1996 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1996

Afternoon

Volume 2, Number 21,

Part 1

[ Page 1899 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I notice a friend of mine is here: Paul Dhillon, from the greater Vancouver area. He is a cranberry farmer in Richmond. He used to work for the sheriff service. I don't know whether he still works with them. Would the House please make him welcome.

R. Kasper: I recognize an old friend in the gallery, Mr. Chris Main. I know that many members on both sides of the House know Mr. Main. He has been an active member, a volunteer, in the community of Esquimalt for the better part of 20 years. He has also worked actively with youth in lacrosse at the provincial, regional and community levels. Mr. Main has spent the last year helping to revitalize the Esquimalt Legion lacrosse club. Will you please join me in making Mr. Main welcome.

V. Anderson: I'd like the House to welcome a constituent from my area, a businesswoman from the Granville market, Morie Ford. With her is a young lady, a grade 3 student, who has come to see how we behave so she will be able to report back to her school in the fall, Logan McIntosh. Please make them welcome.

T. Nebbeling: Today we have a visitor from West Vancouver. Barbara Ewens is a well-known volunteer worker on the North Shore. She is also the first woman president of the Rotary Club of West Vancouver Sunrise and is very much involved in creating youth programs on the North Shore. I ask the House to give her a very warm welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: It is a pleasure for me to introduce in the gallery today a successful and well-respected Indo-Canadian businessman, Mr. Mike Olak. Joining him, as the Attorney General has pointed out, are Paul and Peter Dhillon. Also joining them, as part of his visit to Canada, is Mr. Shingara Singh from India. Will all members please give the delegation a warm welcome.

D. Symons: It is my pleasure today to introduce some fine people from the Fraser Valley that have come to visit us. They have been longtime residents and workers in the valley: my uncle and aunt, John and Emilie Martens. They are accompanied by another aunt, Lydia Isaak, and my wife, Marge Symons. Please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: It is my pleasure to introduce in the gallery today a friend of mine -- from elementary school, actually. Dennis Horwood and his family are here from Kitimat. Dennis is not only a longtime British Columbian, but he has authored some very important books on wildlife and other features in British Columbia, including Birds of the Kitimat Valley and Islands for Discovery: An Outdoor Guide to British Columbia's Queen Charlotte Islands , which he co-authored with Tom Parkin. I would ask the House to make him very welcome.

G. Brewin: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the gallery today a constituent of mine and a friend of hers from Oak Bay, Lois Sim and Lucie Stuart. Lois Sim is very fond of telling the story that M.J. Coldwell was her grade 8 teacher and had enormous influence on her all her life. Both of them work with Abbeyfield in Victoria. Will the House please make them welcome.

G. Plant: I'm delighted to be able to introduce today four friends of mine from Ottawa: Dr. Ben Syposz and Dr. Janet Still and two of their children, Pamela and Valerie, who are here to watch us do our business. I ask that the House make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

RURAL HEALTH TRANSPORTATION ACT

R. Neufeld presented a bill intituled Rural Health Transportation Act.

R. Neufeld: This bill would establish a travel care fund to collect travel bonus points accumulated on airline tickets purchased on behalf of MLAs and public sector employees. All employees, including municipal, school district, Crown corporation and hospital board employees, would be required to donate all travel points to the travel care fund. This fund would pool the value of these points, along with any other donations, and then disburse them to help defray the travel and accommodation costs of northern and rural residents who must leave their communities to obtain emergency and specialist care not available in their home communities.

This bill protects public employees and others who might be deemed to be in violation of ethical standards for technically accepting travel bonus points in the course of travelling on public business, and it provides that the fund may negotiate discounts for rural and northern residents with airlines, transportation, and hotel and hospitality firms for health care-related travel and accommodation.

For far too long, this untapped resource has been wasted as travel points vanish into thin air, as employees are not now legally entitled to collect the points. This valuable resource in the form of travel points can be used to help those struggling to pay the often astronomical bills associated with rural health care travel. Moreover, this entire plan and the travel care fund can be implemented at minimal cost to taxpayers. The travel points program is a win-win situation for everyone involved.

Bill M206 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui. [Applause.]

An Hon. Member: The next leader of the Liberal Party.

M. de Jong: Going first is kind of fun, Mr. Speaker.

NDP COMPLIANCE WITH

ELECTION ACT DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

M. de Jong: On April 17 of this year, I wrote to the chief electoral officer. We asked him to investigate seven areas where we alleged that the NDP were in violation of the disclosure provisions of their own Election Act. That same day, Brian Gardiner, the provincial secretary for the NDP, described our request for an investigation as

an act of political desperation based on deliberately misleading research.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Steady, member, steady.

[ Page 1900 ]

Unfortunately for Mr. Gardiner and members opposite, Mr. Patterson, the chief electoral officer, didn't agree. In a letter to me last week, he confirmed that in each of the instances raised, the NDP are not in compliance with their own Election Act. My question to the Premier is: in view of what Mr. Patterson has said, is he prepared to accept this very simple proposition -- that the laws we pass in this Legislature actually apply to his merry little band of socialists? Or does the Premier take Mr. Gardiner's view that the NDP should be immune from these bothersome little rules that the rest of us have to live by?

The Speaker: If the Chair looks perplexed, it's because I am. I'm not sure that that question falls within any particular minister's area of administrative responsibility, but I see the Premier is apparently prepared to answer.

Hon. G. Clark: It's the end of the session, hon. Speaker.

I don't know the details to which the member refers. Obviously I'm happy to look into it. It is instructive, though, that the chief electoral officer is an officer of the Legislature, not of the government. He doesn't report to me; he reports to the members of the House.

The Election Act, which this government brought in, is at the forefront of election acts across the country. It's a substantial document which I think holds great promise in terms of disclosure, in terms of conflict of interest and in terms of a variety of things. This was the first election that was fought under the new Election Act, and I think that by and large -- I hope all members agree -- it was held in a manner above reproach. If the member has specific concerns or if the chief electoral officer has specific concerns, I'm happy to look into them.

M. de Jong: The difficulty with the Premier's answer, of course, is that this relates to a period well in advance of the last election. The problem here isn't Mr. Patterson reporting to the government, but the NDP reporting to Mr. Patterson. That's where the deficiencies lie. He can't even get a decent explanation about how the NDP were able to issue tax receipts, above and beyond the total amount of donations they received, to the tune of $1.1 million. He says in his letter that they have informed the NDP of the inadequacy of their disclosure. In fact, just about everything the NDP filed, Mr. Speaker, is either wrong, misleading or incompetent. But what's really interesting....

[2:15]

The Speaker: Come to the question, member.

M. de Jong: Here's the question. What's really interesting is the signature on some of these documents. These documents are signed by Michelle Kemper.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

M. de Jong: You remember Michelle Kemper. She's the failed NDP candidate now working in the Ministry of Transportation...

The Speaker: Member, I want a question -- soon.

M. de Jong: ...for $50,000 a year. Maybe the Premier can answer this for me. Maybe the Premier can explain. Is $50,000 the new fair wage for helping the NDP skirt election laws, or was Ms. Kemper hired because of her profound ability to interpret and comply with legislation? Which was it?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I realize that it's the end of the session, and I realize that this is totally out of order. I realize that if the members have any newsworthiness, they can do it outside the House.

I have to say that it's a disturbing trend for individuals who are not in the Legislature to speak for themselves, who take appointments on the part of the government -- in this case, a political appointment, an order-in-council appointment -- that members feel free to stand up and attack individuals who work for the government by name in the Legislature. Honestly, hon. Speaker, I've been in the opposition, and I can tell you that I have never seen, in ten years.... Almost every day now, in the House, members opposite stand up and attack individuals by name in this chamber.

I think it's unseemly; I think they should stop. I know they're desperate for questions. Why don't they ask questions about what's happening in the economy; about creating jobs in British Columbia, about Moody's, Standard and Poor's, CBRS and DBRS, and about how well we're doing as a province? Why don't they ask questions about unemployment, about tourism and about what's happening in this spectacular province, instead of getting down to the details and going after individuals personally who can't defend themselves?

FUNDING CUT TO

UBC SAFER CAMPUS PROGRAM

R. Masi: Last week the government demanded that the University of British Columbia immediately return half its minor capital budget to Treasury Board. Among the $8 million slashed from projects and programs that benefit students is the much-heralded Safer Campus program. The Safer Campus program at UBC has been one measure aimed at reducing crime. The former Minister of Women's Equality said: "We aren't going to balance the budget on the backs of abused women."

My question is to the Minister of Education. Given the importance of providing a safe and secure campus environment, what reason does he offer for axing the UBC Safer Campus program?

Hon. M. Sihota: I thank the hon. member for the question. You know, it's strange....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, the member is right. That's the first question in this House that I have been asked as Education minister. I have to tell you, hon. Speaker, that all the way through the last election campaign, the Liberals said that they cared about education. But their silence in this House is perhaps more telling of their true priorities.

But let me also make this point. During the course of the last election campaign, they said that we had to reduce debt, that we had to cut expenditures on debt. They said the sky was falling because there was so much debt being built up in British Columbia.

The Speaker: Minister, I believe there was a question asked.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. There are two operative points here. The first is that the opposition is wrong.

[ Page 1901 ]

We have the lowest per capita debt in Canada, and we have the highest credit rating of any province in Canada -- which shows that we have managed the finances of this province second to none. And second, as a result of that.... I want them to hear this, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Now that they're listening, I want the hon. member to understand that the safer access program is not in jeopardy.

The Speaker: The member for Delta North, on a supplemental.

R. Masi: Well, it seems that the senior officials at post-secondary institutions across the province say the decision to axe these minor capital projects just doesn't make sense. They've expressed great concern that the safety of students on campus will be grossly undermined by the deterioration in safety programs as a result of the government's freeze. My question is again to the Minister of Education. The safety of students on campus is central to creating a positive learning environment. What rationale did you use in making the decision to put saving money ahead of saving lives?

Hon. M. Sihota: If those negative Nellies on the other side of this House would have been elected in British Columbia, then they would have fulfilled their election commitment to reduce by 14 percent the amount of expenditures to post-secondary education. If that had happened, tuition fees would have gone up. They're frozen under this government. If that had happened, then fewer students would be getting access to post-secondary education. Now, with this government elected, more students than ever before are getting access to post-secondary education.

If that side had been elected, then universities and colleges would indeed be unsafe. As a result of this government's initiatives, they're becoming safer. The reason for that is that we know how to manage our finances.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's why we have the best credit rating in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

DEFENCE OF B.C. INTERESTS

AT ANNUAL PREMIERS' CONFERENCE

G. Wilson: We know that the federal Liberal caucus in Ontario is actively lobbying the federal government with respect to the softwood lumber deal. To his great credit, the Premier certainly has a letter signed by the leaders of all represented parties....

