[ Page 2695 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Drinking and driving. Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 2695

Mr. Miller

Oral Questions

Privatization of highway maintenance. Mr. Lovick –– 2695

Mr. Harcourt

Appointment of regional development liaison officer. Mr. Kempf –– 2697

Prohibition against MLAs and media at Highways worksites. Mr. Sihota –– 2698

Tabling Documents –– 2698

Motion 91

Mr. Sihota –– 2698

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 2705

Mr. Harcourt –– 2707

Mr. Sihota –– 2708

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987 (Bill 59). Second reading

Mr. Lovick –– 2709

Mr. Miller –– 2717

The House met at 2:12 p.m.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker and colleagues of the assembly, this morning I introduced part of the class from Magee Secondary School and later this morning the rest of the class; and finally, the class from Magee Secondary School which participated in one of the most exciting parliamentary operations that I've heard of is here today along with all the teachers, Mr. Barazzuol, Miss DeBrouwer, Mrs. Layman and all those good-looking students. Would the House please make them most welcome.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon we have a delegation from the Pacific region of the Canadian Jewish Congress. With that delegation we have Dr. Robert Krell, the chairman of the Pacific region; Mrs. Sharon Kates; Mr. Bernard Pinsky; Mr. Irvine Epstein; and Mr. Erwin Nest, their executive director. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: On behalf of the New Democrat caucus I'd like to reinforce that welcome to the members of the Canadian Jewish Congress. We enjoyed the meetings we had with them; we hope you can come back soon.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like the House to join with me today in welcoming three mayors from my constituency, the representatives of three municipalities in the Elk Valley. I understand they are here, but just as it is when I'm here and they are there, I am just reporting what they're doing. I understand that in the gallery today are Mayor Colin Curties and administrator Loretta Montemurro of Sparwood; Mayor Dick Pinotti and administrator Jim Montain of Elkford; and the mayor of Fernie, Tiny Shatosky, and administrator Colin Dean. I'd like the House to join me in making them welcome.

MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, in the House today are two businessmen from the city of Penticton, Mr. Peter Beulah and Mr. Bruce Turnbull, along with the economic development officer for the city of Penticton, Mr. Robert Miller. Would you please welcome them.

MR. GUNO: Mr. Speaker, it's rare that I have the opportunity to introduce anyone from Atlin. In fact, some of my colleagues wonder if there's anyone in Atlin, but there are and they're very fine people. I'd like to introduce two people in the gallery today from the Nass Valley, Chief Menesque, otherwise known as Mr. Rod Robinson, who's the executive vice-president of the Nishga Tribal Council. Along with him is Mr. Nelson Leason, who is, in his own mind, a legend, but a fine fellow. He's the chief councillor for Lakalsap. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.

Ministerial Statement

DRINKING AND DRIVING

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As most hon. members may be aware, drinking and driving is our most serious and costly crime. Each year 7,200 people are injured and 250 people killed in drinking-driving accidents in this province.

This afternoon in Vancouver, B.C. Transit officially launched an ambitious and far-reaching campaign called "Don't take the keys," a plan to get more people home alive and safe this festive season. As you know, Counterattack has produced an excellent record in reducing drinking and driving over the past decade. Transit, with its extensive transportation resources in the lower mainland and in conjunction with Counterattack, will create an awareness among the public that there is an alternative to driving a car. Naturally, the campaign complements the Counterattack program.

The message, Mr. Speaker, is simple. If you are out celebrating the festive season, don't take your car keys: leave them at home. It's safer, easier and more convenient to drive with our transit team, the designated drivers.

[2:15]

B.C. Transit has designed and packaged a LifeSaver gift pack which contains two adult transit tickets in a festive envelope. Some 800 major companies and 1.200 restaurants and licensed premises have been contacted with suggestions to get involved and provide their employees and customers with the LifeSaver gift packs for a safe journey home.

The essence of the program — and we understand that it will be more prevalent on the lower mainland — is to make people aware that there is an alternative. B.C. Transit is in a unique position to deter people from drinking and driving, and through this campaign and the LifeSaver gift packs, we will encourage people to conscientiously plan not to drive after drinking. It is intended that this will be an annual event, and it is hoped to expand the LifeSaver gift packs to the general public next year.

MR. MILLER: The minister is to be commended for her efforts in promoting people to not drink and drive. It's a serious problem in this province, and any efforts that we undertake are to be commended. This side supports the minister in that regard.

Indeed, the recent increases in the ICBC premiums point to a much larger problem in terms of highway safety in this province. Many people are being injured, and there's a very high price to pay. It is for that reason that, although we were pleased last year with the formation of the highway safety committee of ministers, we were somewhat disappointed that that committee has not been particularly operative. We would encourage the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) to follow your good example, get that kind of committee going so we can cut down on the carnage on our highways in other areas, and as well, for example, reintroduce motor vehicle testing, which we think will go a long way to making the highways safer. Let's get the drunk drivers off our highways. Let's get the bad cars off our highways. Let's get the bad drivers off our highways. We all agree on that.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

MR. LOVICK: My question is directed to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. It concerns the privatization plans for Vancouver Island. When announcing the sellout of public highways some months ago, the Premier announced that this was a marvelous opportunity for small business persons. Subsequently, however, we learn that Vancouver Island's highway maintenance operation is going to consist of

[ Page 2696 ]

three areas, effectively awarding this business to big contractors. Will the minister please tell the House why the small business persons have effectively been shut out?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm glad to be able to answer the question, because I believe the member is under some misapprehension. We have called for statements of interest to be in by the middle of next month. Those statements of interest to date have included submissions by individual single employees, in some cases groups of three and four employees, in other cases others. Nothing is etched in stone. There are a number of different proposals that have come forward, and nothing further will be done until such time as we have seen what expressions of interest are brought forward.

MR. LOVICK: A supplementary, if I might, Mr. Speaker. Patience, friends.

The minister's abilities to fly straight and level are well known. The predicament is that I don't think that is an entirely straight answer and that this House is being levelled with. I want to ask the minister if he will give us his personal assurances, in this chamber, that the highways maintenance program for Vancouver Island will not be divided between three or fewer big contractors.

HON. MR. ROGERS: If you ask for expressions of interest and then, in the process of asking for them, put limitations on them, you have not been honest in asking for the expressions in the first place. I want to look at everything that comes in, and I want to pick what's best for the people involved. I'm not going to tell you right now whether we'll do it one or three or 50 or 100. You don't understand how business works, and I can understand why you wouldn't understand. I have a reasonably good idea, much better than you do. When you ask for expressions of interest, that is precisely what we're asking for, and if we put restrictive covenants or caveats on it right now, we would be dishonest in doing so.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, just to pursue for ever so slight a moment.... I know I use multisyllabic words, and some are getting lost in the shuffle. The question I would pose to the minister is: if, in fact, nothing is graven in stone, if no definite and hard decisions have already been made, why then did we advertise at considerable public expense that the Vancouver Island program would consist of three regions? What's the point?

HON. MR. ROGERS: We are asking for expressions of interest. If you read the documents that have been circulated, from a purely administrative point of view, they have been broken down into their normal, existing administrative points. After all, you've got to deal with the thing on an apples-and-apples basis. But I can assure you that nothing has been determined, that the areas will be specifically dealt off to one particular person or another.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. British Columbians have very real concerns and fears about the sellout of the highways operations, which will mean unsafe roads right across this province. What studies have been done by the government that will show that the roads will be safe and that the taxpayers will save money after the privatization of our highways?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, we have used the examples of a number of other jurisdictions that have entertained precisely the kinds of things we are doing: for example, the province of Ontario, the province of Saskatchewan, various jurisdictions in the United States, and one experimental region which was started in this ministry in another area of British Columbia by my predecessor-plus-one. In all cases the work has been done satisfactorily. If the terms and conditions of the contract are specific enough — and that's all that I feel is really necessary — and there are severe penalties for people who have failed to meet the terms and conditions of the contract, we'll have no difficulty.

MR. HARCOURT: Has the minister decided to table those studies with this House?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I didn't say that we had done studies; I said we....

Interjections.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, read the Blues. We have examples from other jurisdictions which we've seen. That's all you have to do. Talk to the Ontario minister of highways; ask him how they do it. Talk to the people in Saskatchewan; ask them how they do it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I've already done it, thank you very much; I'm satisfied with the answer.

MR. HARCOURT: Trust this government, a government that puts profits ahead of the safety and well-being of the citizens of British Columbia; that's what he's saying. Promises, not evidence.

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. It's about the north, where the highways are the lifeline for most communities — for example, the highway between Dawson Creek and Prince George — for emergencies and medical services. What guarantee can the minister give the people of the north that this very important lifeline will remain open under severe winter conditions?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No Minister of Highways can ever give anybody a guarantee that any highway can remain open regardless of weather. But I tell you that it doesn't matter whether the highway is between Prince George and Dawson Creek, or any other part of the province. The life-threatening situation that exists with an unsafe highway should not specifically be directed at the north or Vancouver Island or the lower mainland or the southern interior or the northern interior. They're all viewed in the same way. We are using Vancouver Island first in our privatization efforts. It's going to be done first on Vancouver Island. Are you suggesting to me by your question that somehow the road between Prince George and Dawson Creek is any less important than the road between Tahsis and Nanaimo, for example? You're not. They're all considered the same way, and there's absolutely

[ Page 2697 ]

no guarantee that you can give the ultimate service to everybody. You probably could, but I couldn't.

MR. HARCOURT: I would hope that the Minister of Transportation and Highways would know the difference between Oak Street, and the weather there, and the highways in the north and the interior where the weather is different. I would hope that after the first person is killed or is wounded, the contract would not go to a profit-making friend of the government but would go back to the safe hands of the Highways crews of this province.

Mr. Speaker, about these contracts of which the minister doesn't seem to be able to table evidence, or wants us to trust him about, I'd like to know: can the minister try to advise us, finally, whether these contracts to maintain the highways of the province will be fixed-price contracts?

HON. MR. ROGERS: In due course, Mr. Speaker, copies of the contracts will be made available to members of the House. But I would advise the hon. member.... You're only very recently here in Victoria, but, as a matter of fact, Victoria has been inundated with little white fluffy flakes from time to time, and so have all parts of the province, including Vancouver. Do you know that less than two years ago, a highway which you seldom travel, which goes between Hope and Vancouver in the lower Fraser Valley, was closed owing to a snowstorm? Snow afflicts all parts of this province.

MR. HARCOURT: We're having a snow job right here in the House. I have never seen snowflakes so big and fluffy, hiding an honest answer. We need a straightforward answer. If he can't answer whether they're fixed-price, can he tell us, Mr. Speaker, if they are cost-plus, like the Coquihalla Highway?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I told you and you weren't listening, because your friends are so busy chatting around you. We haven't got the contracts developed to the stage where I can give you a copy to look at.

MR. HARCOURT: What the minister is saying, Mr. Speaker, is that he hadn't done any studies before he recommended the privatizing of the highways of this province. If you had any studies before you took this precipitate route, will you table those studies about the contracts that you intend to put forward to the private sector?

HON. MR. ROGERS: When a contract is developed, I'll be pleased to send you a copy so you can have a look at it and examine it thoroughly to your satisfaction.

APPOINTMENT OF REGIONAL
DEVELOPMENT LIAISON OFFICER

MR. KEMPF: My question also is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways in his capacity of czar for Nechako. Yesterday I questioned the minister as to the qualifications of Mr. Barry Carter, the newly appointed development liaison officer for Nechako. After the questioning here in the House, the minister told the media that Mr. Carter was: "the most qualified from among many applicants." My questions to the minister are: where was the position posted; how was it advertised; who were the applicants; and would the minister file their curriculum vitae with this House along with Mr. Carter's?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I undertook yesterday to table Mr. Carter's curriculum vitae, which I shall do as soon as I have it in my hands. I shall try to do that this afternoon.

When this particular announcement was made by the Premier, a number of people approached me and a number of people wrote to me as they have written to other ministers responsible for various areas of the province. There were a number of telephone inquiries. But when people are applying for a job and are currently employed, they do so with some measure of trepidation and also with some measure of security that the people with whom they are applying do not contact their existing employer or make public to anybody who inquires as to their credentials and why they are applying.

Many of you in this room — and I've certainly been among them — have applied for a job that you didn't get. But the fact that you didn't get the job doesn't mean that your application form is made public. So I will table Mr. Carter's curriculum vitae. I will tell you there were at least ten other people who approached me about this job.

