site are almost completed. Ninety-nine percent of

construction is completed. We see B.C. Place, which has been an

outstanding success, on budget, on time. We'll host the next two Grey

Cups in 1986 and '87. SkyTrain will be a major contribution to the

traffic and transportation to Expo.

All of these are economic climate growth supporters to the lower

mainland. As well as SkyTrain, it has prompted the development of a

major building project at Metrotown in the city of Burnaby.

Construction of Station Square at Metrotown is slated to begin on

September 1. This project will be $140 million and will create up to

500 construction jobs over the next 14-month period. Upon its

completion, Station Square alone will generate over 1,000 new

full-time and part-time jobs for citizens of the lower mainland. These

developments have contributed to a more positive climate in this region

and will indeed create a great number of jobs.

Expo 86 will especially benefit tourism in British Columbia. In 1985

tourism revenue stood at $2.5 billion; in 1986 revenues are projected

at over $3 billion. We know Expo will generate up to 20 million

visitors, and it has been a driving force behind the increase in the

revenue of tourism. During the operation of the fair, Expo will create

34,800 person-years of employment at Expo for the lower mainland. After

Expo the region will enjoy a heritage of future jobs created through

the presence of Expo. For example, the Pan Pacific Hotel at Canada

Place will maintain the 500 jobs created by the opening of this

facility for Expo. The new $91 million Hotel Meridien will also create

many new and long-lasting jobs for the tourist industry. These motels

and hotels will be a major

part in attracting a share of the national

and international convention business. This will further sustain the

tourist industry of the lower mainland.

Again, Mr. Speaker, as a member from Vancouver I must read into the

record not only how positive Expo B.C. Is going to be for the Vancouver

lower mainland, but I must read the telegram that was sent by the then

alderman of the city of Vancouver to the International Bureau of

Expositions that deals with Expo. We were then calling it Transpo '86.

The telegram was sent on June 6, 1980 to Mr. Patrick Reid, the

[ Page 7319 ]

commissioner, who is now the commissioner-general for Expo 86. It

states:

PLEASE STOP TRANSPO '86 ON NORTH SIDE OF FALSE CREEK IN

THE DOWNTOWN AREA. MOST VANCOUVER CITIZENS DO NOT WANT TRANSPO '86 TO

PROCEED ON THIS SITE. INSTEAD, FIVE OUT OF TEN ALDERMEN, 26 OUT OF 57

MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, A SIGNIFICANT

NUMBER OF CONCERNED VANCOUVERITES AND MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA FEEL THAT

HOUSING, PUBLIC AMENITIES AND TRANSPORTATION SHOULD RECEIVE A GREATER

PRIORITY. A LETTER DATED JUNE 5 IS ON ITS WAY TO YOU WITH BACKUP

MATERIAL. DO NOT MAKE A DECISION UNTIL YOU HAVE READ THE MATERIAL, HAVE

INVESTIGATED FURTHER. MICHAEL HARCOURT, ALDERMAN, CITY OF VANCOUVER.

Mikey likes it. He's now our mayor.

AN HON. MEMBER: He may be your mayor, but not mine.

MR. MOWAT: He's a mayor of some of the citizens of Vancouver.

You're right, Mr. Minister of Tourism.

I would like to read into the record the followup letter. It's from

Alderman Harcourt to Patrick Reid:

"Before your committee makes a decision on Transpo

'86, I felt it appropriate that you be aware of the following. Most

people in Vancouver do not want Expo '86 to take place on the north

side of False Creek in downtown Vancouver. As evidence of this, you

should know that five out of ten Vancouver aldermen, including myself,

want housing and public amenities now for ordinary Vancouverites on the

proposed site, not a six-month Transpo fair to happen just in 1986.

Twenty-six of the 57 provincial members of the Legislative Assembly are

opposed to Transpo 86, of which 26 were the Leader of the Opposition" —

then Dave Barrett — "and the members of the New Democratic Party."

In a May 19 speech he stated the following: "Vancouver needs and

wants low-cost housing, a park and other special amenities on False

Creek. Instead the Socreds are foisting a flag-draped pavilion for

sightseers. You should also be aware, Mr. Reid, that a significant

number of rural Social Credit members are very unhappy with the

spending of millions of dollars on Transpo 86." I must go on record as

saying that the citizens of Vancouver really want Expo, and a recent

poll shows that the members of our province want Expo. All the citizens

are now strongly in favour of it.

We note that a significant number of housing and transportation

developments have taken place, because not only has Transpo/Expo now

become Expo 86 but we do have up to 20 million visitors coming. We have

created a great deal of jobs in construction, a great deal of jobs

onsite. We will show to the world that Vancouver is a good host city

and a designation city and a place to come to following our fair.

I've got to compare what has happened with Expo under the leadership

of the government of the province of British Columbia to Vancouver's

centennial bash. The Vancouver centennial bash will cost the citizens

of Vancouver over $3 million and climbing. And I've got to say that

we're now in our third month and I, as a citizen, have yet to see

anything significant happen with our centennial program. The program is

budgeted at $3 million; $2 million of it will go to centennial

administration. I've got to repeat that. Of the $3 million, $2 million

is being spent on administration, so the citizens will get very little.