Interjections.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, perhaps the Liberals in this House don't believe that the decline of the softwood lumber industry in British Columbia is an important issue. However, I believe there are many people in British Columbia who are concerned about the fact that this issue is now before some very prominent members of the federal Liberal government. On the agenda of the thirty-seventh annual Premiers' conference, there is an item that talks of the rebalancing of federal and provincial roles and responsibilities. It will take place in Jasper on August 21.

Can the Premier now tell us what initiative he is taking to advance among the Premiers, especially the western Premiers, a need to make sure that our control over resources and the export of resources will remain in provincial hands and not be jeopardized by an end run by federal interests that are going to determine for Ontario the softwood lumber industry at our expense?

Hon. G. Clark: The only way that British Columbia is going to get treated fairly in our federation is if all parties in British Columbia on issues like this stand united to defend British Columbia's interests. I'm pleased to say that the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the PDA, the leader of the Reform Party, on behalf of all members of the House, have sent a letter to Members of Parliament.

I can tell you this: when I go to the Premiers' conference in Jasper, I will go not as a New Democrat Premier but as the Premier of all of British Columbia, representing all members of the House, to stand up against any attempt to politically manipulate the softwood lumber deal in order to make sure that British Columbia gets not more than its share, but its fair share historically of the allocation of that quota.

G. Wilson: On a supplemental. I know that at the Western Premiers' Conference, discussions were underway with respect to an independent taxing authority to be established, which would limit the federal control over the flow of tax dollars to Ottawa. Hon. Speaker, that may be the only message that Ottawa listens to when they see that the provinces are prepared to take that kind of initiative to make sure that we control our revenues in the province of British Columbia, so that they start to recognize that our voice must be heard.

Will the Premier, during this thirty-seventh annual Premiers' conference, continue to advance that proposition so that Ottawa recognizes that they no longer can run roughshod over B.C. interests?

Hon. G. Clark: Absolutely. I will present that, and we will be seeking alliances with other provinces, particularly the western provinces, which often have similar grievances with respect to the federal government. We'll be seeking those alliances, and we'll be working with other provinces -- again I say this, and I mean this very, very strongly -- not to politically pursue an agenda which is favourable to British Columbia at other provinces' expense, but to make sure that we pursue an agenda which is technically correct, which is fair and which gives us our allocation based on our historical cut.

That is the agenda I will be pursuing on behalf of all of you, at Premiers' conferences and with the federal government. I fear -- and I really do fear -- that the federal Liberal caucus is not going to respond in a non-partisan way. I ask the Liberals across the House to tell their brothers and sisters in the Liberal Party to not act politically on this and to use the influence that I know they have with their friends in Ottawa to make sure that British Columbia gets fair treatment.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. U. Dosanjh tabled the Annual Report on Multiculturalism for the year 1994-95.

[ Page 1902 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Forests for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1995.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this House, I call Committee of Supply B; for the information of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the office of the Premier. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply; for the information of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER AND

MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUTH

(continued)

On vote 8: minister's office, $2,409,000 (continued).

[2:30]

Hon. G. Clark: I was kind of baited this morning by the Leader of the Opposition. To respond, I thought I would give an overview of the government and the accomplishments we've made in the last while, the success of the session, and where we're at in terms of moving forward.

First, to briefly reiterate what I said this morning, let me say how much of a privilege it is to be a member of the Legislature in British Columbia. All members, I think, feel the same way. I'm sure they do. They don't do this for the income; they don't do it for the ego. In many respects members are here to do a service to their constituencies, to act in the public interest, and while we have profound differences about the definition of that, people are here pursuing what they believe is in the best interests of British Columbia. It's a great honour for me to have served for ten years -- at the end of this term, close to 14 or 15 years serving the people of British Columbia.

For me personally, it's a privilege and an honour to represent the neighbourhood that I live in, the neighbourhood that I grew up in, the place where my mother still lives, and to try to represent people who, I think, have not always done well in terms of the way in which governments have protected or not protected their interests.

When I make these opening remarks, then, I think it's important to reflect upon the values that we share, and the values that we hold on this side of the House, which we think reflect the vast majority of British Columbians. Essentially, those are the middle-class and working people, and the values and aspirations they have are ones which, I think, are in keeping with Canadian society and the way Canada has developed as opposed to, say, the United States, south of us.

The creeping Americanism of our public institutions that we are seeing across the country, we saw best represented by the opposition party in the last election campaign in their lack of support for the institutions that we have developed collectively as a people in this country: to try to do things differently here; to have a medicare system where it doesn't matter about your wealth, only your health; to have a system of education where it's a right, not a privilege to go to school and to go to university.

I can say without reservation that today, if I were 18 or 19 years old in British Columbia, I would have a great deal of difficulty going to university. If the other side had been elected and chose to pursue the kind of strategy that they said they would, and which is being pursued in other parts of Canada, I would not be able to go to university. If we want to create wealth in British Columbia and in Canada, and if we want to provide equality of opportunity for people regardless of their income, then education must be a right and not a privilege, and I'm proud that this government supports such an initiative.

Listening to the opposition party in the last few weeks has been instructive, I think, and reading the media outlets has been instructive as well, because you would think listening to the opposition, that it's negative, negative, negative. Or reading some of the corporate-controlled media in this province, like the Vancouver Sun editorial today -- which someone just showed me, and which is clearly outrageous -- and that pathetic meandering about British Columbia.... It is so out of sync with what working people and the middle class in British Columbia feel.

Listen to what the opposition says -- how terrible things are, how bad it is in British Columbia, how bad the government is -- standing up day in and day out and spewing this kind of negative view.

Look at what is happening. What is the reality in British Columbia? It's different. What does New York say? What does Moody's from New York say? "British Columbia's large economic base... continues to expand and diversify, providing support for provincial financial operations.... Financial performance has improved over the last several years as a result of a supporting economic environment and a gradual curbing of expenditure growth.... The province's debt ratios remain the llowest of all the Canadian provinces." And thus, they've reinforced our credit rating. What does Dominion Bond Rating Service say?

"B.C.'s economy ranks the strongest in Canada." So they've confirmed the highest credit rating in the country. What does the Canadian Bond Rating Service say? "The budgetary trend has continued in the right direction. B.C.'s deficit has consistently declined since 1992-93. Small business taxes have declined by 10 percent. There is new legislation prohibiting the introduction of individual and family taxes to the year 2000. B.C.'s financial position actually improved this year despite a small deficit.

The debt is smaller as a percentage of the GDP, and as a result, they maintain the highest credit rating in Canada."

What are the facts? There were 44,000 jobs created in British Columbia in the first seven months of this year. This is a pace of economic growth and job creation which we have not seen in many years in Canada in any province.

Look at these numbers, hon. Chair. Every single year for five years, we have created more jobs than any jurisdiction in Canada. In the last six months -- and, indeed, in the last month, in July -- when the opposition was whining and complaining, when you couldn't pick up an editorial in the Vancouver Sun that wasn't attacking the province, we not only outstripped any other province, we created 16,000 jobs in B.C., out of 19,000 net jobs in all of Canada. This province is booming, and every single agency is revising its numbers.

Look at some of these statistics and some of these numbers.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm looking for them. I can't find them. All of the quotes.... There are so many, hon. Chair.

Every bank in Canada says we're going to lead the country -- every bank and every economic forecaster. I know that members of the opposition want to give the banks a tax cut, and we don't support that on this side of the House, but all the

[ Page 1903 ]

economists in Canada point to British Columbia. Look at what's happening with in-migration and immigration. We forecast that it would slow down with the recovery in the rest of the country -- and what has happened? It hasn't. People are moving here in record numbers, and they're creating jobs in record numbers. Business incorporations are up in British Columbia again, exports are up, housing starts are up 30 percent, and retail sales are up 5 percent. Look at what is happening. It's completely at variance with what you hear in this chamber. Business bankruptcies are down in British Columbia, hon. members, significantly down. Look at what's happening.

Listen, how can you walk around with a little black cloud over your head in this magnificent province? Go outside. Take a walk; go outside. Look at the thousands of tourists here in British Columbia, and ask yourself how you can be so negative about what's going on in British Columbia. Look at it. Tourism is booming, job growth is up, business incorporations are up and private sector investment is up. Yet if you listen to the opposition, everything is bad.

The facts are absolutely clear. I said during the campaign that there were really four things that I thought we should do. We should create jobs, we should protect medicare and education, and we should provide hope for young people. So let's go through it.

We've created jobs more than any province in Canada, and we've talked about that. Nowhere else in the country is doing as good of a job on the economy as this administration, particularly over the last five years. And what have we done in this House, this chamber? We've brought in a new, very small piece of legislation on forest renewal which is going to link the jobs created by forest renewal to those unemployed in the forest industry in British Columbia. It didn't get a lot of debate. I don't know what the opposition party says....

I know that the PDA leader supports this initiative; I don't know about the Liberals. They have stood up here and opposed virtually everything the government has done.

Let's go through it. They opposed Forest Renewal; they opposed the West Coast Express; they opposed the Island Highway; they opposed the B.C. 21 construction projects. Now, every day, we see crocodile tears in the House: "Oh, it's terrible. We've cut the minor capital for universities." This is from a party that promised a 14 percent cut to funding universities. Every day for three years they have put forth a radical American agenda to slash the welfare state and spending on health care and education, and to cut taxes on the rich and big corporations. People rejected it, but now they have the gall to stand up here, day in and day out, and whine about spending, spending, spending.

I looked at the numbers, hon. Chair....

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Look in the mirror, member for Delta North, who was complaining about the capital plans for universities, when we have spent more money on universities and colleges than any other jurisdiction in Canada. Your party opposed every single penny. He also complained this session about the rights of children, when his party opposed every single child care initiative we've brought in over the last five years. They stand up here and complain, and ask for government spending.

I looked at it, and there's over a billion dollars of requests from members across the way -- a billion dollars to the Highways minister. They stand up here shamelessly and ask for money for their constituents, but then go out and perpetrate a fraud on British Columbians by saying that we should cut taxes on the banks, big corporations and the rich in this province, paid for by cuts in government spending. But they stand up here and ask for more and more and more. They don't even support the capital freeze; they said they were against it.

They cannot rise above their own politics to be consistent and stand for something. They stand for a right-wing, American-style agenda. The people of B.C. know it. Gur Singh, a star candidate in Kamloops, talked about user fees for health care and said that we had to bring them in. Where were they? Halfway through the election campaign, they tried to say: "Oh no, we're not going to cut health care or education." But people are smarter than that. They know what side that party is on and who they represent, and it's not working people and the middle class.

On jobs, our record is unparalleled and better than any province in Canada. That's an empirical record, not an opinion. Those are facts. You'd never hear it from the other side, but the economy is doing well.

On protecting medicare, this government right here is the only province in Canada to increase funding every single year to protect medicare. The party opposite proposed a $3 billion cut in spending, the deepest cuts per capita of any jurisdiction in Canada. They stood up day after day and said that we should cut $3 billion in spending. The people know that if you cut $3 billion in spending to give tax breaks to the rich, that means that you cut medicare and the kinds of public institutions we built up in this country.