Mr. Carter is on a three-month contract to see if it is a satisfactory arrangement between him and me working in this particular area. If it works out satisfactorily. I plan to continue it. If it doesn't work out satisfactorily, I plan to discontinue it.

I will not give you the list of names of all the other people that applied, and I won’t list their credentials, because that's patently unfair to anybody who applies for a job and isn't successful.

MR. KEMPF: Curriculum vitae or whatever you want to call it, Mr. Speaker.... I'm just a member from the back woods, but I know what's going on in this province. I know what's going on in this province with respect to regionalization.

[2:30]

Mr. Speaker. supplementary. Perhaps the minister.... And I guess he's not going to answer my questions or let the people of British Columbia know — even though he tells the media that there were other qualified applicants for the job — who they were, what they were or what they stood for.

Perhaps the minister could also tell me today — having turned down the municipality of Bums Lake in their request to consider headquartering the new duchy in Bums Lake — where Mr. Carter will call home, where he will establish an office. If in Smithers, what will his travel allowance be? Will he have a vehicle? Will he get mileage? Just what will be the situation with respect to the office? Will he have a secretary? How much will that secretary be paid? Will he have an assistant? How will he or she be chosen? Mr. Speaker, the people of Nechako have the right to know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think a lot of that question could appear on the order paper, but the minister may want to answer the first part.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't turn down the people of Burns Lake. I didn't turn down the people of Smithers, or Topley, or Granisle, or Houston, or Vanderhoof, or Fort St. James, or Dease Lake, or Cassiar, or even Atlin,

[ Page 2698 ]

because we don't choose to name one particular community within the area as the regional headquarters.

What we're going to do is: when we are in these communities — in some cases, the communities have individual needs — we will use locally available government offices. That may be the government agent's office. But I can tell you that the mayors and the municipal councils and the chambers of commerce in every one of the communities has said: "Please use our facilities when you're in our community as our guest." I think that's tremendous cooperation, and that's what we plan to do.

If you would like to know, yes, we have a nice, used vehicle that I have secured that will be based either in Vanderhoof, or Smithers, or Burns Lake — wherever I happen to need it when I'm in the region. That's where it will be.

I think the other questions, Mr. Speaker, would probably best be put on the order paper. I'd be pleased to answer them. But I think that they will be generic answers for all of the regions because we will treat them all the same.

PROHIBITION AGAINST MLAS AND
MEDIA AT HIGHWAYS WORKSITES

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Highways. It's astonishing to learn that there are no contracts and that the minister has no idea as to how many zones will be established on Vancouver Island. He has no idea as to how many studies.... In fact, it appears that there have been no studies made with respect to privatization. So I'll try to ask him a question he may be able to answer. It has been ordered, as the minister is aware, that opposition members and the media together are not being allowed on highway worksites. I'm sure the minister will disagree with this directive, and accordingly is interested in making sure the public and the. opposition have all the facts as they relate to privatization. The question to the minister simply is this: will the minister issue a directive immediately rescinding the order that was sent out preventing media and opposition members being on highway worksites?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The order didn't come from my office. It didn't even come from our ministry, and it has been rescinded by the people who made the order in the first place, which, I think, is the appropriate place for it to come from. It was inappropriate to make.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I believe it probably went out the same way as the original instructions went out, but it certainly....

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, I shall inquire and find out. I'll take that part of it as notice. But the instructions shouldn't have gone out. I believe that the very premise of that begs questions in all ministries. I think that every MLA has the right to attend — provided they give reasonable notice that they're going to attend — a function that they're responsible for voting moneys for in this House.

Hon. Mr. Davis tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Utilities Commission for the year 1986, and the annual report of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for the year 1986.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would ask leave for the House to revert to Resolution 91 standing on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

Leave granted.

Motions on Notice

On Motion 91.

MR. SIHOTA: The motion, just for the record, and I'll just read it, is:

"Be it resolved that this Legislature appoint a special committee of the Legislature to inquire into the matter of the conduct of the personal affairs of the Hon. S. Hagen" — which is, of course, the Vancouver Island Secretary for Economic Development, or Minister of State, or whatever they call it — " specifically questions relating to Mr. Hagen's disclosure forms and possible conflict of interest arising from his failure to relinquish directorships in three companies active in financial or commercial operations, contrary to cabinet guidelines, and possible violations of the Constitution Act, and report its findings to the House."

In introducing that motion, let me say at the outset that the debate on this motion is a debate, in my view, about trust. It is a debate about faith, and perhaps the breach of faith. But particularly, in my view, this is a debate which transcends the affairs of the minister involved and deals squarely with the integrity of the Premier. That's what this debate is all about, and that's why this motion has been moved.

Accordingly, it has come as a bit of astonishment to myself to learn that members of the government on the opposite side are not enamoured with the motion that I have just read out, and it is my understanding that they will not be supportive of it, nor any amendments to it. That, I believe, is both astonishing and highlights the point I made a second ago about the integrity of the Premier.

The question in this regard, Mr. Speaker, relates to the affairs of the minister as they were investigated by the Deputy Attorney-General in August and July 1987. Members of the House may well be aware that there were certain allegations of conflict of interest and breaches of the Constitution Act levied against the minister in question. Those were serious allegations, and quite properly they were acted upon in a serious fashion by both the Premier and the Deputy Attorney-General.

As a consequence of the complaints laid by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Attorney-General investigated the matter and produced a report that was submitted to the Premier. The report was dated August 4, 1987, and I trust that some members of the House, and particularly the Attorney-General and most certainly the Premier, have had an opportunity to review the provisions of that report. The questions that were raised in that report dealt first of all with whether or not there had been any breaches of the Premier's conflict-of interest guidelines. Members of the House may be aware, and I trust most ministers are, that the Premier has introduced

[ Page 2699 ]

conflict-of-interest guidelines that apply to individual ministers. The Deputy Attorney-General, upon investigation of the circumstances surrounding that event, came to the conclusion that yes indeed, provisions 2 and 3 of the Premier's guidelines had been violated.

There was another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, that arose during the course of his investigations and flowed from the complaint laid by the Leader of the Opposition; that was to ask whether or not the provisions of section 25 of the Constitution Act had been violated. For the reference of members of this House, in the event that the provisions of section 25 of the Constitution Act have been violated, a member may have to vacate his seat. That is the consequence. There was a very serious allegation made by the leader of Her Majesty's opposition.

The investigations by the Deputy Attorney-General resulted in some findings with respect to the Constitution Act and in particular with respect to section 25 of the act, which I will get into in some depth in a few minutes. However, what is in my view of critical import and an issue which transcends the actual report was the reaction of the Premier after the report was issued. The report was issued on August 4, 1987, and the Premier replied on August 6.

I've taken the liberty of coming into the House today and bringing with me the press release that the Premier issued in this regard. On page 4 of the press release issued by the Premier on August 6, 1987, and released publicly both through the media and to all members of the House, the Premier said that he felt — I'm not quoting — that it was important that there be no doubts left in anyone's mind as to whether the provisions of the Constitution Act had been violated in this instance. The Premier then said, and I quote, because the press release has it in quotation marks: "Accordingly, I will support a referral of this particular issue under section 27 of the Constitution Act to a committee of the Legislature for an examination and review when the House sits this fall."

That was a commitment made by the Premier on August 6, 1987. As I said at the outset, the issue in this debate is not so much the affairs of the minister, although obviously they must be dealt with and obviously this motion directs us in that direction.... More importantly, they raise questions about the integrity of the Premier and whether or not individuals....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Under the rules of this House, the integrity of a member cannot be questioned except by substantive motion. Now I know the member has a motion with regard to the minister of post-secondary education, but it is not a motion about the Premier. If he wants to talk about integrity of a member, it must be done by substantive motion. So I would suggest he just might want to revise his wording during his statement.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for clarifying that matter for me. Let's move along now, and I'll certainly refrain from using that language in the course of my comments.

The issue clearly is the reliance that one places upon those statements and the statement made on August 6, 1987, because it is in concert with that reliance that I move this motion, with the feeling that there would be support from government members and from the Premier — and I appreciate that he's not here.

The purpose of this motion is to launch the type of inquiry that was envisioned in the press statement of August 6, 1987, an inquiry pursuant to section 27 of the Constitution Act. Hence the reference to the Constitution Act in the motion that I read out a few minutes ago. On that reliance we introduce this motion, and it's on that reliance that we expect the support of the members opposite. Therefore there is a salient issue in this regard in terms of whether or not one can rely on those statements, and I certainly look forward to what the Attorney-General will have to say with respect to the viability of supporting this motion at this stage of the game.

There we have it, section 27 and the commitment from the Premier, and we're seeking the support of the government members of this House in order to bring about that inquiry. If not, then one must begin to doubt many of the other comments that have been made by this government with respect to matters of conflict of interest.

[2:45]

For example, I have in my possession another news release issued again from the office of the Premier, dated January 15, 1987. When discussing the matter of whether or not members of this House ought to have the opportunity to fully investigate the affairs of ministers, to obtain full disclosure of their holdings and to be able to adequately assure themselves as to whether or not there have been violations of the conflict of interest rules in the Constitution Act, the Premier said: "Full and complete disclosure is consistent with the concept of open government that I have promised to the people of British Columbia." Again, if those words about open government and with respect to the Constitution Act are indeed to be something more than hollow words, one would expect support from the members opposite with respect to this motion to refer the issue to a committee of the Legislature to review the provisions of the Constitution Act.

I don't intend to go in depth into the report of the Deputy Attorney-General. However, I think it is important to highlight certain parameters of that report and some of the points he made in the report in order to emphasize the reason why there needs to be an inquiry. I suspect that one of the arguments coming from the opposite side will be to say,"Well, the facts have all been investigated to date," that there really are no new facts that have come to light.

It seems to me that there are at least five or possibly six reasons why there ought to be a referral to this committee in keeping with the commitment of the Premier, and they are as follows. During the course of his investigations, the Deputy Attorney-General discussed the affairs of the minister involved with an official of the bank. We won't get into the name of the bank, although I think it's fairly evident which bank it was from the terms of the report. Unfortunately, at the time of his investigations the bank official was ill, and the Deputy Attorney-General indicated that he was unable to contact the bank official to determine the nature of the minister's involvement with respect to the business transaction in question and to determine clearly whether or not the minister had been involved on a day-to-day basis. Therefore it makes sense for the committee to complete the inquiry of the Deputy Attorney-General and call forward the bank official. I am going in the order not of importance to my mind, but in terms of the order with which these issues were laid out in the report.

Second, there are questions, I think, that need to be asked of the various solicitors that were engaged by the minister involved. Undoubtedly, there seems to be some confusion as

[ Page 2700 ]

to the carrying out of instructions. There was an indication within the report that the minister involved had provided particular instructions to particular lawyers, to result in the minister divesting himself of his interest in various corporate holdings that he had. That, for one reason or another, wasn't done, and I think it would be important to contact and to subpoena the solicitors involved to determine why that wasn't done. There is some passing reference to that, but in my view not an adequate reference, in the report of the Deputy Attorney-General. I emphasize that the point there is not to engage in a witch-hunt, but to be satisfied that the provisions of conflict of interest guidelines 2 and 3 were not violated. That's the only reason.

Third, there is incomplete evidence from the accountant, and certainly no transcripts of the evidence that was provided by the chartered accountant in the deputy Attorney-General's report. Certainly that evidence needs to be clarified and cross-examined.

Fourth, the deputy Attorney-General himself said, during the course of his report, that although he felt there may not have been a violation of the Constitution Act, in light of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition had raised these issues — and I'm trying to find the actual quote — he did not think it was appropriate to provide the depth of his legal opinion and to explain why he arrived at his opinion. I quote from page 12 of the report:

"I believe you are entitled to my legal opinion on this matter, as the issues relating to it are inextricably relevant to decisions you have indicated you wish to make in the immediate future. That I must give you my opinion now on this question has been a difficult decision for me to reach. That is because on the same day that you referred the matter to me for inquiry and report, Mr. Michael Harcourt, MLA, leader of the official opposition in the Legislature, made a statement about the invoking of section 27 procedure on the reconvening of the Legislature. I share your respect for that body as the ultimate lawmaker in the province, and it is also the adjudicator on matters arising under sections 25 and 27 of the Constitution Act. My dilemma has been how to meet the responsibility that I believe I have to you and at the same time to do honour, respect and courtesy to the Legislature and its members."

Then he goes on to indicate that,"my opinion could well be but one that the committee would wish to hear, and while I believe it is a correct one, it would at that stage be for the committee to say."