In one area that is very significant, they have magnanimously

granted $200,000 to assist Vancouver's 1,400 community groups to hold

"small-scale centennial celebrations for grass roots." The limit on the

funding is a maximum of $1,000 for each group. As we know in the city

of Vancouver, we have many community organizations, we have community

centres and we have many multicultural organizations, and they have a

grant in total of $200,000 to apply to. I have grave concerns about

the city centennial.

I would like to now discuss the economic development that is

happening in B.C. tourism. Tourism in British Columbia is shaping up as

a strong force in the ongoing renewal of British Columbia's economy.

Already it creates the most revenue after forestry and mining. It is

not difficult to see why the 1985 revenues for tourism, as I've all

ready stated, were $2.5 billion. They're up from $2.3 billion the year

before. Over that same period, the number of visitors to our province

grew from 12.2 million to 12.6 million, and these visitors came from

all parts of the world, an increase of over 8 percent.

This is the highest and best record in Canada in the past year. We

talk of 12.6 million coming. We know there will be up to, and probably

over, 20 million coming just to Vancouver and Expo and throughout the

province next year. To develop an aggressive tourism industry in B.C.,

we have announced an innovative Partners in Tourism program. We will be

working closely with local governments and the private sector, and this

program will bring them into a partnership with the provincial

government which will maintain B.C.'s leadership in the tourism

industry.

In August 1985 the provincial government signed an important tourism

subagreement with the federal government, which further demonstrates

our strong commitment to tourism marketing and development.

Other examples of our government's leadership through partnership

with local government and the private sector would include the

waterfront quay in New Westminster and the expansion of the Pacific

Centre mall in Vancouver. On Vancouver Island the provincial government

has pledged $7.25 million for a much-needed Victoria convention centre.

I'd like to note that this convention centre is being done in a riding

not held by Social Credit members. This will be matched by a federal

grant in the same amount and supplemented by municipal and private

investment. It will become a focus for the tourist and convention trade

on Vancouver Island.

In recent years the number of visitors to British Columbia has

spread outward from the lower mainland. The B.C. skiing industry has

been partially responsible for attracting tourists into the interior

and northern regions. The skiing industry and winter sports continue to

grow in British Columbia. It was only a couple of years ago that

Whistler was no more than a twinkle in the eye, and today it stands as

a thriving year-round resort renowned throughout North America. This

only came about because this government was very positive in setting up

the Whistler land commission. They invested $27 million in the Whistler

municipality when it was on the verge of bankruptcy, and the success

story of Whistler has shown how the ski industry has taken off in

British Columbia and how the Social Credit government has contributed

to the growth of the skiing industry through the building

[ Page 7320 ]

of roads, giving skiers and wintertime recreation visitors access to

the new and varied winter slopes.

Investment in the skiing industry is creating jobs. In 1985 $12

million was invested in over 25 ski centres throughout B.C. For

example, the Silver Star Mountain resort has just this year opened up

three new hotels and now employs over 100 people, and it's growing

daily.

[4:45]

Private sector initiatives are helping to develop the Okanagan as a

year-round tourist and resort destination. Other major projects are

anticipated — Tod Mountain, Black Mountain, Apex Alpine and Powder King

— thus signifying the industry's confidence in our future in British

Columbia.

The hotel and resort industry as a whole continues to generate

economic activity throughout British Columbia. The Hills Health and

Guest Ranch at 108 Mile House and Deer Trail Development of Sooke,

which now remains open all year round, employ 25 and 38 people

respectively. These are just two examples. In Vancouver alone, Tokyu

Corp.'s Pan Pacific Hotel created 500 jobs.

The outlook is particularly encouraging for small-scale resorts.

Many entrepreneurs are opening small operations in very remote areas.

These entrepreneurs, having created their own small businesses, are

working hard to promote economic development in their own times. The

northwest boasts many of these examples, such as Langara Fishing Lodge,

which has opened recently and has already had bookings in excess of 200

for this coming year.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on. I have not even touched on the high-tech

development which is happening in the lower mainland. I'd like to talk

about many things the government is doing in the health and human

resources field with their program of deinstitutionalizing individuals

confined to institutions. For example, in False Creek, Creekview 202

has taken six high-lesion quads, who were costing $227 a day in Pearson

Hospital. They're now living independently at a cost of only $117 a

day. Their lifestyle is totally different from their experience in

Pearson Hospital. The great progress that was made in the closing down

of the Tranquille hospital in Kamloops and moving them into group homes....

There have been many positive programs going on within this

government — I could list them on and on. I can say that it's no wonder

50 percent of the front row of the New Democratic Party are leaving.

They're having trouble matching the positive, dynamic approach that

this government is taking in very difficult times.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud that our government is going out and working

with such a positive approach to getting this provin