Medicare. We have increased the investment in health care in this province. There is no province in Canada....

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Do you want more money for health care? Come on, member from West Vancouver, and look in the mirror. How can you look in the mirror, campaign for a party that wants a right-wing agenda and to cut spending and taxes on banks and corporations, and then stand up here and whine that we're not spending more money for health care? Have a modicum of self-respect and be honest. The cuts that you have proposed would radically alter the kind of system we have built up in this country. That's what we campaigned on, and that's what the election was all about: health care.

Education. What's happening in education? We've increased funding for education -- the only jurisdiction in Canada to increase funding for K to 12. We've made it more relevant. We have more educational programs to give work experience to young people, but most important -- and what I'm most proud of -- are the colleges and universities. Look in the newspaper again -- not the Vancouver Sun, because you won't hear it. But look around, talk to people. There used to be lineups in September for kids getting into university and colleges -- 14,000 people were turned away. We increased funding.

We're the only jurisdiction in North America to increase funding to colleges and universities so that young people have an opportunity to get the education they need to be competitive in the real world.

[2:45]

That party did not support Skills Now. That party did not support the increased funding for universities and colleges. It doesn't matter what they say now. The crocodile tears that

[ Page 1904 ]

they talk about now -- they didn't support it. We have embarked upon a radical agenda for education that is going to give people the right to succeed in a very increasingly competitive economy.

We've frozen tuition fees for two years. This party opposed freezing tuition fees during the campaign and before the campaign. They're still opposed to freezing tuition fees.

On this side of the House, we believe that if we want to have access to universities and colleges for young people of modest means, of the middle class, of working people, then we need to make sure that tuition fees are affordable, and we have done that in spite of opposition from the other side.

And what about hope for young people? We presented the largest job creation initiative for young people we've ever seen. We're creating thousands of jobs -- thousands of jobs -- a First Job in Science, a new job creation initiative to do with universities, cost- shared....

You've got to give me more time.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm so enjoying this speech. It just seems to me that all members of the House would benefit if we heard more.

Hon. G. Clark: What are we doing with respect to young people? I became the Minister Responsible for Youth. We're working hard on Generation X and Generation Y. We have frozen tuition fees; we have increased funding for universities and colleges. We have embarked on a job creation initiative, cost-shared with the private sector, which is larger than any we've seen in British Columbia. Much more work needs to be done -- not in the kind of negativity, the kind of dismantling of our system that we see in the opposition, but in providing hope. Government has a role to play in providing hope for young people. That's what we represent on this side of the House.

What about small business? We cut taxes by 10 percent and where was the opposition? I didn't hear anything. I'm still waiting to hear. A 10 percent tax cut, a tax holiday for two years, no income tax for two years for new small businesses in British Columbia. Where are the opposition? Are they praising the government for this initiative for small business? No, they're negative, because they represent downtown Vancouver, big corporate lawyers, big corporate interests.

They don't represent the small business people in British Columbia, the hard-working small business people, the hard-working middle class and working people of this province. That's who we represent, and that's who we will always represent.

In this session of the Legislature, we brought in pieces of legislation to reform our welfare system. I'm very, very proud of that. All members on this side of the House are proud of that. We said we're not going to follow the kind of failed policies we're seeing in other parts of the country that make the poor pay for the cost of government inefficiency. You can't fund an existing welfare system that isn't working. It's not working for the people who pay for it. It's not working for the people who are on it.

But rather than engage in the kind of right-wing axe-cutting we're seeing across the country and in the United States, we said: "Let's reform this system so we will always be better off working than being on welfare." For the first time in Canada, in British Columbia, since the Second World War, that's the case. The family bonus program is the first serious initiative in social programs, the first serious social program expansion in Canada in 20 years designed to deal with child poverty.

We're proud of that, and we want to put it on the agenda for Premiers and the federal government to look at, because child poverty is a disgrace in this rich country. We're taking action, and we want all provinces to do the same across the country.

We brought in a new Youth Works package to say to young people that it's not good enough to have entitlement to cash. It's not working. Instead of an entitlement to cash, you're entitled to training that leads to jobs. It's a big initiative on the part of the government because we guaranteed access to training, and tens of thousands of young people are going to demand it. It's going to be tough, and it's going to strain the system, but we've got to break the cycle of young people going on welfare for five or six years and maybe never working in their lifetimes.

We're doing it on this side of the House with a Youth Works initiative designed to guarantee training leading to jobs for young people.

Training for young people, the family bonus, and dealing with people with disabilities differently from the welfare system -- in totality, these changes are the most significant reforms of welfare and our social safety net in the country in 30 years. In this province we're showing that we don't have to abandon the Canadian way of life. We don't have to abandon Canadian values to do things more efficiently and to make initiatives work so that we can protect our safety net and make sure that people have access to jobs and access to opportunity.

That's how you give hope to young people and hope to people in British Columbia. You don't give them hope by promising a trickle-down theory of tax cuts for banks, big corporations and the rich -- and maybe someday it will trickle down to the poor and the unemployed. During the campaign I asked those young people who are employed: "Have you been trickled on lately?" Because that's what the opposition talks about -- the trickle-down theory, the failed theory of the right wing all across North America. We're not doing that.

We're doing it from the bottom up, giving more money to the working poor, to working poor families so that this government can show there's a different way of doing it, in keeping with Canadian values and traditions.

We have the highest credit rating of any province in Canada, and we have earned that. Forget about listening to the opposition. Forget about reading the "Vancouver Fun." Look at the facts. The facts are that we have earned the highest credit rating of any province in Canada because of our financial record. That's what the rating agencies say. We have the highest credit rating. We have cut taxes for working people. We have cut taxes for the middle class. We have cut taxes for small business. That's what we have done this session.

On the fiscal side, we have cut taxes significantly, and we're going to work harder to continue to do that. We have frozen Hydro rates. We have frozen ICBC rates. We have frozen tuition fees. We have cut taxes, and we have the highest credit rating of any province in Canada.

Our economic record on the job side is better than any province in Canada. So we have the highest credit rating, we've cut taxes, and we've created more jobs than any province in Canada every year for the last five years. We've protected medicare, we've protected education, and we've got a new initiative to give young people hope and opportunity. We've frozen tuition fees. We've brought in legislation to reform our welfare system so it works. We've brought in legislation tying jobs for forest renewal to unemployed workers.

This government was re-elected on a platform of jobs, protecting medicare, protecting education and giving hope for young people. We are doing all of that right now in this session of the Legislature.

[ Page 1905 ]

The Leader of the Opposition provoked me. He stood up in the Legislature earlier this morning and said: "Where's the vision?" This party has vision for the future of the province. This party represents Canadian values and Canadian traditions. This party represents the middle class and working people. We are delivering on every single commitment we made, and we're delivering in the Legislature this session. Those people on the other side have a failed, American-style vision, looking in some radical, right-wing direction which is out of sync with the mainstream.

It might be in sync with corporate British Columbia or the "Vancouver Fun" editorial board, but it's not in sync with working families and the middle class. That's who we represent. We'll never forget it on this side of the House, and that's what we're going to do for the next three years. That's what we were elected to do, and that's what we're doing. [Applause.]

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. I recognize the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

G. Campbell: I think it is important that the Premier finally got up and said something today. Unfortunately, the Premier showed exactly what British Columbians are concerned about from this Premier. They're concerned about a Premier that does not tell people what the facts are; they're concerned about a Premier that does not come forward and lay out for people a plan that will work for everybody.

When the Premier started today, he said he came from a working-class neighbourhood -- so did I. The Premier said he still lives in the neighbourhood he worked in -- so do I. I can tell you that in the neighbourhood that I come from, the people that I know working in this province are not pleased with this Premier or with this government, because this Premier and this government and every single member on that side of the House misled the people of British Columbia before the election. They misled the people of British Columbia during the election, and they've misled the people of British Columbia every single day since the election.

What do working people want? They want the truth. They want to know that anyone they elect will tell them the truth, and what they know from this Premier is that he does not know the truth, he's never met the truth, and he'll never tell the truth. This Premier believes in what others have called "the big lie" technique: you say it over and over again and someone might believe it.

Let me be very clear to everyone on that side of the House -- including the former Minister of Health, who sat by idly as Health deteriorated across the province -- that this side of the House will always put patients at the top of the list and will always put a health care system first in British Columbia.

To hear this Premier say that education is a right -- what a bunch of baloney coming from those lips! It is the same man who will not guarantee education to every single young person in British Columbia, the same man who, every time he's had a chance, has voted against making education an essential service in this province. And why does he vote against it? He votes against it because his supporters say: "Don't put students first; put us first." And he stands up throughout the election and says: "Yes, I will put our supporters ahead of students in the province." That is wrong in British Columbia. It's wrong from this Premier, and it's wrong from every member on that side of the House.

[3:00]

This Premier was elected, and within hours of the election, he stood up and said to the people of British Columbia: "I need wriggle room." Now, I know he's probably learned from some of his colleagues in cabinet about wriggle room. Unfortunately, we don't have the same method of accountability here in the House as we do in other professions, but let me say this: wriggle room is not good enough for British Columbians.

What wriggle room means is that we're going to cancel projects that were promised; what it means is that we're going to cancel schools that were promised; what it means is that we are going to say there is one program in the entire province of British Columbia that's sacrosanct -- and it's not health care; it is not education; it is the fair-wage legislation which pays off their political supporters. That is not the priority of the people of British Columbia; the priority of the people is to get the best value they can for every single tax dollar.

Within hours of being elected, this Premier said he wanted wriggle room. What did it mean? What wriggle room did he need? Well, he needed so much wriggle room that he needed a gymnasium to wriggle around in.

The fact of the matter is that this Premier said to the people of British Columbia: "I have balanced the budget." Month after month, he said: "We have balanced the budget." He introduced a budget that he said was balanced, and we know that that was not true. The budget was not balanced; it was a quarter of a billion dollars in debt. And this year's budget was presented as a balanced budget. The Premier himself has admitted that we could have a $700 million deficit in British Columbia because of this government's actions. The Premier says he's going to maintain the debt management plan.

Already after one year, it's $700 million behind. All the members on that side of the House, all of the people that were elected, sit quietly by and say: "Oh yes, it must be true." The fact of the matter is it isn't true.

The same Premier, the same government, that said that they were going to take care of children in the province appointed a minister who is so inept that every child in British Columbia is at risk if they are in his ministry's care. Every independent officer of the Legislature -- the child and youth and family advocate, the ombudsman, the chair of the Child and Family Review Board -- has said that every child's death, whether they're in care or they're known to the ministry, should be investigated. Does this government investigate? No. Will they investigate the operations of the ministry? No, no way.

That is wrong, because people expect that there are times when you can, in fact, put aside politics, and when you can put children ahead of all of the politics that we hear spewing forth from that side of the House. I can tell you this: this side of the House would not have taken months and found delaying tactics and ministers who didn't care about it to implement the Gove report. We would have put that Gove report at the top of our agenda, and it would have been implemented one step at a time, day after day and month after month.