So the Deputy Attorney-General, during the course of his own report in this regard, chose very clearly not to indicate his reasons for his conclusion until such time as it was decided whether or not this matter was going to committee, and he chose to reserve explaining his reasons to that committee.

He assumed that there would be a reference to the committee. That assumption was a correct assumption, keeping in mind that the Premier himself, two days later on August 6, 1987, turned around and said that the matter would go to committee. So if we are to find out the reasons why the Deputy Attorney-General came to the conclusion he did, then there must be a striking of that committee.

The Deputy Attorney-General went one step further, because he implied very clearly in his comments that there may be other opinions on this matter that the committee may want to hear. He says, and I quote again: "My opinion could well be but one that the committee would wish to hear" — but one.

On this matter we're dealing with a relatively unprecedented situation. It seems to me that it makes sense not to shop for a lawyer who would give you the type of decision or opinion that you want to hear. We went through that this morning with respect to the Minister of Health and comments on the amendments to section 8.

I'm not saying that the purpose ought to be to shop for the appropriate legal opinion, but certainly (a) to invite the Deputy Attorney-General to provide the reasons for his opinion, which we think we have a right to know and which the Deputy Attorney-General says we have a right to know and which everyone agrees ought to be done before the committee; and (b) to invite further input from other members of that legal profession with respect to whether or not there was indeed a violation of section 25 of the Constitution Act.

So the fourth reason that I put forward to this House as to why the Deputy Attorney-General's recommendation ought to be embraced with respect to the committee is just that reason: the Deputy Attorney-General himself says we ought to. So you hear from the banker, the accountant, the lawyer and the Deputy Attorney-General.

I think there are two other higher reasons that ought to be considered by members of this House in support of this motion. First of all, in a democratic society it seems to me that the opposition ought to have the right in this type of situation to cross-examine the critical players involved in this situation.

It's not necessary — I'm going to get to this point in a few minutes — to engage in a witch-hunt for the minister or try to quench a thirst for political blood, because I want to say honestly and straightforwardly that is not the motivation on the part.... I'll explain that in a minute. I say that with all sincerity, and I've tried to make my comments in keeping with that — it's not intended to do that.

But in order to perfect the nature of the inquiry and to make sure that no stone is left unturned and that there is full confidence of this House in the conclusions of the Deputy Attorney-General, when an invitation is extended for a committee, when the Premier agrees to the committee and these types of arguments are put forward in the committee, then there really should be a committee to hear the matter. That's the reason.

I dealt with the matter of political witch-hunts a second ago. I think it really gets to the nub of the issue if one puts on the following hat. The reason for this inquiry is to try to bring about some much-needed reform in this province, reform in two areas: reform, first of all, with respect to the Constitution Act, which is the document that governs the affairs of this Legislature, the way in which we function in this legislature, and — if I can use this word now, Mr. Speaker — the integrity with which members are governed, or the way in which members are governed. We have the Constitution Act riding above all of us, which sets down the guidelines in terms of how we are to function, which tries to set down rules of discipline and of decorum, and which tries to fulfil the expectations of trust that the public places on all of us. As a consequence of that, we have seen the implementation of sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution Act.

If nothing else comes out of this committee.... I want to say that it is not my desire to get onto a political witch-hunt with respect to this committee, but the one thing I would like

[ Page 2701 ]

to see come out of it is reform with respect to the Constitution Act, so we can begin to make that piece of legislation relevant for the types of corporate infrastructure that we have in today's world, to the complexities and business complexities that all of us bring into this Legislature — me included, Mr. Speaker, because I certainly have business involvements of my own. I think that matter needs to be clarified. There are two ways to do it. One way is the Constitution Act, and there is jurisdictional turf which the Constitutional Act occupies. Accordingly, to the extent that reform is required in that act, this is a nice vehicle to ensure that that type of reform comes. So the purpose of the committee is not simply to turn over and re-examine all the stones, or turn over new stones, with respect to the affairs of this minister, but hopefully.... I'll get to the hopeful part in a moment. Secondly, if there is indeed an indiscretion and violation of that Constitution Act, then a report ought to come back to this Legislature for action. There are no two ways about that.

On top of that, there is a need for a committee to come back to this Legislature — in the event that the Deputy Attorney-General is correct and there has been no violation of the Constitution Act — to make some recommendations with respect to the improvement of that act, not so much to catch politicians who may be involved in indiscretions in the future, but to make sure that there is a responsible and reasonable code of conduct for all members of the Legislature, with clear and consequential actions in the event of violations of that act. It's high time we took a look at that act. That certainly is the other purpose of this committee. I would say that all of us in this House, as members of this type of a committee, are quite capable of coming back with recommendations with respect to reform of the Constitution Act, and also recommendations with respect to the affairs of this individual minister.

So, no, as I want to emphasize again to the members opposite, this is not a matter of a political witch-hunt. It is a matter of reform, first of all, with respect to the Constitution Act, and it is a matter of trust in the August 6 statement that I referred to earlier on, and a matter of how this process that we're all involved in works — the reliance that all of us in this Legislature place on the word of the other. When there are commitments made from time to time by members of government, commitments with respect to agreements with members of the opposition, those aren't in writing; those are agreements that are verbal, and accepted as matters of reliance, a contract between ourselves and members of government. We took the statement of August 6, 1987, to be in that genre. We acted on that reliance; hence the motion; hence the referral; and hence the request from members opposite, if I can convince them to support this motion — if they haven't caucused to the point where they're wedded to a position of defeat of this motion. That's the first area of reform.

The second area of reform, which I'm going to touch upon now, Mr. Speaker, is with respect to conflict of interest. But I'll come back to that in a moment, because I want to pause now and deal with some of the technical aspects of the motion. I want to deal with why it is that the motion is worded in the fashion that it is.

First of all, I want to lay out to members, for their interest.... I should say that this is a skill that I learned when I was at the University of Victoria, taking criminal procedure from the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), in terms of trying to figure out whether or not there's sufficient evidence to meet the charge. I learned well, I should say.

[3:00]

With respect to section 25, let's take a look at whether there is indeed an issue as to whether or not there has been a violation of section 25 of the act. I appreciate that this is something that the committee ought to be looking at. I appreciate that the Deputy Attorney-General, for whatever reasons — we don't have those reasons, and I won't repeat what I said earlier — has already concluded that there was none. But by going through the exercise I intend to go through now, I think one raises questions as to whether or not there have been violations of section 25.

Section 25 says — and I'll go through it quickly, because I'll then go through it a little more slowly — says: "No member of the Legislative Assembly shall...(b) be, in respect of a corporation that accepts money from the Crown in right of the Province for the supply to the Province of any goods, service or work...(i) a director or senior officer as defined in the Company Act...." Let's apply that to the particular facts that occurred in July and August of 1987 and as they relate to the minister in question at that time.

It says: "No member of the Legislative Assembly." In other words, the act will only apply to Members of the Legislative Assembly. We know that the member in question clearly is a Member of the Legislative Assembly. So that portion of determining whether or not section 25 is violated is met. There's no problem there.

The next subsection says: "...be, in respect of a corporation...." There is no doubt, from the Deputy Attorney-General's report on this matter, that there were certain corporations involved. Three of them in particular related to Comox Valley Ready-Mix, I believe. That aspect of the test is met.

"No member of the Legislative Assembly shall be, in respect of a corporation that accepts money from the Crown...." In this instance there is no doubt that there was a transaction, a contractual relationship, between the Crown and this corporation. Once again, that is pointed out in the report of the Deputy Attorney-General.

"No member of the Legislative Assembly shall be, in respect of a corporation that accepts money from the Crown in right of the Province" — which, of course, is in the province — "for the supply to the Province of any goods, service or work...." We know that in this case, with the supply of concrete, there was therefore a supply of goods, service or work.

So the first four tests within section 25 have been met. The final one is: "...be...a director or senior officer as defined in the Company Act." We know from the disclosure statement that was filed that the individual in question was a director or senior officer of the company. We know he was a director because the disclosure documents point that out. If memory doesn't fail me on this matter, it was disclosed on the "30 percent and above" provision, which would make it consistent with the Company Act.

All five of the tests — and I have just read to you verbatim section 25 of the Constitution Act — that one has to meet in order to come to the conclusion that there has been a violation have been met, in my view. I don't want to have an out in terms of my argument when I say "in my view." All I've done is recite the facts that the Deputy Attorney-General, during the course of his investigation, brought forward to the attention of the committee. Therefore there is, in my submission, an argument that section 25 of the Constitution Act has been violated. That's only my opinion.

[ Page 2702 ]

There is another opinion, and as the Deputy Attorney-General says, there ought to be other opinions. Certainly it is not within the purview of this House, the Legislature. to sit back and hear that type of evidence. That type of evidence can only be heard from a committee duly constituted by this House, dispatched to carry out this task and come back with a report, to sit in the confines of a committee room and hear evidence from the Deputy Attorney-General, from others in the profession, and certainly from the Attorney-General and me, in respect to any arguments that we may want to make one way or the other.

But the tests laid out by our Constitution Act, based on the very fact that the Deputy Attorney-General comes up with, have been met.

I think that raises in my mind, and I trust in the minds of all members of this House, an important question. I'm not trying to impugn the good Deputy Attorney-General. but it raises questions in terms of wanting to know why or how it was, and upon what legal reasoning, the Deputy Attorney-General arrived at the conclusion that he did. I think that's not an unfair or an unreasonable request in light of the facts that I have attached to the Constitution Act, which are the very facts that the Deputy Attorney-General had before him.

To continue with a bit of a technical discussion in this regard, Mr. Speaker, section 27(l) of the act provides:

"Where another member alleges that a member has contravened section 25 and that money was ac accepted with the approval of the contravening member, the alleging member shall table a notice of motion in accordance with the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly setting forth particulars of the allegations, and shall move without leave under routine proceed ings of the Legislative Assembly that the matter be referred forthwith to a committee to be forthwith named by the special committee appointed under standing order 68(1)...."

I understand that there are some concerns from the Attorney-General with respect to the wording of the motion that I've put forward on the order paper. I must say, Mr. Speaker, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here because I haven't heard the Attorney-General's arguments, being the mover of the motion, so I'm presupposing some of the arguments that may be arising. It may be that they may not, and I will certainly leave it to other capable members of the opposition to deal with the arguments that the Attorney-General may raise.

I want to emphasize the point that we are required under section 27 of the Constitution Act to set forth the particulars of the allegations. Therefore, as the drafter of the motion, I'm faced with a predicament. I can't just put in a vague motion saying that the matter concerning this minister be referred to a committee, because that opens me up for an attack with respect to not complying with the provisions of section 27 of the Constitution Act.

On the other hand, because I'm required to put out the particulars, I can quickly be accused of mudraking and being involved in trying to further discredit the minister. As I have said at the outset. the question of a witch-hunt is not the issue here, but I have, as required under the Constitution Act, to put forward some of the particulars. It is a tightrope to walk.

As a consequence, what we chose to do in drafting this motion, Mr. Speaker — and I had the able assistance of our learned House Leader in this regard, who has great experience in these matters — was to word the motion so as to reflect back, and be predicated upon. the report of the Deputy Attorney-General; not to try to introduce new dimensions to the debate, not to try to argue that there ought to be a bigger inquiry than we had before. There were certain limitations put in. It wasn't purposely so broadly worded as to say that we could have an inquiry into every personal affair of the minister involved, going from birth through to today's date. That wasn't our intention. Our intention was to tie it back in with the comments of the Deputy Attorney-General. I'm anticipating an argument here from the Attorney-General; that's why I'm spending some time on this. We put forward in our motion the words "specifically questions relating" to the minister's disclosure forms — because that was dealt with in the report — "and possible conflict of interest arising from his failure to relinquish directorships in three companies active in financial or commercial operations...."

Those are the words that are left right out of the Deputy Attorney-General's report. We went out of our way to make sure that, despite the fact that the Deputy Attorney-General himself had found there was a conflict of interest, we still cushioned it with the word "possible" to be fair about it. The motion goes on to say "contrary to cabinet guidelines" — which is clearly what the Deputy Attorney-General found — "and possible violations of the Constitution Act...."

So I think that that tightrope was walked. One of the allegations that's been directed towards me is to say: "Well, look, this motion is so broadly worded that we can't support it, because it means we can investigate every little nook and cranny of the minister's affairs. I don't want to spend six months on an investigation doing that; that was never the intent. Clearly when one weds the requirements of section 27 with the report of the Deputy Attorney-General, it makes full sense that the motion comes out in the fashion that it did on the order paper.