The Premier is making the classic mistake of being angry at the messenger. He's angry at the Vancouver Sun . Just imagine, the Vancouver Sun actually did some homework -- something we know that that side of the House is not very good at. They actually went and did some homework. And they discovered that, in fact, per capita earnings in British Columbia are going down. Take-home pay in British Columbia is going down. The job creation rates in British Columbia are going down, and they're continuing to go down. In spite of the fact that people in this province are working harder, they are taking home less money.

[ Page 1906 ]

They elected a government. I agree that they elected a government.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: The member across says: "What's going on?" I know he doesn't know what's going on, but he should pay attention because people in his constituency are worried. They're worried that he sat mute as the government decided to raid the Forest Renewal fund and take jobs out of his community. They're worried that that member sat mute, as have all the other members in this House. They sat mute and said: "We don't care what we promised you; we will not deliver. We won't give you the dollars for restoring our streams and our rivers. We won't give you the dollars for improving our land base.

We won't give you the dollars for sustaining your community and its economic activity. We won't do that, because we have friends in Victoria we're going to do it for. We'll break our promise, and don't expect me to stand up for you in my constituency, because I'm not about to do that."

Let me simply say that when the Premier stands up and outlines a program like he just did, it's a pretty sad day. It's a great opportunity to serve as the Premier of this province, and I think the Premier knows that. But instead of coming forward and saying that here is a constructive and worthwhile program that we can pursue, he continues to try to characterize things in the wrong way. He continues to try to score political points that aren't there for the scoring.

Just think of what we ask from the government. We ask them to be prudent. We ask them to be cautious. We ask them to be diligent in the exercise of their responsibilities. It's not too much to ask, I don't think. After all, the government is taking over 50 cents of every dollar that every British Columbian earns out of their pocket and saying that they'll spend it for them. That's one of the problems with this Premier and that side of the House. They don't know what it's like to go out and work to make a living anymore. They've forgotten that they're taking dollars out of people's pockets.

They're taking groceries off people's tables. They're taking homes from people because of this government's activity. Whether it's in the forest industry, the mining industry or small business, it doesn't matter. This government has hurt people, and they have ignored the pleas and calls of people across this province. We hear nothing from that side of the House.

The problem is this. When we look at the province of British Columbia, everybody in this House, I would suggest, sees a great province. Everyone in this House wants to contribute to that province and wants to make it work. They have very small hurdles, small standards, low standards for us to meet. They would think, for example, that when the Premier decides to involve himself in international ventures, in international entrepreneurial activity, that there would be some ethical standards that would be required of the people joining him.

I didn't hear today, for example, who Ali Mahmood is. The Premier still doesn't know who Ali Mahmood is. The Premier still doesn't know the facts about B.C. Hydro, yet he is risking other people's money -- not his money, other people's money. He's risking other people's money as we proceed. Was there any due diligence put in? None. Does the Premier know? I don't know. Does the minister responsible for it know? No, he says. I don't know. This is a government that is bereft of standards, values and ethical conduct, and that's what British Columbians know coming out of this session. There is no question in any of their minds with regard to that.

People in British Columbia expected the truth from this government. They expected them to lay out the facts and recognize that we can have a good political debate based on the facts. This government has done everything they can to hide the facts, to cover up the facts; and when the facts were not comfortable, they would distort the facts to try to mislead the people of British Columbia, and that is wrong.

As we enter into the Premier's estimates, it seems to me that what people are asking for, all the opposition is asking for, is the straight answers and the straight goods. The fact of the matter is that we don't have those. The fact of the matter is that this Premier, has not held one of his ministers to account for their lack of performance. He hasn't held one of his Crown corporations to account for lack of performance. He hasn't any standards that he has applied, as is very clear when you look at the cabinet that he's appointed.

The fact of the matter is that people in this province expect their government to reflect their values. This Premier and this government do not reflect the values of the people of this province, and that's why they only got 39 percent of the vote and we got 42 percent of the vote.

As I've said many times, I would far prefer to be on this side of the House, having told the truth, than on that side of the House, having misled British Columbians for the last year.

Now, having discovered that the Premier has no vision for the future of British Columbia, I think it is important that we actually do try and use these estimates to discern, to put some skeleton, if you want, on the way the Premier expects his government to operate in the years and the months ahead.

I should say that I was glad to hear today that the election will be in three years. I thought it was going to be four or five, so I'm glad we're looking at three years. I'm sure the Premier will stick with his word with regard to that.

Interjections.

G. Campbell: I think it is a good point. If the Premier is as confident as he pretends to be to his caucus, I think we should call the election on Thursday and have another one. It was a lot of fun for me, and I'm sure it was for him. There is one stipulation, I think: we would require that all parties tell the truth in the next election. I think everyone would be better off.

I'd like to ask the Premier now, since he has outlined -- I'm not sure what he outlined.... But after his speech, I would ask him this question: could the Premier please outline for us how he has organized the Premier's Office to carry out the so-called vision that he outlined earlier today?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, the only comment I would make, and I don't want to prolong the debate, is with respect to the Leader of the Opposition's comments. He can cast aspersions on my remarks, and that's, in a sense, part of politics. Does he think that Moody's in New York is not telling the truth? Does he think that Standard and Poor's and CBRS and DBRS....

Interjections.

[ Page 1907 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Listen, hon. Chair: "B.C.'s economy is poised to return to the fast track. It will grow by almost 3 percent in 1997." That's the Bank of Nova Scotia.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: "British Columbians are far more optimistic about their provincial economy then they are about the Canadian economy. Overall, 66 percent of British Columbians are quite positive about the state of the provincial economy" -- Angus Reid, spring of 1996. "British Columbia has been the strongest performer in Canada over the past nine years" -- Investment Dealers' Association of Canada. "Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia are all in line to enjoy above-average job growth" -- Royal Bank, June of 1996.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order!

Hon. G. Clark: A survey of the provincial economy says: "British Columbia will be the country's powerhouse this year" -- May '96, Conference Board of Canada. "B.C.'s long-term debt has been growing, but the economy has been growing as well, and it is important to look at both things," blah, blah, blah -- Patty Croft, Canada Trust. The Dominion Bond Rating Service says: "B.C.'s economy ranks the strongest in Canada." The Canadian Bond Rating Service says: "B.C. continues to enjoy the lowest net provincial and net total debt per capita.

Furthermore" -- listen to this -- "despite recording a deficit in '95-96, B.C.'s debt-to-GDP ratio has declined. Consequently, despite the deficit, B.C.'s financial position actually improved in '95-96."

Hon. Chair, my only point is simply this: while it is legitimate politics, I guess, to compare yourself with the opposition and to attack the Premier's remarks, these are not New Democrats. These are banks and credit-rating agencies; they are big corporations. Given the fact that I am not about to cut their taxes, it is surprising.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, order!

Hon. G. Clark: The interesting thing is that all the empirical evidence.... People who are not part of the government, third parties, all agree that we have a good financial performance and a good economic performance -- in fact, the best of any province in Canada. In a sense, that's my only comment with respect to criticism the opposition has.

On the office of the Premier, I think there was a specific question. Essentially, there are two streams of organizational structure in the Premier's Office. One is Doug McArthur, who is the deputy minister responsible for the civil service, the head of the civil service. The other is Adrian Dix, who is the principal secretary, which is the chief political appointment of the government. Under that, there is essentially a communications shop -- the director of communications is Geoff Meggs; there's an executive director, Ron Wickstrom; there's liaison and coordination; and there are a scheduling office and a correspondence office. Essentially, that's the office of the Premier.

[3:15]

I might note that it is the smallest budget of any Premier in the country, but -- and I say this very carefully -- there are units that report to the Premier whose budgets are in, particularly, the Ministry of Finance. So there is a civil service

section under the Ministry of Finance, which, for all intents and purposes, reports through me, even though the budget is not here before you right now.

G. Campbell: I'm glad the Premier held up the organization chart, because I had received this one, and I wasn't sure if it was correct. If I could, I'll just go through some of the positions. Adrian Dix is, as I understand it, the chief political officer in the Premier's Office. He's called the chief, is he?

Hon. G. Clark: His title is principal secretary, and that is essentially a political appointment. It's a very small political shop, but the separation between the political and the bureaucratic is very important. Mr. Dix represents the political wing of the Premier's Office.

G. Campbell: I remember the name Adrian Dix from an earlier time, and I'm wondering, in his role as the principal secretary to the Premier, would he be responsible for reporting information to the Premier of his meetings, etc., in the Premier's Office?

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Dix and Mr. Wickstrom were my ministerial assistants for the full period I was a cabinet minister. Now they both have moved with me to the Premier's Office in different positions.

G. Campbell: I'd like to deal with Mr. Dix to start with. Are there specific tasks that are laid out for Mr. Dix? For example, when he represents the Premier, does he come back and give the Premier reports on meetings he goes to, or does he just go and do it himself?

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Dix and I, and generally Mr. Dix and Mr. McArthur and I, meet virtually every day when the House is sitting and most days when the House is not sitting, to canvass a range of issues before the government, whether they are political, in the case of Mr. Dix, or deal with public policy issues, in the case of Mr. McArthur.

G. Campbell: As I'm sure the Premier recalls -- I've just recalled now from my notes -- Mr. Dix was the Premier's representative on the B.C. Hydro board as a political officer, as well. However, he didn't seem to be forthcoming with the minister of the day with regard to the activities that were taking place. Are there criteria for Mr. Dix to report back to the Premier on activities undertaken in the Premier's Office unlike there were when he was a ministerial assistant?

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Dix was not on the board of B.C. Hydro, but he did attend board meetings from time to time on my behalf.

An Hon. Member: All of them.

Hon. G. Clark: Not all of the board meetings, but many of them. Mr. Dix does report to me. I accept responsibility for his actions, and I accept responsibility for his reporting to me from time to time. I ask for reports and receive them from Mr. Dix. He is my chief political aide and has been for some time, and I have full confidence in him.

G. Campbell: I would like to touch briefly on some of the activities that the Premier is referring to with regard to B.C. Hydro, because I think it's important how reporting works in the government, how we are all kept abreast of what's taking place. Certainly the Premier, as the chief elected official in the province of British Columbia, has the primary responsibility for a number of these issues, and I recognize he's said that.

With regard to the B.C. Hydro situation, though, one of the concerns that I have -- having gone through this over the

[ Page 1908 ]

last couple of weeks -- is that I am still a little bit perplexed about what the policy considerations were as the Premier went forward and tried to clean up the situation with regard to the Raiwind project. He was not, as I understand it, kept abreast of what was taking place there. But in appointing Mr. Smith.... I have a number of questions about that, because it was the Premier's appointment at the time.

I guess my question to the Premier is: wouldn't there be some problems, or didn't the Premier recognize that there would be problems and even conflicts, when the person he's appointing to run the corporation, who is directly responsible to the Premier and the minister, is also the person who is supposed to be investigating the activities with regard to the Raiwind project?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, I don't generally accept that. I know that the opposition -- and this has become a habit with this opposition -- calls for a public inquiry virtually every time something happens. I don't accept that. I think that most of the information at the time we appointed Mr. Smith was public information. We knew the situation that was to come about. Mr. Smith was simply to be the chair of the board, to run the board, and to get to the bottom of it and share it.

The individuals that have been appointed by Mr. Smith, and all the testimony and all of that, and the interim reports have been public. These individuals continue to be accountable to the public through, recently, testifying before the estimates committee, and they will be accountable as well when the Crown Corporations Committee is up and running. So the issue really is -- for me, anyway -- getting all of the information out and public for debate and discussion of the appropriate course of action.

Every day, in government and Crown corporations, judgment calls are made, decisions are made. Not all of them are right, including those of ministers or Premiers. The trick, it seems to me increasingly, is to lay out the information for everybody -- the opposition, the public -- and make an informed choice. If it's the wrong choice or seems to be the wrong choice later on, then you're held accountable for that, and you accept responsibility for that. That's what I've tried to do in B.C. Hydro. Decisions were made against my instructions, but they were made.

I accepted the responsibility for not having the appropriate due diligence with respect to that. So now we're in a situation where B.C. Hydro's trying to protect itself from potential lawsuits. It's trying to unravel a very complex deal, which was made without authorization from cabinet, from the minister or even from the board, in terms of the complex transactions that took place. It's making judgments along the way in terms of how to manage that and being up front and accountable on it.

Members in the opposition can complain about it, but they asked questions, and they were given all the information. They didn't have to be given all the information; they were. With FOI and with all the information you have with the.... The only unfortunate

part is that there is a police investigation, which I think traps some of the documentation.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Is it? Sorry, all of the information. But that's not my desire. My desire -- and I can be quite frank about this; I'm sure members opposite probably agree -- is to have it all out on the table: fast, done, dealt with, fixed and moved on, rather than this kind of tortuous process of trying to unravel this complicated legal documentation. That's what we're endeavouring to do.

There is a whole series of legal proceedings which unfortunately make it more difficult to share all the information that I would like. In fact, my instructions are, consistently, to get as much information out on all of these projects as they can, so that the public can see what's going on. Then we can make some decisions accordingly. Unfortunately, in the real world, especially with lawyers -- no offence -- things get trapped in various legal proceedings which don't enable you to get all the information out as much as you'd like.

G. Campbell: I understand some of the ways that government would act. The challenge that I have, with regard to both Mr. Smith and the way the whole Hydro exercise is being carried out, is that there still seems to have been no one, either in the Premier's Office or the minister's office, who was following up to ensure that the directions the Premier had given were undertaken. I'm not saying that the Premier has to spend every hour of every day pursuing every initiative. He obviously can't do that. Mr. Dix was on the B.C. Hydro board when this was put together.

He was there, obviously, because when the Premier was a minister he wanted to have someone watching what was taking place, to be sure that he kept in touch.

This has all happened since the current Premier came into office. He appointed Mr. Smith, unfortunately, not just to be the investigator of the whole activity. The fact is that Mr. Smith was investigating his boss, investigating the activities of his boss, both collectively and individually. And that does create problems, if you want to have an independent review.

The Premier is concerned that we constantly call for independent reviews. Well, I can tell the Premier that the reason we do that is that the public calls for them. The public doesn't have a sense of confidence about what is taking place. I mean, when you look through Mr. Smith's interim report, even the simplest things are wrong. We're saying that that's the report that's supposed to tell us about what took place and how we can stop it from happening.

Given that I accept the Premier's characterization of this, that he didn't know and he doesn't have to know everything.... Okay, I'll accept all that. The question for us is: how do we make sure that it never happens again, from this cabinet's perspective and that of the next and the next and the next one after that? How can we make sure that happens? First of all, one of the challenges we face, I think, is that we issue a freedom-of-information request and we don't get anything. Then an RCMP investigation starts, so we get less and less. That's one thing.

But there seems to be no effort to even get some of the documents that don't have anything to do with the RCMP investigation out into the public realm. It becomes a catch-all for everything.

There is no question in my mind that the Premier was concerned about what took place with regard to the Raiwind project in February of 1996, as I understand it. I accept the Premier's comments on that. Let me ask this question: what activity then took place subsequent to...? I'll get back to Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith was appointed, and we can accept that. What activity then took place in government to make sure that all of the information was gathered together? Who was responsible for doing that? It certainly wasn't Mr. Smith.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll just refresh my memory. First, there was a request from all ministries for information. There was a request immediately from the Deputy Premier, I believe, for all information with respect to that. The Ministry of Employment and Investment was sort of the lead agency, along with the Crown corporations secretariat, involved in collecting information and the due diligence around that. There is one individual in the Crown corporations secretariat, Bruce

Dun-

[ Page 1909 ]

can, who is an outstanding civil servant, in my view. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of this issue and was involved particularly in preparing some of the details around it. Then Mr. Smith appointed Neil de Gelder and Chris Considine -- and I apologize to the third individual; I can't remember his name; he's an accountant -- to do the review and take testimony, etc. Then we made sure all that information fed through that process, and then, of course, the RCMP investigation kind of subsumed that.

It's interesting that you say that there are aspects of the interim report which are incorrect. That gives me some concern. We want to make sure that it is a full and complete document. I'm sure -- I'm advised -- that lots of issues and territory were covered in estimates. I fully expect and anticipate that all of the questions can be answered to the best of our ability with the information we have.

I have to say, again, and I'm not trying to be defensive about this, that I do have a great deal of respect for Mr. Smith, both as someone who has served British Columbia and as an individual who has chaired another large corporation. I also have a great deal of respect for Chris Considine and Neil de Gelder, in particular. They are two people I don't know personally but who I have dealt with. The thoroughness of their investigation has impressed me and so has the quality of the work that they are doing in terms of dealing with this issue.

As I said earlier, it seems to me that when you appoint someone of Mr. Smith's calibre, as I have tried to do, and we have a senior minister, the Deputy Premier, responsible, we then ask them to carry out the duties as per direction. Periodically, issues have to come before cabinet. The important point here -- I say this to the Leader of the Opposition, and this is, of course, a challenge and, I guess, a political challenge for me -- is that we have, I believe, good public policy decisions that were made with respect to international investments by Crown corporations.

I assume that members opposite have all that material. We have documented ethical standards, environmental standards and guidelines. We did a lot of due diligence with respect to moving into this area. The problem we've got in this case is that you can have all the best policy and all the best and specific cabinet instructions in the world. But if they're not followed, then how do you guard yourself against that?

[3:30]

An Hon. Member: You fired them.

Hon. G. Clark: You take action. That's what I've done in terms of firing Mr. Laxton and Mr. Sheehan.

But it seems to me that the information and policy work is substantial work. It's some of the best, really, that I've seen in government, in terms of working on some of these issues. So I don't want to be defensive, but just to say.... The Leader of the Opposition talked earlier today, I guess, about benchmarks and ways in which you can deal with this to make sure it doesn't happen again. I guess my problem is that there is a substantial body of public policy work and cabinet directives which I still think meets public interest tests and scrutiny.

But you cannot protect yourself from people who are violating that policy deliberately and surreptitiously. Unfortunately, we had some of that in the B.C. Hydro case.

G. Campbell: As is often the case, there are a number of points the Premier made that I concur with. However, having said that -- I really don't want to go back through the whole estimates for B.C. Hydro and the report -- I do want to understand how the government works and how the Premier holds people to account.

As I understand it, in terms of putting this document together, he started by saying yes, we're going to hire Mr. Smith. I disagree with the conflict that was created there, but that's what the Premier said he'd do. He then said to Mr. McArthur: "Would you please make sure that all of our ministers who've had anything to do with any of this bring together all of the documentation. And hold all the documentation someplace." Is it just that they hold it in their ministries? Or does it come to the Premier's Office? Or does it go to Mr. Smith? What happens to all that good documentation that Mr. McArthur has acquired? That's one of the questions I've had.

The second issue deals with the second point the Premier made. When you say there are ethical standards.... We haven't got them yet, but we've read some of the sort of general highlighting of them. I don't believe we have them yet. So we haven't seen the ethical standards that have been set out. We haven't seen the social standards. They seem to be, generally, that we're going to act well and be good people. No one can disagree with acting well and being good people, but it's not very specific. So if the Premier could provide us with those standards, that would probably be something that's not subject to any RCMP investigation but at least would give us some information.

The challenge, though, for me, is that when Mr. Smith is asked to do something, when Mr. Laxton is "fired" but not really fired.... Let me say this: the Premier fires Mr. Laxton; the Premier, who is the leader of British Columbia, says this person Mr. Laxton is not having anything to do with it, and he goes. Then, in spite of everything, Mr. Smith -- on his own hook, evidently -- decides that Laxton stays. That seems to me to be a breakdown in accountability in the government once again. It's exactly the same breakdown that we heard about in December, January and February of 1996.

My concern is that there seems to be no way that we short-circuit that. There should be. Anyone who's hired should know that when they' re.... If Laxton's fired, he's fired. "If you're going to bring Mr. Laxton back, you'd better be deliberate about it and talk to the minister about it; and minister, you'd better talk to me about it, because I'm going to be on the hook for it." That, to me, is part of what accountability is about. So my concern is that Laxton was fired for not keeping the Premier informed and, evidently, for breaking the rules, which he claims he wasn't aware of. Mr. Sheehan was supposedly fired.... Well, we'll get back and find out why Mr. Sheehan was fired.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

The issue is: what comfort can the Premier take from the fact that the lack of accountability and direction that the Premier's Office was able to provide for B.C. Hydro remains? We still have a situation where the minister responsible doesn't know -- and I guess that since the minister responsible doesn't know, the Premier doesn't know. That causes me concern. I would like to know from the Premier how he intends to deal with that in the future, so that we don't keep on getting these "I didn't know" answers. I'm not saying that you can't not know about something that's a small, everyday thing.

This is not a small, everyday investigation -- at least, it shouldn't be. Who's keeping track of that?

Hon. G. Clark: I guess there were two questions there: one was the various.... What we tried to do with

interna-

[ Page 1910 ]

tional investment -- Hydro was the first, but other Crowns were looking at potential international investment; they haven't, but we were looking at it as a possibility, for public policy purposes -- was to establish a series of screens, tests, as much as possible. It's more than just "we're good guys." It's ethical standards, and trying to set a series of tests. As I recollect, B.C. Hydro hired a lawyer to do a series of reviews of the various screens that one might impose. For example, I was very concerned about some of the record with respect to human rights, say, or the environmental record on various things. These are interesting and difficult debates, I might say.

The Three Gorges project is a good example of where one hesitates as to whether or not a government corporation should be involved in a project which may not meet the environmental standards we have in British Columbia. I just make the point that there are issues like Three Gorges. There was a lot of demand for B.C. Hydro to be involved in that project, because they are looking for expertise internationally, and we have some expertise. I've got a lot of concerns, having read even a modicum of information about the environmental damage and the dislocation of people with respect to that project.