Accordingly I trust that I will not now be receiving arguments with respect to the fact that the motion we put forward is so liberal, so broad, that it is impossible to deal with. Certainly — and I will say this on the record — if there is still concern about that, the terms of reference can be tempered, in keeping with my comments today about our intent and our goals, both with respect to reform and to deal with the specifies of the minister involved.

I don't want members of this House to lose sight of the fact that — I've used the word "wedded" before; I'm trying to think of another one, but maybe I'll use it again — wedded to all of this and interwoven with this whole debate is "a matter of public confidence," in the words that were uttered on August 6, 1987, in the press release that I quoted before. The reliance that we as members of the opposition place on those words, Mr. Speaker....

That is a technical argument with respect to section 25, and I haven't put it forward, Mr. Speaker, in a jocular way, perhaps — in a fashion that I would in the courtroom. I've tried to be fairly sincere by presenting the argument with respect to section 25 in words borrowed from the text of the Deputy Attorney-General, to demonstrate as conclusively as I can that there are some serious questions that need to be asked and that it is imperative, therefore. that those questions be put to the Deputy Attorney-General about the basis of his findings.

It is imperative also to embrace his view that there ought to be other opinions, when you take a look at the facts as the Deputy Attorney-General found them and apply them to section 25 of the Constitution Act, and when you take a look

[ Page 2703 ]

at the requirements we have under section 27 of the Constitution Act as complainants in this matter. That's why the motion comes out in the fashion that it does.

There is no doubt in my mind, therefore, that this is not an attempt by us simply to bring about a hollow inquiry. We want to see a full inquiry to deal with those five or six previous issues, to bring about the cross-examination that ought to come from that, and to make sure there is a report and a conclusion that has the full confidence of the House.

We put that forward on the basis of our confidence in the comments that the Premier of this province made. It's regrettable that he's not here to explain his words, because those words are very clear — so clear, Mr. Speaker, that on August 7, 1987, the Vancouver Sun says: "Premier Says He'll Heed NDP Call for Hagen Probe. Premier Bill Vander Zalm said Thursday he would heed a New Democratic Party call for a legislative committee to probe Stan Hagen's business affairs, despite Hagen being reinstated as Advanced Education minister following an investigation by the Deputy Attorney-General."

[3:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member not use members' names.

MR. SIHOTA: I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker. I had certainly thought of that when I was reading it. I'm not too sure how you handle that when you are quoting something.

MR. SPEAKER: Change the quote to "the minister" or "the Premier."

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that, because I didn't know how to handle it.

Later on in the same article, a reference is made to me. It says that "the NDP will table a motion when the Legislature reconvenes later this fall calling for an all-party committee. The Premier said earlier in the day he would agree to the committee if the NDP still wanted it." For very good reasons, Mr. Speaker, the NDP still wants it; the opposition still wants it. We're simply asking the Premier to heed that call; we're simply asking members of the government to heed the call. It's a matter of public confidence in the words uttered by the Premier of the province.

I said earlier that apart from the nature of the inquiry in this instance, and the provision of the Constitution Act — and I'll tie this back to both the inquiry and the Constitution Act — there were two areas for reform. If I may be granted some liberty, I'll come back to the point in a minute, but I'm going to transgress a bit. There is no doubt — it's a well-documented record — that there has been a series of violations of the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines by ministers of the Crown. I don't want to go through all the names and all the instances, but I don't think any of us in this House are proud of the fact that those guidelines have been violated in the fashion they have in the last 12 months.

MR. HARCOURT: The last few years.

MR. SIHOTA: The Leader of the Opposition is quite correct in saying the last few years. It reminds me of something, Mr. Speaker. It might be opportune to deal with that issue right now.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This is a matter that has confounded, confused and upset the government for quite some time. It's not just the current regime that has had problems with conflict of interest. In fact, you may be aware that in January 1986 the Minister of Forests at the time was involved in a matter of conflict of interest. He had breached some of the guidelines that were in place at the time with respect to conflict of interest.

On January 22, 1986, the Premier of the day, Mr. Bennett, after reflecting upon the difficulties and the transgressions by that minister, issued a statement which said: "We should take advantage of this opportunity to improve the current legislation and process, because it is important that the public have full confidence in those who hold positions of trust." That was back in January 1986.

Certainly by asking for this committee and in keeping with the comments I made earlier about the Constitution Act, the members on this side of the House — who have not had to deal with these matters of conflict — are still quite interested in making sure that there is legislation in place, in keeping with the view of the Premier. The Premier of that time, Mr. Bennett, said on page 8 of that same press release: "The government will bring forward in the next session of the Legislature the necessary legislation and will allow a free vote on the bill with respect to conflict of interest."

Premier Bennett in January 1986 recognized (a) the need for legislation with respect to conflict of interest; and more importantly, (b) the need for that legislation to have the full confidence of all members of this House. He indicated that there would be a free vote on that issue to make sure that if there were to be changes to the Constitution Act or if there was to be "conflict-of-interest legislation introduced in this province," that that legislation would have the full confidence of the House. that it would be a free vote to assure it was passed unanimously, to assure it would be legislation that would be above us all and would be beyond reproach and beyond the type of debate that we now have in this province with respect to the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines.

That's what was promised at the time. It still hasn't been delivered. Think about that for a moment. Since then we have had at least four other ministers with this regime involved in matters of conflict of interest. I'll read again the words I quoted from the current Premier on August 6: "Accordingly, I will support a referral of this particular issue under section 27 of the Constitution Act to a committee of the Legislature for an examination and review when the House sits this fall."

Surely the members opposite will not argue those words are hollow. Surely the members opposite will not argue with the words of the former Premier when he said: "We should take advantage of this opportunity" — when a conflict-of-interest situation arose — "to improve the current legislation and process because it is important that the public have full confidence in those who hold positions of trust." Surely members of the House opposite don't want to maintain that those words were hollow.

And so the choice. If you support this motion, put some support and some action and some substance behind the words that were uttered by both of those Premiers. If you don't support this motion, then you invite cynicism; you make those words sound hollow; and you erode the very public trust that both Premiers — the current one and the last one — referred to during the course of their diatribe on matters of conflict of interest.

[ Page 2704 ]

The choice in front of this government is to decide whether or not once and for all it intends finally to wrestle with the issue of conflict of interest, which impugns us all, or if we just want to engage in public relations exercises of standing up and uttering the right words when they look good on radio and television, when they try to provide succour and comfort to the public that is outraged by the nature of conflict that has transpired. If that's what you want, if you want to create the impression that there is no need whatsoever to do anything substantive about the commitments you make and that this is all a hollow and shallow game, then you defeat this motion. But if you believe in the integrity of the individuals involved, if you believe that they stand behind the words they say, if you believe that there is commitment from those in public office to bring about a level of trust that the public feels there ought to be in public officials, then you support this motion.

There should be a free vote on this motion so that we can see who it really is that supports the need for proper conflict of-interest legislation, that supports changes to the Constitution Act, that believes in the words of public officials, and who it is that doesn't.

Is it members of cabinet who are turning around and saying that they themselves are not impressed by these guidelines, that they alone, as individuals in the most obvious position of conflict, do not want to have legislation that meets the requirements of trust that former Premier Bennett talked about in his report?

I can't believe that all the back-benchers opposite are opposed to this type of legislation or reform. Quite frankly, I would be astonished to believe that members of cabinet themselves are not interested in finally coming to grips with this matter of conflict of interest. We're laying out before members of this Legislature the perfect opportunity to do that, to demonstrate once and for all: do you or do you not want to grapple with this issue and come down with some changes?

The purpose of the inquiry of the committee, very simply put and very obviously worded, is: to deal with the affairs of the minister involved so that we can clean up what's left over from the investigation of the Deputy Attorney-General, and then to begin to deal with the other issue of bringing about the type of reform that this province needs. That's the purpose of this motion, and the challenge to the members opposite is to demonstrate once and for all whether they stand behind the commitment made by the Premier or if they themselves intend to walk away from the commitment made by the Premier. That's the challenge before members opposite.

It has been argued that you can't legislate.... I'm sure someone will stand up opposite and argue: "Look, the member for Esquimalt" — as usual, as some would argue on the other side; never, as I would argue — "is asking for legislation in an area that can't be legislated." To quote somebody recently: "You can't legislate against stupidity." I want to deal with that issue, Mr. Speaker, because it ties in with the need to bring about the type of reform that I am talking about.

The point is this: people do stupid things. They commit theft, and they commit fraud and they commit rape. What do we do? We don't say: "Well, you can't legislate against those stupid things." We don't say that. You know what we do? We pass legislation. In the three examples I used a minute ago, we passed the Criminal Code. We pass the Criminal Code so that it serves as a deterrent to people who think about doing these stupid things. Secondly, it provides a consequence if they do those stupid things.

People do stupid things like dumping oil into streams and killing fish. We don't turn around and say: "Well, that was stupid; don't do it again." Is that the way in which you govern society? Is that how it is that you govern the affairs of society and try to maintain some type of order in society and try to prevent a level of anarchy? No, Mr. Speaker, we pass environmental laws. It's too bad the House Leader opposite is not here to hear this. We pass environmental laws to make sure that if people do those stupid things there is legislation in place that will either serve as a deterrent to prevent people from doing it or, alternatively, provide a consequence if they breach it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

To bring the point home — because I know this debate is not on the Criminal Code or environmental laws — the reason why we need reform with respect to our Constitution Act, and need, in keeping with former Premier Bennett's suggestions, legislation on the matter of conflict of interest, is to prevent those kinds of stupid things from happening, such as getting involved in a business matter when you're a minister of the Crown — to provide a consequence.

There are times when we sit here on this side of the Rockies and tend to think that those Rockies serve as a wall that separates us from the rest of Canada, and we don't hear what's going on. But I say to those opposite — like I say, I regret that the Premier is in Toronto — who believe that you can't legislate on matters of conflict of interest: take a look elsewhere. How were they able to do it in Manitoba? How were they able to do it in Ontario? How were they able to do it in Alberta? How were they able to do it at the federal level? It's because, as we're asking for in this motion, they took the time to sit down and take a look at an instance — in this case, involving one minister — and began, out of that experience, to draft the guidelines and legislation necessary to prevent this type of abuse and erosion of public trust from occurring. If they can do it elsewhere, surely we can do it here in this province.

[3:30]

If you don't want to look elsewhere, Mr. Speaker, I ask the members opposite to take a look at the order paper in this province. The first act, the first private member's bill that was introduced in this Legislature by members of the opposition, was legislation on conflict of interest, to try to chart a course for members opposite, who seem to have a lot of difficulty with the argument that you could have legislation on these matters. I don't intend to debate that legislation, because that would clearly be outside the purview of this debate. But I encourage those who believe that that's not possible to read the material on the order paper.

As I said a minute ago, there is another way. You can introduce legislation in this regard. You can begin to deal with these problems. You can begin to pass legislation — I'm not talking about the stuff that I've introduced, at this point — that is consistent with some of the guidelines the Premier came down with. Quite frankly, if you read the Premier's guidelines, some are borrowed from the Ontario legislation. That's where they come from; you can just read them word for word. If other jurisdictions can do it, so can we.

[ Page 2705 ]

I'll tell you what gets everybody else to comply elsewhere: it's the fear of losing a seat. In every other jurisdiction the consequence in the legislation.... If you don't act by deterrence, the consequence elsewhere is simply that you lose your seat. If you're involved in a conflict-of-interest matter, you lose your seat. For all of us in this House, I can't think of anything more worrisome than that. I don't think any of us would be delighted at losing our seat. I'm sure that on the opposite side there are a few members who....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sorry. I promised I wouldn't get jocular during the course of this debate, so I won't.

Clearly, that's what we need in this province: to take away from the Premier the decision-making power on matters of conflict of interest, and to provide some consequence.

I want to point out to members opposite that there are remedies to the matter of conflict of interest. Those remedies do not involve people having to divest themselves totally of all business interests that they have. I often get offended with the simplistic argument: "Well, I guess what you're really saying is that people have to divest themselves of all their business holdings." We've never maintained that position. Other jurisdictions have never maintained that position. That type of simplistic attitude ought not to be used as a shield against bringing about reform in this area.