The question is, then: should B.C. Hydro or any government corporation be involved in a project which doesn't meet the environmental standards that British Columbians have come to expect from the corporation? My answer to that is no, it should not be involved in that.

We tried.... In fact, we specifically instructed the corporation to set up a series of screens that projects must meet before they would even contemplate moving forward. So we had environmental screens -- and social screens, I believe. We had a series of tests there. By the way, I'll provide that for the member, if he hasn't got it. I'm surprised at that.

Secondly, there are financial screens, because the second element for a Crown corporation is that we should not be risking ratepayer money on ventures internationally, even if they have potentially good profits, because we don't want to cross-subsidize a project internationally with domestic ratepayers. We try to insulate Hydro or any Crown corporation from financial risk to their core business. We did that work all through the last few years, and I'll make sure that the work is available to the member.

I think that the work, by and large, would meet the test, and my guess is that it has probably the highest environmental and social standards of any corporation doing business internationally. In fact, it clearly severely restricts B.C. Hydro's opportunities internationally, because some of the standards in those countries we have met with are different. So we did that.

Again -- not to belabour the point -- even though you do that, the question is to then make sure they're followed. I think that's the member's comment. In this case, to some extent they were not followed, and therefore we're trying to deal with the consequences of that. I agree with the member: we have to set up a process so that there's some due diligence applied to make sure that they meet the cabinet instructions and these screens.

You might be able to say: "Well, sure, it meets all the environmental tests." But they could ask: "How do we know we actually meet the tests?" By and large, the Crown corporations secretariat is set up to provide that due diligence. Mr. Duncan, who I referred to, works for the Crown corporations secretariat. Not to single him out, but he worked on some of these particular guidelines. So it's holding the corporation to account after the fact and making sure they're following those guidelines, which we have to make sure the processes are in place for.

So we have the new guidelines, the policies, the Crown corporations secretariat and the ministerial accountability.

The last remaining piece, which I've already committed to, is a committee of the Legislature so that we can have more debate about some of these issues. I think those sorts of structural reforms will go a long way to trying to insulate us from this kind of serious problem ever happening again. Again, with this caveat: if people deliberately choose to ignore the rules and go around and invest in unnamed, offshore companies and then aren't upfront about that, it's extremely hard to set up all the structures and systems to avoid someone abusing the rules. But that's obviously what we have to try to do.

G. Campbell: I think there are a couple of issues here. First of all, with regard to the standards, I appreciate the Premier offering to send us the social, environmental and, I assume, ethical standards or screens that we go through. I want to get back to something way simpler than all of that. The simple thing for me is that we had a chair of B.C. Hydro who didn't do what the government told him to do, and he was fired. Now we have a chair of B.C. Hydro who, again, didn't execute the instructions the government had given him. Laxton was supposed to be out of there, but he wasn't out of there.

No one in government that I have been able to discover has said that they knew Laxton was still involved. So we have someone who is certainly not accountable in this House saying that they don't really care what the Premier or the Minister of Employment and Investment says and that they really don't care what our ethical standards are in the province -- they're leaving Mr. Laxton on the board. That is a major fault, if you want. It's a major gap between what the Premier is saying and what has actually been done. So one question we could ask ourselves is: if Mr. Laxton is dismissed as the chair of B.C.

Hydro for not carrying out instructions, why isn't Mr. Smith?

The second question is on the guidelines. As I understand the ethical guidelines that are laid out, there are no conflict-of-interest guidelines in terms of B.C. Hydro and its international projects. I understand that

section 7 of the act applies to Hydro, but not to B.C. Hydro International Ltd.

An Hon. Member: That's their argument.

G. Campbell: Yes, but my issue for the Premier is: how do we move through that to make sure...? You know, it's kind of like this. We've got a big responsibility here. How do we make sure that we're not creating areas that are always grey? We've got to be very explicit and very concrete and say: "That's it. And by the way, you're out of here." My concern at this point is that in spite of the fact that we had a problem with Mr. Laxton, that has not been rectified yet. As far as I'm concerned -- and frankly, if I was the Premier, I would feel this way about the performance of Mr. Smith....

I would ask: how could you do that to me? Why can't you carry out my instruction? How can you expose me in the way you have seemingly exposed me without telling me or someone on my staff or in the ministry what's going on?

Subsequent to that, from our perspective on this side of the House and from the public's perspective, they're asking the Premier: how can you do that to us? It goes back to the whole issue of accountability I was raising earlier. I guess the question is: what is the difference between what Mr. Smith did and what Mr. Laxton did? Supposedly, they were both acting the way they thought they should act, but they were acting contrary to what the government said was taking place.

Hon. G. Clark: I sort of understood what you were saying until the end. I mean, surely the member is not

equat-

[ Page 1911 ]

ing this to what Mr. Laxton did. We have given Mr. Smith the task of dealing with the situation. It's true that he doesn't report to me on all the day-to-day operations of B.C. Hydro or even to the minister with respect to that. I understand the criticism the member is making, but let's be clear. Mr. Laxton was fired. He is no longer working for Hydro. B.C. Hydro owns, I think, 14 percent of SEPCOL, a very small piece of it. One of the challenges of unwinding this, though, is that we don't even control IPC.

By the way, the cabinet instruction was not to privatize this and give it a monopoly on other projects, which is essentially what happened. There was a specific reference in cabinet material not to set it up the way it was set up. There's no evidence that Mr. Smith was going to have Mr. Laxton involved for any period of time. It was only for a brief period of time, with Mr. Laxton in a company that we don't control, which is partially owned by another company we have yet to gain control of. Mr. Laxton was left on the board for that period of time.

[3:45]

There are issues around this which I'm not particularly comfortable with. These questions around the partners in Pakistan and others -- these are questions that are going to be extremely difficult to resolve. Pakistani citizens aren't required to come and testify here in British Columbia. They aren't even required to talk to us, and they have legal and financial contractual arrangements signed, against cabinet instruction, which are binding on the corporation now. We have given Mr.

Smith the task -- the mandate -- of trying to unwind this in a way which still protects Hydro from any potential lawsuits, and that's what he's doing. You know, this issue of B.C. Hydro coming back again... could come back again and again and again for years to come, given some of the contractual arrangements. It's not in my interest politically or otherwise to have that happen. We want to set up a structure which deals with this once and for all and builds in better accountability.

I appreciate, generally, the tone of the questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition, because I think we probably share much of this in common, notwithstanding the debate and the politics around it in terms of how we might better manage some of these corporations. Hopefully, as we move forward through this, making other mistakes -- Mr. Smith making mistakes, and others -- and managing through this, we would be upfront about that, we'd be accountable for that, and we'd try to establish processes, including the ones which might be recommended by the opposition, which try to insulate against these kind of things happening again.

G. Campbell: Can the Premier confirm...? I understood that the offering memorandum, which in fact provided for the long-term majority stake outside of B.C. Hydro, went to the cabinet for their review. Is that not correct?

Hon. G. Clark: I'll have to get that information for you, as I hesitate to answer incorrectly. But I don't believe the offering memorandum went to cabinet.

G. Campbell: I understood that it had gone to cabinet, and I'd appreciate it if the Premier could get back and let us know whether it did or did not go to cabinet. Because, again, if it didn't, then I think we're getting some wrong information from somewhere. The information that we are generally getting is from Mr. Smith's report and other public documents, so I'd like to know whether or not that offering memorandum did go to cabinet.

I want to ask a couple more questions on Mr. Smith. Can the Premier tell us what Mr. Smith's contract is as chair of B.C. Hydro?

Hon. G. Clark: Just from memory, Mr. Smith is not a full-time chair. He is paid a per diem -- essentially, an honorarium. But for the period of the investigation, for the first couple of months, he was paid at essentially a lawyer's rate, which is very high. So he was paid an hourly rate, I think, for the first few months -- I'm not sure exactly -- and then he was to move to the traditional role of the chair of a board of a Crown corporation. But you had better ask the minister for that information. Certainly, when I asked Mr.

Smith to take the job, it was on the assumption that it was not a full-time job, that it was meant to be.... But it would be a full-time job for a couple of months, so he expected to be remunerated accordingly.

G. Campbell: So, then, it's the Premier's understanding that Mr. Smith is no longer getting remunerated on the basis of whatever his hourly rate may be. Can the Premier tell us if he recalls what the hourly rate was for Mr. Smith at the time?

Hon. G. Clark: No, I don't. It's all a matter of public information. We can get it for you and certainly will.

My understanding is that he still has the ability to bill, from time to time, I guess for the purposes of any investigation or testimony or otherwise. I think that's the case. Now, I might say that it is a big corporation, the second-biggest in the province, so it may be that Mr. Smith should be part-time, or on slightly more than just an honorarium. It's been a big challenge. Anyway, I leave that to the minister to deal with. Certainly it was meant to be paid and to be made whole for a period, and then to revert to the normal Crown corporation per diem.

G. Campbell: So the Premier will make that contract available to us, then?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know if I'll make the contract available, but it's under the Financial Information Act; all of this comes out. We're not trying to hide anything, nor could we if we wanted to. It's just a question of when it comes out. It may be six months or a year from now; I don't know. So if you want me to expedite it for you and try to get it faster, I will.

G. Campbell: I have one more question, which the Premier may not know the answer to -- but Mr. McArthur may have the answer. Stan Ridley remains involved with the Raiwind project, as I understand. He has spent a considerable amount of time in Pakistan working on behalf of Hydro and Hydro International. I understand Mr. Ridley pulled together a list of documents that had direct reference to the Raiwind project. Are you aware of that at all?

Hon. G. Clark: No. First of all, let's be clear. Mr. McArthur or the government didn't do anything with the Hydro documentation. It was the government documentation -- the cabinet, the ethical guidelines, the things that went to cabinet -- that we pulled together for them. So with respect to that, I don't know the answer.

Mr. Ridley is B.C. Hydro International. He's the person who has been running it, and he is one of the three or four people who has been in the company for some years.

G. Campbell: We've talked briefly about the Hydro situation, and I believe -- and I'm sure the Premier believes -- that there are significant problems there that we and the

[ Page 1912 ]

government still have to deal with. We deal with them together, I should say -- in fact, if the Premier would like me to take the responsibility for sorting it out, I'd be glad to do that.

I'd like to know about International Power. IPC is a name that has come up regularly with regard to this. There's also a group known as the International Power group, and it is also connected with B.C. Hydro. I understand that when Marc Eliesen was fired as the president of B.C. Hydro, he was persuaded to join Westcoast Energy and Asea Brown Boveri and the government in a new venture called International Power. I would like to know if the Premier could tell us how much money Eliesen is being paid for his work with the International Power group and how much is being paid by the B.C. taxpayer?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I just want to make one last comment on B.C. Hydro, if I could. I think it is important -- and I appreciate the politics of the moment of the opposition; I understand this business -- to put it in context. B.C. Hydro has $10 billion worth of assets and debt. It's the second-largest company in the province. It has 6,000 employees. B.C. Hydro International has five employees. It has virtually $20 million in capital taken from Columbia Estate Company, which is land -- not ratepayer money, not generated. I appreciate that it dominated the attention agenda, and I very much regret that -- I think legitimately so -- though I don't understand the thing.