To recap a bit. I have tried to outline six or seven salient reasons this matter ought to be referred to the committee, reasons which flow from inadequacies, shortcomings or omissions — none of them purposeful — in the report of the Deputy Attorney-General, in terms of not being able to talk to a bank official who was ill or an accountant who was unavailable or a lawyer who wasn't identified. I've tried to demonstrate that the Deputy Attorney-General himself fully expected that a committee would be appointed, and that there is indeed doubt, both in the mind of the author of the report and in my mind, as to whether or not there had been violations of section 25. In accordance with that, and in keeping with our view that there ought to be reform in this area and that one of the areas that ought to be reformed is the Constitution Act, we move this motion. Those are the reasons.

As I said at the outset, there is another issue of confidence that transcends the issue raised by the Deputy Attorney-General — an issue of public confidence, in the words uttered by the Premier. Those words were: "Accordingly, I will support a referral of this particular issue, under section 27 of the Constitution Act, to a committee of the Legislature for an examination and review when the House sits this fall."

The members opposite love to quote the Premier. They revel in opportunities to turn around and say,"Well, our leader says," and then they play follow the leader. All I'm saying in this instance is: follow the Pied Piper. The leader has spoken. The leader has said that he will support a referral of this particular issue under section 27 of the Constitution Act to a committee of the Legislature. That's what the Premier of this province has said.

Are we to rely on the words of the Premier? Should we rely on the assurances that the Premier gave in this regard? If you think that that reliance ought to be there, that those assurances ought to be fulfilled, that those guarantees should be met, then it's a simple matter of supporting this motion. If you want to be offensive and to be an affront to the Premier and not to pay homage or respect to his words, then vote against this motion; that's the choice. It's on that basis, with that reliance, with those words and assurances, that we put this motion before the House, and we fully expect the full support of the members opposite.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is a considerable disappointment to me to hear a rehash of the allegations that were made against the member for Comox last July, which were dealt with for ten days and in an extensive report by the Deputy Attorney-General. As a result of that report, and even before that report came down, the minister resigned his portfolio. He was admonished in that report in some regards about disclosures. There was one issue that the Deputy Attorney-General looked at, and that was the only issue as far as the Constitution Act was concerned.... That was the sale of concrete to the UBC research farm at Oyster River and whether that constituted a violation of the Constitution Act. He looked at that, he reviewed the facts, and he concluded that it did not.

It was a sale of which the member himself had no knowledge and had nothing to do with. It was a small sale. The bids were all open, in public, and the lowest bidder received the contract. There was no knowledge on the part of the member of that bid, and he was not dealing with a Crown bid. He was dealing with a bid for the university, and a university in this province is not the Crown. I am absolutely appalled that these people would argue that, because that's the only way that there could be even a remote case under section 27.

Those were the allegations, and the Deputy Attorney-General looked at those and found that there had not been a violation of the Constitution Act. But when the Leader of the Opposition asked for a reference under section 27, he quite correctly deferred to this Legislature and said the Legislature could determine that. We on this side waited for a straightforward reference under section 27 of the Constitution Act. We waited for the opposition to make their charges and make them stick. We would have agreed very willingly to a straightforward reference under section 27 of the Constitution Act, because it's a very serious procedure and these are serious charges against a member, and if you are going to make those charges, then you have to meet the requirements of section 27.

Let me remind the House of those provisions. "Where another member alleges that a member has contravened section 25 and that the money was accepted with the approval of the contravening member, the alleging member shall table a notice of motion...setting forth particulars of the allegations, and shall move" for a special committee to be appointed.

Instead of doing that, we have a resolution here that is as broad as the doubletracking of the CNR, going through all the matters that Mr. Hughes looked at. It wants an inquiry into the conduct of the personal affairs of Hon. S. Hagen, specifically questions relating to disclosure forms and possible conflict of interest arising from his failure to relinquish directorships in three companies. Those are the matters that Mr. Hughes has already dealt with and on which the member was already in jeopardy and in possible violation of the Constitution Act. That is not in compliance with section 27; that's not the kind of motion that we were going to support.

What the member opposite who makes this charge was supposed to do was to make an allegation, a motion setting out that money was received by the member for Comox with the approval of the member for Comox, that he knew his

[ Page 2706 ]

Ready-Mix company was getting that bid, and that with his approval they got paid; also, that it was money received from the Crown and not from the university. He can't make those allegations; he can't make a proper notice of motion; he knows that, so he constructs this broad kind of net and wants this Legislature to replay all the matters that this member has already been in jeopardy on and already been punished for. I say that that is a very regrettable process to follow in this House.

We would have supported something straightforward. We would have supported if there was an allegation there that money had been received by his company and that he had approved of that and that that had been money received in relation to a contract with the Crown or an agent of the Crown. They know opposite, Mr. Speaker, that they can't make a motion like that because there isn't one scintilla of evidence to support it. Now this is not the kind of thing to bring forward — conflict-of-interest debates or debates to amend the Constitution Act — because this involves the integrity of a member and a member's seat, and you shouldn't play fast and loose with a member's seat.

As a member of this government I'm quite happy to debate the Constitution Act or whether or not we should improve our guidelines, but to put a member in jeopardy and to put him in jeopardy, Mr. Speaker, a second time when he's already been investigated.... I listened to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew's very clever legal arguments that somehow this was an incomplete investigation — that there were people that the Deputy Attorney-General couldn't speak to, bank managers and so on. They didn't have a thing to do with any of those people, with Ready-Mix. We know the facts of Ready-Mix. We know it was a contract for Mr. Hagen's firm, and we also know that it was opened in public and the lowest tender got the bid. We also know that the member didn't know or participate in that. Those facts are known. There are no other facts on that allegation.

What they want to do is replay the whole Hughes investigation under the guise of being a motion under section 27. This is a terrible precedent if this motion passes. We're quite happy to air something that's real. We're happy to deal with a serious allegation. We don't want to sweep anything under the rug. But you want to abuse the privileges of a member and put a member through a committee of privilege based on things he's already been in jeopardy on. Where's your sense of fair play and decency? You should be ashamed of yourself.

[3:45]

No Premier has ever dealt more promptly with allegations of this kind and dealt with them in a straight-up way and required resignations where necessary and conducted investigations. These investigations have been conducted, I'm happy to say, by a gentleman whose integrity is above reproach in this province and in this House, somebody who sat as a superior court judge for a number of years and somebody who knows and can understand witnesses and knows when they're trying to pull the wool over his eyes. In his report he also very forthrightly said that this member had committed sloppy practices, and he reprimanded him for breach of the guidelines. It was not a coverup at all. When it came to the question of the Constitution Act, he said there was no violation of the Constitution Act. I just want to read what he said about the member: "Having said that, I draw on 18 years of experience where day in and day out I made credibility assessments of my fellow citizens, to tell you that in my judgment Stanley Hagen is an honourable man of high integrity." He made that assessment.

If you think a committee of privilege and an allegation in this form, not dealt with properly as it isn't being here, but just leaving a cloud over a member and suggesting there should be a committee of privilege on something like this.... If you think this is a minor thing and if you think this is some chance to make the government look bad, then you're not reflecting on your position as members of this House. The shoe can be on the other foot, Mr. House Leader. You know, other people can make allegations against other members.

It's high time, in this province, we stopped making all sorts of allegations against people, until we have evidence of some real corruption. You're pretty good on that side at doing that, aren't you? Pretty good, some of you. I think that if allegations are going to be made against people, they should be brought forward in clear terms. If you have something to move in this House under section 27; if you can prove that money changed hands and it did so with the participation of the member; and you can meet the section 27 test, we'll gladly have an inquiry any time, because we haven't got anything to hide.

But you can't do that, Mr. Member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. I don't think you want this debate to continue either, because you're normally a fair-minded chap. I'm sorry that you've been put through this and that you have to make all these legal sophistic arguments. But you know that there is absolutely no case under sections 25 and 27, and you know that there is nothing there. Otherwise you would have framed a proper motion, and we would have been in a committee. We have no proper motion because we have no evidence and we have no case.

How can a man violate the Constitution Act involving a contract with the university unless you argue that the university is the Crown in the right of the province? You argue that and you're going to have every academic in this province screaming about academic freedom, because the universities aren't part of the Crown. They're not emanations of the Crown, and they've never been taken as emanations of the Crown.

Just to give you some idea and remind you of what the spokesman of the universities thought of Mr. Hagen when he did resign for that brief period of time, the President of Simon Fraser University said: "It came as a complete surprise and I'm absolutely sick at heart about it." That was William Saywell. "Stan Hagen is one of the best things that happened to post-secondary education in British Columbia. I think he's the best minister in Canada right now." Similar utterances came from UBC, from Dan Birch, the acting president, also from the Canadian Federation of Students. I know you don't want to hear this, but you're dealing with the rights of a member. He's a member, and you want to put him in a seat of jeopardy with absolutely not a scintilla of evidence and no case under the Constitutional Act. You know that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order from all. I might remind the Attorney-General to use the member's ministry name, not his personal name in the House.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Yes. I was quoting from somebody who used his personal name, and I regret that.

We should — most of all in this place — recognize the rights of members and safeguard those rights. It's one thing to

[ Page 2707 ]

criticize a government, and it's one thing to take shots at us about conflict-of-interest guidelines and tightening them up. We understand that's your job, and we don't quarrel when you go after us on that. But what I'm talking about is the sacred right of a member to take his seat and hold his seat. That right can only be taken away under section 27 proceedings. Those are very serious things, and I do not believe that any of you in your hearts think that the case of the member for Comox is one that requires a section 27 procedure. If you did, you would have drawn it differently.

We've had a good debate. We've heard some good recommendations on what might happen with the Constitution Act. We've aired some things. But let's not translate that into a privilege committee for something which there is not a scintilla to go on. There isn't. There's nothing to go on. Let's not talk about the rights of members and ministers in broad-brush ways either, because the right of a member to hold his seat and freely speak his mind is the most treasured thing that we have in this chamber.

I take you all as men of good will and believe in my heart that there isn't any one of you who seriously wants us to have a privilege committee on this matter. If we had a matter for a privilege committee, and if there was something to go on, I and everyone on this side would be the first ones to move it. But it isn't there, so let's get on with other constructive debates.

MR. HARCOURT: The Attorney-General has certainly proved one maxim that's known to most trial lawyers: if you've got a bad case, bluster loudly. We're quite astounded by the approach that the Attorney-General has taken in this matter. He says that the Deputy Attorney-General cleared the hon. member, and that that's the end of it. I would like to suggest that that is not what the Deputy Attorney-General said at all. On page 14 of his report he says that "at the end of the day it cannot be said that the Minister of Advanced Education, since being sworn in as a member of the executive council, distinguished himself in the management of his personal affairs. It can fairly be said that the opposite is the case."

The Attorney-General also says that the matter is finished as far as the Deputy Attorney-General is concerned. On page 13 he said that he would like to "reserve a public discussion...until an appearance I would be prepared to make should such a committee be named under section 27 of the Constitution Act and should I be invited to attend before it. My opinion could well be but one that the committee would wish to hear, and while I believe it is a correct one, it would at that stage be for the committee to say" — not the Attorney-General. For the Attorney-General to say that we should be putting evidence forward.... That's not for us to do. That is a matter to be investigated quite thoroughly and properly in the spirit we put it forward.

I may say that I find the approach the Attorney-General has taken on this matter quite distasteful. I want the Attorney-General to know that the member we are discussing here today, after my request under the Constitution Act, approached me personally and said that he wanted to express his gratitude to me for the restrained and careful way in which I and our caucus put this matter forward. For it to be said today that we did anything other than obey not just the spirit but the intent of the Constitution Act comes as quite a shock and a surprise.

So we have the hon. member's words to me personally about the approach that we have taken on this matter. We have the Deputy Attorney-General saying that the hon. member was not conducting his personal affairs in the best way he could have. We have the Deputy Attorney-General saying, in expectation of a hearing by a committee of this Legislature, that he would not be putting forth his opinions, because he expected there to be a committee of this Legislature.

I find it quite astounding that over the last little while we have had this quite different tone and approach being voiced by the Attorney-General. We have, on top of that, not just the approach that I took and the word of the Minister of Advanced Education, and the written words and opinions of the Deputy Attorney-General, but also the Premier saying that he would heed the call after the investigation — not before, not during, but after this investigation, he would heed the request put forward by me on behalf of our caucus that a committee of this Legislature be established, which makes the Attorney-General's approach here today even more astonishing. After quite a few hundred criminal trials and trials in the civil courts, I may say that I go back to the maxim, defend a case with bluster, which I'm sure the Attorney-General was put up to do — for what reason I'm not quite clear, because we have only just heard this presentation by the Attorney-General.