One of the things we have to work hard at, and I hope the opposition will join us in this, is that.... B.C. Hydro is an excellent corporation. It beats every benchmark for utilities on everything: operations and maintenance, low-cost power, efficiency, public service. In polling, even to this day, I think 80 percent or more of British Columbians recognize it as a very good corporation that provides good service.

B.C. Hydro International is not the business of B.C. Hydro; it's a very, very tiny offshoot which is dominating attention and undermining the credibility, to some extent, of a very good corporation with excellent staff and excellent employees. That's not to say there aren't challenges facing B.C. Hydro as we move to a deregulated electricity marketplace and all kinds of interesting and exciting challenges. But we should put it in context.

With respect to the International Power group, it was a corporation formed by three parties: Asea Brown Boveri -- ABB -- Westcoast Energy and B.C. Trade. B.C. Trade was the corporate entity sharer -- not B.C. Hydro but B.C. Trade. My understanding is that IPG, that group, assumed Mr. Eliesen's contract for the period in question -- the last few years he has been working there. Again, that contract has been a matter of public debate. Everybody knows about it and knows the cost of it. It is pursuing projects. I believe it has been pursuing a significant project in China, but I'm not familiar with any more details than that.

G. Campbell: I'll just have one more shot at B.C. Hydro, as well, in view of that comment. No one believed that IPC and BCHIL were the main job of B.C. Hydro, but it's kind of like a mole on your skin. If you don't look at the mole on your skin, you may find out that it's carcinoma and you're in serious trouble.

I can tell the Premier, hon. Chair, that the fact of the matter is that there are thousands of employees at B.C. Hydro who are very upset with what is taking place at B.C. Hydro. They take pride in their corporation and they take pride in their expertise. They feel that it has been eroded, undercut and undermined by, to be blunt about it, a bunch of amateurs running around and playing with their reputation, and that's wrong. That's wrong, I'm sure, from your perspective, it's wrong from my perspective, and we want to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

With regard to the International Power group, I understand that both Mr. Elieson and Wilson Parasiuk are involved with the International Power group. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Clark: My understanding is that Mr. Parasiuk, at some point, was retained by the consortium as a part-time chair of the company. I don't know if he still is or where that's at, but he was doing work for it. Obviously, when he was at B.C. Trade Development Corporation, Mr. Parasiuk developed lots of contacts and expertise -- prior to that, as well, in the private sector. He's working now in the private sector. This company, which is two-thirds owned by the private sector, is operating in the private sector. So they did retain him for a period of time.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to follow up on a couple of questions that the Leader of the Opposition started -- a line of questioning. My understanding was that the International Power group was involved in the Three Gorges project. I'm not sure if that's the case. I could well have misunderstood that, but that was what I thought the case was.

I guess the question with regard to the International Power group comes down to one of finances. Can the Premier tell us if he has any idea how much of a commitment the British Columbia taxpayers have put into the International Power group? The minister said, I think, that we own a third of this company. I'd be interested to know how much financial commitment the taxpayers of British Columbia have put into this.

Also, can the Premier comment on something that appears to exist with this corporation, as it does with IPC or BCHIL Southern, which is that in both cases it appears that controlling interest has been given to the private sector? That has really put us in a bind in one case, certainly with regard to BCHIL Southern, in that the government has not been able to regain control and really make sure that what's going on there is being done in an ethical manner. Mr. Smith was pretty strong in his comments in his report about loss of control of those companies, and we're certainly paying the price for it now.

Perhaps the Premier can comment on the rationale for the 60-40 split as opposed to a 50-50 split with IPC in particular but also with IPG, where there's a split. Why not own 50 percent of those shares?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know if you should mix them that easily. In terms of specific rationale, I can't recall, but let me give you the general rationale.

My position has been and actually continues to be that we don't want government corporations risking capital -- risking British Columbia's capital, ratepayers' capital or tax money internationally. We do, however -- I think it's a legitimate public policy goal -- try to exploit the expertise we have, which the public sector has invested in, to create jobs in British Columbia. Essentially, that's the rationale. It's true, by the way, in a perverse way, that it's totally my distinction. If it were up to B.C. Hydro, to use that example, they wouldn't have taken any partners.

They would have done this Pakistan deal, maybe, with a Pakistani partner. They would have borrowed $180 million from the World Bank and they would have done

[ Page 1913 ]

it. It was my discomfort, with the risk of a government corporation investing in an international place where the rules, environment, ethics and mores are different, that insisted that B.C. Hydro seek private sector partners in order to insulate Hydro from the risk -- reduce the potential profit but keep the jobs in British Columbia.

[4:00]

My instructions were that they must seek private sector partners. I envisaged that the private sector partners would be a large corporation in Canada like Power Corp. or Westcoast Energy. They would then put the capital risk in, there would be some synergies, and we would get the jobs and some sweat equity benefit from the hydro in the work they'd done. Obviously, that's not how it developed. But just to be clear, it was my instruction -- and from a public policy perspective, I still believe it's preferable -- to have the private sector take the risk and the government get the jobs.

With respect to IPG, as I understand it, it's a third, a third, and a third, and I believe each party committed to a million dollars into the pot. The government is not committed to a penny more in terms of investments. If any investments come up, as a third player, we would have the option of either getting out or putting in one-third of the money to pursue any investment that they may come up with.

I want to make this clear: obviously, the challenge at Hydro, and some of the comments the opposition made.... Clearly, we need not only a full public debate, but public policy which hangs together -- which hopefully the opposition supports, but not necessarily -- and which is clear and unequivocal about whether or not Crown corporations should invest internationally, notwithstanding the potential jobs and profits that could come from that. If so, what is the structure that we create in order to avoid the kinds of circumstances we are seeing now with Raiwind?

In the case of IPG, there is no such circumstance, because they haven't made any investments. But I know they have been actively pursuing them, and there is a certain synergy there with ABB and Westcoast Energy.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a quick follow-up question, because I think the rationale of the Premier for trying to put the risk onto the private sector is a valid one. The comment in the Smith report that we also wanted to use that as a market test of confidence in funding this project.... Is it a viable project? I think that both of those goals are valid. The problem is that that's not the way it actually worked with regard to the Hydro issue. What has happened is that whilst we've given up control, we've assumed all the risk and we are the only ones on the hook.

At the end of the day, if this project goes sideways, or is delayed and there are increased development costs or delay costs -- all of the sorts of things that have been canvassed, which I don't need to go into here -- it's going to come back, and it's going to be B.C. Hydro, and through that, a small portion of the Columbia Estate Company money that we dipped into first for a certain amount. But any above and beyond that would be kicked back to B.C. Hydro and the ratepayers.

In effect, what we've done is.... First of all, we put up 60 percent of the equity for 40 percent of the asset and obtained 100 percent of the risk. That seems to be a pretty bad way to do business. I would encourage the Premier to check the report. I can't remember the exact page number, but I do recall that the offering memorandum was finally approved by cabinet, and that structure was clearly in the offering memorandum at the time. I will check that myself and the Premier will probably check it also.

Hon. G. Clark: You've characterized it correctly, in this sense: I still believe the public policy is a good one -- the private sector to take the risk, to have a market test. It wasn't followed in this case, and that's exactly what we're dealing with. Now, in IPG's case, remember -- having learned from this, as well -- no money has been advanced. We are in control of any investments there. Those same tests that I have just outlined, which you agreed with, are still there. We just have to make sure that they're actually followed. As I said before, I don't believe the memorandum of understanding was approved by cabinet, but I'll get that part.

G. Campbell: I would just like to make one brief comment about the use of the Columbia Estate Company land. I think that it's sort of one of the myths of public life that land isn't money. Land is money, it's a resource and it does belong to the ratepayer, so I think we have to be careful with regard to using it.

However, I want to go back to IPG. Both Mr. Parasiuk and Mr. Eliesen previously worked for the government and other bodies or agencies, one at B.C. Hydro and one, I believe, at B.C. Trade. In their roles at IPG, are they receiving any support from the taxpayer at all?

Hon. G. Clark: First, I just want to answer a question. I never said there wasn't government money; it's Hydro's money. But it's really important, in a regulated monopoly like B.C. Hydro, that this is not part of the rate base. So we weren't asking electricity consumers to subsidize international business. But it clearly is money that we could repatriate to the taxpayer at any time.

Now, with respect to IPG, they are getting money from the government, in the sense that we put in a million each, right? The last time I looked, I think there were three or four people working for IPG, and one of them is Mr. Eliesen. I believe one of them is a VP from Westcoast Energy -- I think, the last time I looked -- and I think Mr. Parasiuk is the part-time chair. It's tax money paying at least a third of their salaries. That's my understanding, anyway.

G. Campbell: Okay, so putting in a third.... There was no obligation on the part of the government to provide their third share, as long as Parasiuk and Eliesen were involved. So Parasiuk and Eliesen can go whenever you decide they're going.

Can the Premier tell us what actually is taking place with regard to the International Power group? How are they doing in terms of their competition? I understand they're competing with B.C. Hydro in China on a couple of projects. Can you tell us what's happening with regard to that?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not trying to evade these questions at all, but I'm not the minister responsible for IPG; the Minister of Employment and Investment is. These are legitimate questions, but I don't particularly know the answers to them. The last time I looked, there was one project in Gwangzow which was not competing with B.C. Hydro International, which was a specific one which looked like it had a high degree of probability. But as is the case in this business, as I understand it....

I mean, they cast a net pretty widely at a range of RFPs and bidding processes around the world, so you may be right; maybe there were cases where bids were taken from both parties. But I don't know the answer.

W. Hurd: I just want to, if I could, shift the debate a little to ask the Premier a series of questions about the role that Mr.

[ Page 1914 ]

Gunton plays in the Premier's government and, indeed, in the Premier's Office. By way of introducing the topic, hon. Chair, I certainly know that the Premier took umbrage at the suggestion of the opposition that there were some difficulties we had with Mr. Gunton's role prior to the election and his role subsequent to that, and the role he may have played in the campaign planning of the government.

I want to ask the Premier specifically about the whole question of a professional civil service in the province. Historically, in British Columbia, deputy ministers have come up through the ranks of the public service and served a number of ministers in succession, sometimes from both sides of the House. It just seems to me that with Mr. Gunton's role prior to the election, his work for the government during the election and then his subsequent reappointment to a senior position in the government, we have crossed a line here, crossed a threshold that we haven't previously seen in the province.

I just wonder if the Premier sees any concern with the fact that Mr. Gunton's activities could perhaps have an impact on the morale of the civil service, on other deputy ministers who might not have the opportunity to work politically for a party of their choice. I just wonder if he's comfortable with the way in which Mr. Gunton appears to have been able to work politically at the same time as he served in a senior deputy minister capacity with his government.