What we are talking about here today is not just that we carry forward in the spirit in which this whole matter was first voiced. It wasn't a smear. It wasn't pushed across in the headlines with words that implicated the minister beforehand or embarrassed him and his family. It was done with very careful and restrained language by all on our side of this House. For the Attorney-General to say otherwise is wrong, and he knows that, which is why his forceful presentation was not given with his usual sense of conviction.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to reaffirm our sincere desire that this motion go forward, that there be a legislative committee to deal not just with the integrity of this member who, as I've said before, we are quite prepared to maintain the same spirit that I established when I put forward the request for this investigation.... Again, as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew has put forward, we feel that there is something even greater this Legislature can do, and that is to finally bring forward some proper conflict-of-interest laws — not guidelines — and to have an independent arbiter so that the Premier does not act as judge and jury.

We say that there is a confusion and ambiguity about what is proper conduct and what is not, that there are two standards for those elected and for the guidelines circulated recently for our public employees. It's wrong to have two standards. We think that the people of British Columbia should have some properly framed laws for those members of the Legislature, particularly those entrusted with a cabinet position, to recognize very clearly the difference between right and wrong. Our laws are not capable of doing that right now because they are in guideline form and are interpreted by the Premier.

[4:00]

We think it's unfortunate that this discussion has taken the turn it has today, Mr. Speaker, because we New Democrats have a great respect for democracy and for this Legislature. That's why we want a full debate in this Legislature of privatization. People are entitled to have this fine body, which has taken centuries to evolve, to be the place where those debates take place and where the members' affairs can be dealt with by their peers. I may say that I am saddened, actually. I've recovered from my shock at the approach of the

[ Page 2708 ]

Attorney-General, and I'm quite saddened by the approach I see emerging from the government — not just from the cabinet, but from the caucus — that they are changing their minds.

As the Leader of the Opposition, in my dealing with the Premier on this matter, I think that before we deal with this matter any further I would like to have the Premier back in this Legislature. I would like the Premier to tell us that he has changed his mind about heeding the request of the Leader of the Opposition that this matter be investigated with due respect for the rights of people, with proper process and protection of individuals' reputations and freedoms. I'd like to see the Premier here when he returns on Monday, for us to come back at this matter, and possibly to have a rethink after this astonishing performance by the Attorney-General.

I'm going to be putting forward, under standing order 45(2), until the Premier returns, that this House do now adjourn.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 36

MR. SPEAKER: Before we continue debate on the motion, the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain is seeking leave to make an introduction. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

MR. MOWAT: In the gallery today we have a member who has served this House very well in the past as a representative from Vancouver-Little Mountain. He served as a minister in many of the cabinets. I would ask the House to make welcome Evan Wolfe.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I ask leave to table a document referred to in question period.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Debate continues on Resolution 91. I advise the House that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew will close debate.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to speak for another hour...

AN HON. MEMBER: Despite the fact they still could use the instruction.

MR. SIHOTA: ...despite the fact the members opposite could still use the instruction. Nonetheless, in closing debate on this matter, I want to react very quickly to the comments the Attorney-General made. In my view, there's still a way out for the government on this matter.

There were basically two issues raised by the Attorney-General. One was that there was no evidence pursuant to section 27 on this issue and the absence of such evidence has resulted in his not supporting the motion. Secondly, he said that the wording of our motion was too broad. If I remember correctly, he said that it was as broad as double-tracking the railway, or something to that effect. I want to quickly deal with both of those points, because I don't think there's much to either one of them.

First of all, for the Attorney-General to say that there was no evidence or insufficient evidence to warrant an examination under section 27, that the test under section 27 hasn't been met — section 27 is a pivotal section here — ignores the obvious fact that the Premier, back in August, 1987, felt that there was. He said — and I'll emphasize the words: "Accordingly, I will support a referral of this particular issue under section 27 of the Constitution Act to a committee of the Legislature." What happened between then, when I'm sure the Premier was advised, and today? Why the fear to refer this to a committee? What has happened in between? The Premier obviously at the time felt there was enough evidence under section 27, and we put forward this motion in keeping with that recognition on our part and on the Premier's part.

AN HON. MEMBER: Up until this morning.

[4:15]

MR. SIHOTA: Up until this morning it was my understanding, of course, that the government was going to be supportive of this motion as well.

But secondly and more importantly, if the motion isn't properly worded, if the member opposite doesn't like the motion, then move an amendment. That's all we're saying. If the Attorney-General is upset over the words "personal affairs," let's move an amendment to remove that. If he doesn't think the words "specifically question" limit the enquiry to the Constitution Act — even though the motion says section 91 of the Constitution Act — the obvious option before the government, to be consistent with what the Premier said, is to introduce an amendment. That's the way out: to introduce an amendment to the motion. We would entertain that. Let's hear something constructive from the side opposite, something positive for a change, instead of just being negative and voting down this motion. If you don't like what it says, amend it. That's perfectly valid under the rules, perfectly proper. Let's talk about that. But of course, no. Who's afraid of dealing with this issue? What's the concern?

The issue now has become, Mr. Speaker — and I'll wrap up on this point — not so much the affairs of this individual

[ Page 2709 ]

minister but the confidence in the statement of the Premier. That's the issue now.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 36

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) sought to raise a matter of privilege relating to answers given by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) during the oral question period yesterday.

The member quite properly tabled a copy of his statement and a notice of motion which he proposed to move in the event a prima facie case of breach of privilege was made to the satisfaction of the Chair.

The Blues of yesterday indicate that the member's concerns arise out of a series of questions and answers relating to the granting of the milk quota. The member gives a number of facts to argue against the validity of answers given by the minister. The matter clearly involves much detail and, in the member's words, is highly technical.

It is readily apparent that both the members differ in their understanding and interpretation of facts affecting this matter. On a number of occasions, including that of June 14, 1985, the Speaker has ruled that a dispute arising between two members as to allegations of facts does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.

I would refer members to citation 113 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. For this reason, I cannot find that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made out.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I know many of us in the assembly and in Nanaimo, I am sure, have been waiting since noon in breathless anticipation for the learned second member for Nanaimo to carry on the debate he began just before lunch in his own flawless, erudite fashion, although I did notice in question period he ended a sentence with a preposition.

Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 59.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No.4), 1987
(continued)

MR. LOVICK: Obviously that generous and gracious introduction deserves brief comment, and what I would do is simply share with the House the line from Churchill. When corrected once for using a preposition at the end of a sentence, he said: "That is an impertinence, sir, up with which I will not put." I share that with you.

When we ended debate earlier today, I had argued the case that it seemed on the face of the evidence presented in Bill 59 that, indeed, the government had perhaps proceeded with too much haste and not enough care. I was taken to task after the House adjourned by a couple of people, among them the Provincial Secretary. suggesting that I was perhaps not entirely correct in my reading of section 17.

Because I believe in the principle of fairness, I am prepared to acknowledge that there is perhaps a case to be made to demonstrate that yes, indeed, the numbering as originally presented in the bill might be correct. I'm not entirely persuaded by the case but I am willing to acknowledge there might be one.

I was, as I say, quite prepared to be very fair about that and say yes, I erred — first time ever, as I recall — and I was going to accept the charge; guilty as charged. However, on looking at a couple of other bits and pieces of this bill, I discovered an even better error which, it seems to me, makes the point all the more emphatically and effectively. I want to draw the attention of the House to that particular section then.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

I am referring to — and I must search my pile of notes here, if I may — section 12 of Bill 59 dealing with the Jury Act. Let me draw your attention to that and point to you the error — a significant one, I think — that occurs there. It says in the notes, of course — and I offer this just to explain so we all understand what the intention of this amendment is — to the Jury Act that the purpose of section 12 is to correct a statute revision error. So be it. We all understand that excellent idea. We then turn to the Jury Act, and we discover that section 15 of the Jury Act is amended by striking out "jury" and substituting "judge," and we think that probably makes sense too. If, however, we look at section 15 of the Jury Act, we come upon this marvelous first statement: "The party requiring a judge shall, before he is entitled to have the judge summoned, pay to the sheriff a sum sufficient for payment of the judge...." Clearly, unless all the notions of jurisprudence have suddenly disappeared from human history, there is an error there. I believe the intention, Madam Speaker, is that the last line of this particular section of the bill is supposed to replace the word "jury" with the word "judge." Otherwise, however, the amendment doesn't make any sense.

Again, I would reiterate my case made earlier that we seem to see very good, solid evidence of lack of care and lack of meticulousness, and I wonder whether that is indicative of an overall lack of care, and indeed indelicate and indecent haste, perhaps, with this particular miscellaneous statute.

Having made those few points, I want now to turn to some of the substantive parts of this particular bill. I think there are some very significant issues that cry out for our attention. I am not going to attempt to deal with every section of the bill;

[ Page 2710 ]

indeed, there are far too many for anyone to do that in the space of a mere two hours. I will, however, focus on what I think are a couple of the more significant parts.

I want to begin by having a look at section 2 — not clause by clause, but the principle of section 2, I hasten to point out. Section 2 of the bill, as we know, is an amendment to the Constitution Act, and according to the note, it removes the ceiling on the number of parliamentary secretaries. I submit that, if many people look at this particular amendment and see the intention of removing the ceiling, those people will want to raise the roof. The predicament is that this is the kind of action on the part of government that I can guarantee you is likely to exacerbate the already tense situation that exists out there in terms of how people perceive this government: as insensitive and somehow unmindful of the concerns of ordinary men, women and children in our communities.

[4:30]

The predicament, of course, is that this intention of raising the ceiling, i.e. increasing the number of parliamentary secretaries possible, is a little bit out of sync. The problem is that we have not yet had any discussion about the new superministries, about the new regions of the province, but patently we're here being asked to accept the fact that we're going to create some new ones in order to make possible that measure that has not yet been discussed and debated. On legalistic grounds, perhaps the government is on relatively safe turf; perhaps it is indeed within their right to do so. I suggest, however, that the spirit or intent of that tends to be directly against the proper operation of a Legislature and the proper process of consultation, as that would be defined by any fair-minded person.

I think I'm safe in saying that, because the problem with parliamentary secretaries, as most people will contend — and I think I can make that estimate and be on fairly safe ground — is that they are perceived by the great majority of people throughout the province as simply patronage appointments. They're rewards for service because there aren't enough seats in the cabinet. That's the perception. And the perception is that when you have a whole bunch of individuals in caucus who apparently don't have other jobs to do, then in order to make them feel busy and productive, what you're going to do, of course, is make them parliamentary secretaries — at considerable expense, I might add. The question then is, given that perception.... And we know the perception is out there, because I recall that six months ago some evidence and statistics demonstrating the level of cynicism out there were presented to this chamber. We know that evidence is there.

Guess what's going to happen, then, if we suddenly decide to instantly almost double the number of parliamentary secretaries, if we remove the ceiling, the limit, on the number of parliamentary secretaries. You know, Madam Speaker, I know and the hon. House Leader across the way knows full well that what's going to happen is that most folks except the party loyalists are going to say: "Yet another example of the government rewarding itself, rewarding its own friends, and ignoring the ordinary men, women and children of the province."

I'm saddened by that, because it seems to me that we do indeed have a problem. We have a problem with what I referred to before as a kind of creeping cynicism: the sense that it doesn't really matter very much what we the people do; it doesn't matter who you send to Victoria, because all politicians are alike, they're only out for their own best interest, and so forth and so on; therefore why get involved in the process?

That line of thinking, that kind of intellectual analysis or lack of intellectual analysis, inevitably leads people to simply give up on the system. They say: "Well, if that is indeed the case, and that's the way the system operates, why should I be involved?" Of course, if people come to that conclusion, then we are really in trouble, because the system can in fact no longer function as it ought to.

My suggestion, then, is that this particular measure, however ostensibly it might appear not to be offensive, however minor a matter it might appear to be, nevertheless adds fuel to the fire of cynicism. It makes people think once again: "This is a government not concerned with protecting my welfare and my interests, but rather its own interests, its own welfare."

I have a number of colleagues, Madam Speaker, who are anxious to take part in this discussion. Indeed, I know that section 2 of the bill, the Constitution Act amendments, is going to generate considerable discussion and comment. In fact, some of my colleagues have done a rather close analysis of the proposition embedded here: namely, the increase in parliamentary secretaries for reasons that have not formally been made clear. The only reason we know of that we need more parliamentary secretaries is, remember, press releases.

I think, legitimately and understandably, some of my colleagues are prepared to engage in an analysis and examination of this particular clause. I do not therefore need to do so; instead, what I want to do is to turn, in the time remaining to me, to one particular section of the bill. I am referring to section 19.