Hon. G. Clark: Obviously I support a professional civil service. There are many people working for government today. I don't know their party affiliations, and I don't want to know them. Competence is really the only test. Politicians are the ones that decide public policy, not bureaucrats. It is important, however, that governments get public policy advice and options that meet their political agenda, and that's not always as forthcoming as you might think in terms of trying to pursue major policy initiatives. So it is a balance.

The members can criticize Mr. Gunton's politics if they like, but it seems to me to be a bit counterproductive. I mean, I was watching on television, actually, one time -- I think it was during the campaign -- where I saw several former deputies of the government working on the Liberal Party's campaign. Now, I grant you that they were former deputies, so fair enough. If you were to form the government -- say no more -- I would suggest that you might want to hire one of those former deputies, if you could afford them, in the government or in a Crown corporation, and I would say to you that that's quite legitimate.

Getting people to serve in the public service at the senior level is difficult in many respects and for a variety of reasons. I think one has to expect that public servants, like anybody else, have political views and ideologies. Some are better than others at masking those.

Again, I have to be careful. The issue for the public service -- and I've been privileged to be a cabinet minister for five years and have worked with many excellent public servants -- is not whether they're NDPers or Liberals or otherwise; it's whether they're giving you a range of policy advice that allows you to make your own political judgments. That's really the test, and that's the test that I think is important for whoever is in government. In this province, it depends on the government and the government's ideology or activism or direction that it wishes to pursue.

I'll just give you one anecdote. I don't know if members opposite.... Maybe I shouldn't, but.... Senior civil servants were preparing for the possibility of another party winning the government, and that's as it should be. Whether it's briefing books with respect to what is the case, or whether it's detailed documents or taking a document.... Believe me, when we formed the government five years ago, the civil service was attempting....

Notwithstanding even, in many cases, potentially, their revulsion, perhaps, at public policy that the government had campaigned on, they were in there diligently preparing options for the new government to pursue a completely different agenda from the one they'd served for ten or 15 years. I encourage them to do so; I have no hesitation saying that, regardless of politics.

Public servants are to serve whatever government is in power, and I respect that view. It is, however, important that governments in power have public policy advice which reflects, essentially, some of the values and some of the policy prescriptions that they wish to pursue. That's the balance between the partisan and the political. Ideally, I would say, it's not really a partisan question, but it is a political question of getting public servants who can respond politically to what you're trying to pursue.

W. Hurd: I don't think the issue here is how senior civil servants may vote or what membership in a political party they may hold. I wouldn't recommend that it would be too wise for them to do that. I think the issue here is the extent to which a senior member of the government, of the civil service, can become an integral part of the governing party's strategic plan for the election during the election campaign, perhaps with access to information that he would have gained in the service of government, and then move back into a senior planning role after the election.

If the Premier can concur, I think we've upped the ante to the point where we've had a senior civil servant not only prepare information for the government but actively be involved in a campaign for re-election.

[4:15]

I wonder if I can ask the Premier whether his government has standards that they apply to deputies and assistant deputies as to the extent of their political involvement in the actual campaign of a political party. Clearly, if they want to vote along party lines or perhaps support a candidate in some way....

But to be actively involved in campaign strategy appears to me to be a major new role for the civil service, one that could cause any government down the road a great deal of difficulty around the credibility of that individual in dealing with his colleagues in the civil service, who may believe fundamentally that it's absolutely imperative for the senior civil service to retain absolute political neutrality in dealing with issues of government.

Hon. G. Clark: Let's be clear: civil servants do not work on election campaigns on government time. If anybody works on their own time, that's allowed. In fact, there was a court decision not very long ago about the rights of public servants to participate in the political process.

Elizabeth Cull ran for the NDP, and she took a leave of absence from working for a Social Credit government. She was a fairly senior policy analyst, I believe, in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Likewise, there are civil servants in British Columbia who worked very hard for the Liberals in the last campaign. They won't be fired and they won't be disciplined, as long as they didn't do it on government time. There are people who were very active in the campaigns, at least that I'm familiar with. I don't think that is wrong; I don't think that is illegitimate.

What would be illegitimate is if they played politics in their profession. If someone was working for the Liberal Party at night during the campaign and came to the office and did not perform their task as a professional civil servant, then that would be totally unacceptable. But it's totally acceptable for individuals to work on a campaign.

[ Page 1915 ]

I appreciate that you want a neutral, professional civil service. That's sort of a general view, and I agree with that. But people do have strong personal views, and people in the civil service are no different. There are senior people in the civil service who were political assistants to Liberal cabinet ministers; right now, as we speak, there are former political assistants to Social Credit cabinet ministers who are in the civil service today, some in reasonably senior positions. You know we don't have a witch-hunt for them; we don't go through it, and it would be totally inappropriate to do so.

They should be judged on the merits of the job that they do and the performance of the job they do and the advice they're giving the government and their ability to respond. I think that's what you try to do in terms of the balance. Nobody in this administration worked politically during government time. Those were my instructions: if they were to work on the campaign, it was their own time.

G. Campbell: I want to refer to Mr. Gunton, because this is the person that we heard this information about. I think it's important that we get a sense of what took place.

I concur that members of the public service should be able to be actively involved in public life or political life on their own time. The concern I have.... Let me relate a story to you about when I was in another public service, in the city of Vancouver. I was also in the public service in Nigeria. I've been in the public service in a number of scenarios. I was the executive assistant to a mayor. I was a political appointment. I was someone that was perceived to be a political appointment -- incredibly well qualified, you understand. But I was clearly a political appointment.

There was a lottery to save the Orpheum Theatre. I had the opportunity to have a number of tickets to sell for the Orpheum Theatre; it was one way that agencies were using to raise funds. I sold all of the tickets outside of the time that I was working. I didn't sell one while I was in my office at city hall.

But there was a great deal of concern that when I was outside of the time at city hall -- after 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock or in the evening or on the weekends -- when I was asking people, because of what I did in my life at that time, they would feel pressure from me because I was an executive assistant to the mayor. I was clearly a political ally of the mayor of the day, and so I was applying unfair pressure; I shouldn't have asked them, in other words.

The concern I have with Mr. Gunton is that it's clear.... The Premier, like everyone else in public life who has the opportunity, should have advisers he has confidence in, to whom he can say: "I trust your judgment. Give me the options." I may not agree with the choice, but the Premier does. That's his choice. The problem is when we hear that Mr. Gunton was getting information with regard to the corporate capital tax and it was part of a political campaign. I recognize that this was part of the political campaign. It is about who was getting the information and who directed him to get the information.

Is it really possible for someone who is in as important a position, not just as a deputy minister but as a close confidante -- I don't know if he's a personal friend -- of the Premier and as a member of the Premier's transition team as he took over, to just sort of be non-partisan in saying to people in the Finance ministry: "Give us the corporate capital tax records you have"? I can tell you that if I went there, I think they would be a little less willing to share that with me. They would say: "Here's the process, and there's the process."

I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is not whether we want public servants to be politically active, because I think we do, but whether it is it appropriate for a public servant to use his position to obtain information that is used politically. That's the question I would like the Premier to address.

Hon. G. Clark: I acknowledge that this is some of the grey area. I think you put it very well, but I also want to put it in context. We were bringing in a budget just before the election, and we were considering raising the corporate capital tax -- or cutting it, or raising it on the banks, or providing a longer tax holiday on incorporations. The budget you bring in does reflect the political priorities of the government, and we were very close to an election.

I appreciate what the member is saying, but it is a difficult question when you're in government and you're pursuing public policy initiatives which are part of the focal point that you're going to run an election on. I made this comment many times, and one could debate it. I felt that making promises for a government party.... I've never been in government running for re- election.... I don't know how other people do it, but it always struck me as a bit difficult to release a platform document when you're in government. People would say to me....

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: And you will criticize us if we don't have one.

But what happened was this. My position was that the public is so cynical that if we say, "Here's what we're going to do," they'll say: "Well, you're the government, so why the heck didn't you do it?" Rather than promising to freeze ICBC rates, tuition fees, Hydro rates or taxes, we thought we'd better do it. We did all those things prior to the election, and we ran the election based on that without actually coming forward with detailed policy documentation.

It's true that during the period when the decisions were made -- and many of them were my decisions -- in doing some of these specific initiatives, one could say: "That's political, because he's about to call an election, and he's doing things to set it up for the election." In fact, I might even have said we were doing this before we called an election. Civil servants, some of whom probably didn't vote for the governing party -- even senior ones -- were asked to generate and implement ideas which clearly were going to be part of the government's re-election strategy and campaign.

I don't know how you avoid that. Right now, the federal Liberal Party is looking at an election campaign, and they're busy working on platform and policy ideas. They are generating those ideas from ministers and staff, from MPs and civil servants. In a sense, that's where you have to be careful. You have to try to do the best you can to protect the independence of the civil service while you pursue that kind of political or public policy agenda.

G. Campbell: I wouldn't have a great deal of trouble agreeing with most of what the Premier said, but there is one critical component of what he said which I do have trouble with, and that is when you direct the civil service to get your attack ideas in terms of what your opposition may be thinking. I think it is totally legitimate to say: "Let's get information of what we might do." But I don't think it's legitimate to say to someone who is a senior public servant: "Go and get information that we're going to use to go after the opposition." That's neither here nor there, however.

[ Page 1916 ]

I have some questions with regard to Mr. Gunton's role at this point. I can't recall if the Premier mentioned that he was part of the Premier's Office. Is he still considered to be part of the Premier's Office?

Hon. G. Clark: He's with the cabinet policy and communications secretariat, CPCS. The budget is within the Ministry of Finance, but for all intents and purposes it reports to cabinet, of which I'm the chair. I'm not going to hide behind -- the Chair could make me hide behind it, but I'm not going to -- the fact that the budget's not before us in answering questions with respect to that. So feel free. If I could maybe just forestall some questions -- maybe not -- just by explaining a little bit the functions of it....

In any government or cabinet operation, there needs to be a central agency -- some people refer to it as "the centre," usually in a nasty way -- to coordinate the activities of government from a corporate perspective. I actually think that successful governments don't stifle individual ministries and ministers, but rather have a strong corporate agenda -- a focus to the government, a specific focus.

Often in a modern government, I would submit, the challenge is not to do more things but actually to do fewer things, because interest groups, civil servants, ministers and MLAs all have things they think government should do -- and all can be done, so be clear.... If you try to govern with diminishing resources, with an eye to effectiveness, with a focused agenda, to inspire or provide vision for British Columbians, or whatever, the challenge is actually not just what you do but not doing all those other little things that all the interest groups or MLAs or other people want you to do.

Unless you have a central agency which can have a corporate vision for the government, and can then have the ministries and the ministers work with that corporate vision, you won't get that. You'll get a kind of diffuse government which does lots of little things but has no particular focus or agenda. That's my own philosophical view, that you need some kind of centralized agency.

The challenge, first of all, is that you can't run everything from the centre, nor should you. Secondly, you