Again, if I can remind members opposite — because I know it is not commonplace in this Legislature for everybody to read along as the speeches unfold — section 19 is the Railway Act; specifically, amendments to a particular section. The intent of this legislation, or the effect of this legislation, is to repeal section 287 of the Railway Act. Section 287, let me remind members, is the power of the minister to make regulations. All right, that's not difficult; we understand that. The point I would like to make, though, is that the minister already has tremendous powers to make regulations, notwithstanding that section 287 of the Railway Act appears to be rather light, relatively limited, in the number of clauses. In fact, section 287 is only two short paragraphs.

Again, to emphasize and make that point about the incredible power already apparently granted to the minister, let me just remind members about the existence of regulations to the Railway Act. If you pick up a book of the consolidated regulations of the province of B.C., Madam Speaker, what you'll discover there is that the section on the Railway Act is the biggest chunk of the book; it's about one inch thick of a very compressed book. In that one-inch thickness there are approximately 600 pages. Obviously, the minister has power to make regulations under the act. The question, then, is why is this change required? What's the purpose of this change to section 287 of the Railway Act?

Here we look to the notes in the bill again, and we discover the purpose, stated again in the notes. Section 19 is intended to "clarify the regulatory powers of the minister, to confirm the regulatory powers of the minister, and to amplify the regulatory powers of the minister."

The question I want to pose, Madam Speaker, is why the need to amplify? What is the demonstrated case for this amplification of those powers? Sadly, the presenter of the

[ Page 2711 ]

Miscellaneous Statutes bill decided that no comment was required. Clearly, then, I am left no choice but to speculate somewhat. I don't think, however, that my speculation is idle; I rather think it is based on some concrete evidence.

Why the need to amplify? Let's think about a couple of possibilities, just logically. Why the need to amplify, I ask the question, unless it is true that successive ministers over time have indeed been exceeding their authority to make regulations? Is this an admission that in fact we have not been behaving legally, as we ought to? I see the hon. House Leader on the other side nodding his head and I can hear him. Good.

If that's the case, I'm a little worried about what kind of operation, dare I say it, we are running in this province when only after 600-plus pages, and one inch thick of regulations, we suddenly miraculously discover: my goodness, we don't seem to have the authority to be doing all these things we've been doing! I'm a little concerned about that, and I think that's a legitimate concern.

But I think there's another concern, another possible reason too. Is it the case — I ask this question rhetorically, Madam Speaker — that we want to expand and amplify the powers of the minister so that the minister will indeed be able to do other things that he or she might not be legally entitled to do in the existing section 287?

I think probably the answer to that question is that yes, that is the reason — that there are other things at issue. There is evidence for the conclusion that there are other things the minister wishes to do that he — and I use that pronoun not generically but rather referring to the individual — cannot do given current legislation. That, of course, is what causes my colleagues and I to say that perhaps we should look more closely at this.

So let's look a little closely at section 287, not clause by clause but the principle of 287, which amplifies the powers of the minister. We see that the original section 287 made reference to railways. Good. That's what a Railway Act should do; I think we can all agree with that. But the new section 287 specifies and repeats again and again some other things. Not just railways but tramways are also specifically referred to. As well, there is also a reference to aerial tramways.

Of course, when one reflects on that for a little bit to see if we can put names to those entities, names to those things, specifics, we say well, railways, okay, we've got a couple of railways under provincial jurisdiction. We have on one hand the rail division of B.C. Hydro. We also have a Crown corporation called B.C. Rail.

Then we look to the area of tramways and we say well, yes, we do indeed have a tramway. That's called SkyTrain, probably, and that's under the control and mandate of B.C. Transit, another Crown corporation. Then we say, what about aerial tramways; what exactly does that mean?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Up in the air.

MR. LOVICK: Up in the air. I'm glad to see that the hon. House Leader from the other side is not about to leave me up in the air and is still paying attention. I'm delighted by that.

Aerial tramways.... I wonder by looking closely at any kind of lexical definition of tram and tramway — that's a dictionary, for members opposite, okay? — but any kind of aerial tramway, whether that in fact means a ski lift. If it means a ski lift, well, lo and behold, there's probably another Crown corporation that the minister now has powers to deal with. That other Crown corporation exists in that beautiful area at the end of Howe Sound called Whistler.

[4:45]

I believe the activities of that Whistler corporation are now transferred to B.C. Place, if my memory serves me at all well, or if my research is in any way thorough. The question then becomes.... Pardon me if I appear to be suspicious, Madam Speaker; I certainly don't intend to be, overly, at least. But I think it's reasonable to be concerned. It is reasonable to pose some questions. I want to state the thesis, if you like, bluntly as follows. My colleagues and I think it entirely reasonable, fair and legitimate to conclude that the amplified power — using the word "amplified" provided us in the notes of explanation — being sought here by this government will be used in effect to facilitate the dismantling and the sell off of these particular services. I'm referring again to B.C. Hydro's rail division, B.C. Rail, SkyTrain and Whistler.

What we have here is a very clear indication.... I'm more than willing to be corrected on this; indeed, I would invite correction from members opposite who will have their opportunities. But I would suggest to you that the evidence is rather solid, perhaps irrefutable, that what we're looking at here is simply another way to achieve the privatization dream. As we know, and we have quoted to us time and time again, everything is conceivably for sale — everything. The Premier has said that on half a dozen occasions. Believe it or not, he actually thought he was allaying and assuaging people's fears when he said that, but he nevertheless said it, and of course it had the opposite effect. I'm working on that assumption, and I would invite anyone to challenge the error of my logic. I think the logic is solid and the conclusion inescapable.

I want to refer, albeit briefly, to those particular entities, all of which are not in the glare of the spotlight, thanks to the powers asked for in section 19 of Bill 59. This is a miscellaneous statute that is not only a runaway railway train that looks out of control, but also talks a bit about railways. I want to talk a bit about railways too, to begin with.

Let me start by talking about B.C. Hydro's rail division. I do not propose to say everything that ought to be said about the rail division of B.C. Hydro; clearly we would need many hours to do so. I have a colleague who has done considerable research and has acquired very impressive expertise on the subject. I'm referring to the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), who will probably want to offer some comments about this particular entity.

What I want to do is put on the record a couple of observations about the rail division of B.C. Hydro. The first claim I want to make — and I think it's hard to dispute — is that the public is now well served by that entity. People, as we know, love to hate Hydro. That's given. It has been that way for a very long time. It was probably the case when it used to be B.C. Electric, before another Premier of the province — from the other side of the House with another kind of ideology than the one I am normally associated with — decided that the public interest was not well served by that private interest. Nevertheless, because of the nature of utilities, we like to hate B.C. Hydro. If we can peel back the layers of prejudice for a moment, we can discover that there are good and compelling reasons to defend B.C. Hydro's rail division.

Let me draw a couple of points to people's attention. How many of us know that that stretch of railroad is apparently among the most profitable in the world, if not the most

[ Page 2712 ]

profitable? It functions very well, thank you. The question is: what do we do with those profits? What we do with those profits is we do something to offset and counteract the costs that would otherwise have to be borne by us, the consumers, from B.C. Hydro's provision of services. The annual profit of rail does reduce the cost that would otherwise confront us if rail were not there. In short, the consumers are well served by it. What we're doing is we're using a public utility to achieve those savings to benefit the people — not a few of the people but all of the people.

The second argument I'd like to suggest is about B.C. Hydro's rail division. Hydro rail now serves Hydro's electrical division. That means that it uses the rail division's rights-of-way in order to run its transportation lines. If we are to transfer that activity to a private rail company, what happens thereby is that a private rail company will be able, in all likelihood, to impose a charge for the use of the right-of-way. That is an extra charge that we, the people, will have to bear. In other words, it's another illustration, I think, of an increased cost that the taxpayers will have to bear in the name of privatization, in the name of increased efficiency, so it is alleged.

Again, to draw the obvious conclusion — if I might, Madam Speaker, for fear that some might miss it — what we have is a particular division of Hydro doing something to offset the costs that we would otherwise have to bear for the provision of Hydro's services. What happens is that the higher electricity rates that businesses and homeowners would have to bear are not then necessary because of that offsetting profit generated by the rail division of B.C. Hydro.

I would present the case that there is no good solid evidence to show that B.C. Hydro's rail division does not perform good and valuable service in the province, and I would suggest that, by any fair analysis and fair evaluation of the piece, one ought to say that unless you can demonstrate a clear case as to why the people are not being well served, you ought not to tamper with the service being provided. That's a logical conclusion to draw, and one that I think fair-minded people would indeed draw.

Another brief point, if I may, about the rail division of B.C. Hydro. I see that even the member for Mackenzie and Powell River has now started to pay attention; clearly my words are sinking in. I'm delighted to know that. It's worth mentioning, and I think it needs to be established clearly for the record, that a recent study completed by Ernst and Whinney recommended that B.C. Hydro's rail division should be merged with B.C. Rail. Many members know what happened to that report and to the advice presented. The advice was peremptorily rejected by government. The question is: why should that be?

I don't lean to a conspiracy theory of the universe or of history, but it seems to me a plausible and credible conclusion to draw that you don't merge those two things, even if it would be more efficient, as was alleged by the Ernst and Whinney study. What you want to do is make things dismemberable. If you want to privatize, and the literature on the subject from Britain makes this very clear, you try to put things into dismemberable form; that is, into small enough pieces that you can take them apart. You don't expand them, because when you increase their size they're more difficult to dismember. What you do is keep them their existing size or you make them smaller, because you can then approach the process of privatization with much more ease, simply because you can sell them off in small enough chunks that you can always find buyers. I want to suggest that the government's rejection of the advice from its own consultants probably makes sense only in the context of being part of a larger strategy vis-à-vis privatization.

I have a few other comments to wrap up the argument about the rail division.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I detect that the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen) is saying: "Please don't rush, Mr. Member. There are many more things I'd like to hear from you, because seldom have I had an opportunity to be so edified in so short a space of time." I appreciate that gesture from him.

The public utility case. I want to sketch that out now, Madam Speaker, and again let me say — ere anybody think I am trying to take advantage of an opportunity here to get things on the record and that such is not entirely de rigueur — that until and unless we have a full opportunity to have that wide-ranging kind of debate on all these privatization initiatives, it seems entirely fair and clear and legitimate that we on this side of the House have an obligation to use every legal and correct opportunity we have. In this bill, as I suggested earlier — and I see that the Speaker and the Clerks have had no difficulty with the case — we have that opportunity to discuss privatization, because this makes it possible, given these changes to the Railway Act.

I want to dwell — albeit briefly, for purposes of getting it on the record — on a couple of the classic arguments that I think need to be raised when we talk about public utilities, such as Hydro and the rail division.

Textbook economics, as all of us here know or ought to know, posits the existence of something called a public utility. A public utility is one that it is simply not either economic or convenient to subdivide and to break up into smaller chunks. The argument is, of course, that if something has that kind of public non-competitive nature to it — in other words, it's too big, so economies of scale are part and parcel of it and it is the case that other people can't effectively get into it to provide the service — then it becomes one entity. Of course, if it's left to the private sector it becomes a monopoly. And any economist, right or left, will argue that monopolies — natural or otherwise — are not desirable because they require incredible regulation to protect the public interest simply because, if you're the only game in town, you can charge all you want.

The notion is that if we can't have private utilities, what do we do? We have two options. We can make that private entity a public one; in other words, say that it will no longer be owned by a few, dealing primarily in their own interests. Rather, we talk about making it a public utility, which is then answerable to the public through their elected representatives. The concept of public utility is the route we have gone with regard to Hydro and the provision of hydroelectricity in this province.

The other means of dealing with monopoly is to talk about regulation. I think it's worth dwelling on that subject for just a moment, because certainly that's one of the items at issue when we talk about all the stated and otherwise suggested privatization measures of government.

The regulation option says that you don't really have to own the thing — that is, the public doesn't really have to own the entity — as long as the public interest is protected by some regulatory mechanism. I want to just make it clear for

[ Page 2713 ]

everybody's edification, if I might, that there is a history in terms of utilities owned by private operators that, however good and strenuous and eager the intentions of the regulators are, what happens — and, again, we have lots of evidence to support the claim — is that the regulatory body tends to be captured by the industry or the utility.

[5:00]

It is also the case — and this is something we, the people of B.C., certainly need to be mindful of — that the cost of regulating is immense and enormous. There are considerable dangers. The question, more specifically, is whether you can provide sufficient staff to do the sort of regulation that is requisite. Many, of course, have concluded that it is simply not possible and, therefore, come to the conclusion that what we need is simply public ownership. In Canada and in the province of B.C., our version of that is Crown corporations.

Interestingly enough — and again I would hope that those who call themselves advocates and apostles of privatization would consider this point — the most free-enterprise, market-driven economy in the world, the United States of America, is also the home and the creator of one of the most successful publicly owned utilities in the world. I am referring to the Tennessee Valley Authority. The TVA, believe it or not, Madam Speaker, has never been threatened by the privatizers, because it runs efficiently. It runs well and everybody knows that, and even in the United States, this place where private enterprise is sacrosanct and sacred, nobody takes on the TVA. The question, of course, is: if Americans come to that conclusion, why are we here in British Columbia, where we have a tradition of Crowns, of public sector involvement and initiatives, messing around with such stuff? I think that's a fair question.

The other area, and why I want to suggest that the rail division of B.C. Hydro deserves a little extra attention and care on our part, is just that it deals with energy and the transport of energy. I think it's safe to say that in most modem economies people recognize that governments have a responsibility for macroeconomic management. That's just given. Government is a player in the game. Nobody who pauses to reflect on the proposition for too long will come to the conclusion that the state has no business in the affairs of the economy. That is simply silly stuff. I suspect that even folks like the Fraser Institute, the Adam Smith Institute and the Reason Foundation, and all those other people who apparently now have the ear of the Premier, would not go along with those kinds of arguments, suggesting that we want a non- interventionist state. It simply doesn't work. That's the primary reason.

Energy is usually perceived to be one of what is sometimes referred to as the commanding heights of the economy, something extremely important to the economic welfare of a society. Certainly in British Columbia we recognize that. Indeed, one of the people to recognize that earliest was W.A.C. Bennett, who recognized very clearly that energy was perhaps the principal key to economic development of this province, and moreover, that if you left the development and exploitation of energy resources to the private sector, the important role of province-building and of constructing a mature, workable, rational economy would simply not get done. In short, that eminent gentleman, a former Premier of the province, recognized pretty clearly the limitations of the market economy.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: The question has been posed whether one has to die to be eminent. I want to assure the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch), who posed the question, that when he is defeated I will call him eminent. He doesn't have to die — I want him to know that. Not now, however.

I'm suggesting, of course, that that argument about energy being perceived as — let me use a little Latin, for the heck of it — the sine qua non of economic development still obtains. It's the thing you've got to have. It's a good term, one I think we would all like to play with for a while.

The other area, of course, just to touch on it briefly, is the notion of a public police tool — economic development also in terms of adjudicating and adjusting and planning for growth, planning for the way we want a given society to develop. Again, the tradition has always been, at least in this province and in this country, that we don't leave that to the market-driven economy; rather, we accept our responsibility and we get involved in it. We the people, that is, take it over.

Let me end my few comments on the rail division of B.C. Hydro by just emphasizing....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I have a question from the House Leader asking me how much longer. Let me return the favour by asking how much more time I have. I think I can say that I intend to use most of the time available to me.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: He who has ears to hear and eyes to see, let him judge. Does that answer the question? Or was this just a rhetorical utterance from across the way? May I proceed?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have over an hour.

MR. LOVICK: Let me come back then to wrap up this chunk of the discussion by reminding members opposite that the principle that ought to guide us always in these kinds of deliberations is that the onus of explanation must be placed on those who advocate the change. Part of the predicament we have in British Columbia today is that that principle is being violated. We are not getting explanations; that became very clear to me and to others in question period today. We are told we must accept all these changes, indeterminate and not terribly clear as they are, on something called trust, or some other such stuff. I want to suggest that that is simply wrong.

What we need — and I think we have every justification for asking for it — is explanation. what's wrong with the current operation of the rail division of B.C. Hydro? I've looked at a few of the annual reports, and I see rather glowing reports. I see things that are very praiseworthy, saying we're doing good and valuable and noble work. Why then do we change? Why, especially, do we talk about changing without justifying and explaining the changes'? I think that's the crucial question in this debate.

I want to turn to the second of the suggested amendments to the Railway Act, which expand significantly the powers of the minister to make regulations.

B.C. Rail has a long history, some would argue a checkered one.

Interjection.

[ Page 2714 ]

MR. LOVICK: Yes, indeed. Longer private than public, I hear being said. Probably saved only because of public intervention, I suspect.

B.C. Rail is an entity that illustrates another of the classic reasons for ownership and control by the public; that is, an instrument usually referred to as the public policy argument. The notion is that governments, as part of their responsibility to manage the economy, to look out for the development of a particular geographical entity — whether that be province, country or state — have an obligation to fashion instruments that enable them to launch particular developments, to encourage or discourage development, to make sure that a particular region becomes more densely populated or less densely populated, to invite secondary or tertiary industry in; a whole range of activities, loosely called public policy.

B.C. Rail, I think it's fairly safe to say, was recognized again by the Premier of the province, W.A.C. Bennett, as having that function. It was a resource railway from the beginning. Its intention, from the literature I've read, was never stated as being to move people from one place to another. It was a resource railway. It was a way of opening up the northern chunk of the province so that the resources could be exploited. The role, then, of the railroad.... The best way to put it, I think, is to say that it was a province-builder. The argument presented by government at that time was that the private sector was simply not doing the job adequately or satisfactorily. That, of course, is the traditional argument of why we need the public intervention, of why we need Crown corporations — simply because, left to its own devices, the private sector, marvelous mechanism though it is, can't do everything and doesn't do everything.

The point I'd like to remind members opposite of, especially those who tend to be a little more zealous in posing the ideological arguments.... I don't know if I see anybody in the House at the moment who does that, but I'm sure there are some who are closet ideologues. The argument I'd like present to you is that we never got public sector involvement on the basis of some ideological dream or fixation. We got it, rather, in response to perceived needs; specifically we got it because the private sector either could not or would not perform the services. That, I submit to you, was precisely why we got B.C. Rail. Recall that it wasn't a creature of the left; it was a creature of the right, albeit the populous right. I think it's important to recognize that in the history of our province, thank heavens, and of our country, thank goodness, we have not been ideologically zealous. We have not said: "Well, I am on the right of the political spectrum, and therefore ipso facto I am opposed to all public ownership." Nor have we had those on the left in our country who say,"Because I am on the left, I think private property is a sin," or some such thing. We don't have that. Our politics and our discussion in this province and in this country have been moderate, reasonable, commonsensical, pragmatic and practical. That's something we should all give thanks for, it seems to me, because we recognize the limitations of a market driven economy. We've recognized that, and our actions have again and again demonstrated that we recognize those limitations.

[5:15]

Unfortunately, today it looks like that accord or understanding, and the social, political and economic communities of our province threaten to be tom apart, to be ripped up and discarded. Because, I submit, we are encountering today — and I don't think I say so without evidence; I don't think I'm being hysterical or unfair — the beginnings of an ideological crusade. We have an effort being made at the moment — or at least suggested to us — of: "Let us tear down the customary and traditional fabric and institutions of this province. Rather, let's buy into an ideology that says the state should be dismantled."

I'm referring, of course, to the guru from Great Britain who was brought to this province specifically to address the cabinet of British Columbia, Dr. Madsen Pirie, whose book is called Dismantling the State. I have now read Dr. Pirie's book, and I have also read a number of his essays, and I want to suggest to you that Dr. Pirie is not a moderate individual. He is an ideologue. He is one who believes that Adam Smith's ghost walks. He believes that the laissez-faire capitalism should be allowed to fulfil its natural course. He is a man who believes that what we ought to do in effect is simply dismantle the state, as he describes in the title of the book. It's a point of view, unfortunately, that I suggest is radical. It is ideological in the extreme. It's not an economic argument; it's a political argument.

I dearly hope that members opposite are going to let common sense prevail rather than the blandishments of the new right and the real right from Great Britain. Because even now in Great Britain, some of the blush has gone off the rose. In fact, we're now hearing that Brit Tel, one of the great success stories, has the problem that approximately 50 percent of the call-boxes in the nation are no longer in service.

HON. MR. VEITCH: None of them were in the first place.

MR. LOVICK: No, that's not entirely true, I'm sorry to inform the Provincial Secretary. They were indeed in service. Just as with Hydro, people love to attack the telephone, I agree. But the point is that now the service has demonstrably degenerated and deteriorated. That's the predicament.

I'm suggesting that in British Columbia today we are dealing — or we seem to be, and I fear this is happening — with an ideological war waged by zealots. I could give lots of examples of that, Madam Speaker. Indeed, I could quote members of the Social Credit Party and Social Credit caucus. I think I would be out of order; that's why I won't. Of course I don't want to violate the rules of the House. But I want to suggest that a number of people, if they pause to reflect and think about what we're doing instead of buying into some great dream, what in advertising is called a sexy idea.... If we use our common sense we're going to recognize that the privatization initiative is a small, available tool for public policy. It is not some means to rewrite the constitution and redraw the social and economic map of the province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair is trying desperately to see the relevancy of what you have been saying regarding privatization with this bill. I wonder if you could show the House what the relevancy is.

MR. LOVICK: Absolutely, Madam Speaker; I'm entirely prepared to do so. I know I've gone on for some time, and perhaps a number of people have lost their attention span. The case I have argued is that the Railway Act amendment — the change to section 287; I quoted it for you, it's on the record — is to amplify the powers of the minister to make

[ Page 2715 ]

regulations governing railways. I have suggested that "railways" — again by reading the legislation — refers to railways, tramways and aerial tramways. I have suggested, because there are no other apparent reasons adduced for those changes to the Railway Act, that what we are dealing with is probably some power being given to the minister so that he can facilitate the dismembering or the privatizing of those rail services.

My most recent comments, Madam Speaker, with all due respect, have been illustrating the limitations of the case about privatization. Because I have considerable knowledge of the subject — having spent some months at it now — I'm in a position to give examples from Great Britain and other jurisdictions which I think will be of help to this House and certainly to the people. I hope that explains my case, Madam Speaker.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You win.

MR. LOVICK: May I continue?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Fine.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you, I shall. I'm surprised that the Provincial Secretary doesn't begin to quote his beloved Shakespeare and say: "Once more unto the breach." He hasn't, so I won't.

The point I've been making is that clearly we all recognize and perceive the limitations of the market economy. In fact, Social Credit Premiers have recognized that; Conservative Prime Ministers have recognized that; almost anybody who occupies the middle and moderate part of the political spectrum recognizes and appreciates that. To summarize the point thus far: my fear is that we are at a point now in our deliberations and activities where we're going to go over the edge from moderate to maniac. I think we're in danger, frankly, of being caught up in what I have otherwise and in other places described as an ideological war. That's a shame, because it's an unproductive war and there will be no victors, just as in most wars.

The financial and organizational restructuring of B.C. Rail in 1984, remember, was also an initiative of your government, Madam Speaker. I'm sorry, I can't say "your" government while you're in the chair; the government of the other side of the House. That intervention, I would humbly submit, was not done for ideological purposes. I don't believe that the government of William Richards Bennett ever said: "You know, what we need, friends, is a little social democracy in B.C." I don't think there was a socialist bone in W.R. Bennett's body. I think, rather, what was recognized was that here was a need, because the marketplace wasn't doing it, for the government to take some action.

Accordingly, in 1984 there was a major financial reorganization and restructuring of B.C. Rail. The reason for that restructuring and reorganization — back again, if I might, to my arguments about economic generators and province-building and instruments of public policy — was primarily the prospect of shipping coal along what was called the Tumbler Ridge extension. The notion of the government at the time was that we had a rich resource sitting in the northeast of the province but we couldn't get to it; we couldn't market it because we didn't have the transportation corridor. Thus the government invested considerable time as well as money studying the prospect and the project and concluded that the government should — if I may use the phrase — bail out B.C. Rail, and did so.

The point is that B.C. Rail, despite its checkered history, despite the fact that it's cost some money, has also opened up a corner of this province that otherwise would not have been, and has made possible the exploitation of rich resources in the northeast, in the hinterland of this province, that otherwise we would not have. We the people have benefited from that resource extraction. Indeed, we have also come to the point where B.C. Rail is now actually reporting some money as well as all those rather amorphous and less definable benefits that I have been enunciating thus far.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We've also got something that members on the other side can certainly appreciate; namely, as Lucy and Peanuts would say, cold, hard cash. "Just give me the cash — cold, hard cash." That's Lucy's line, isn't it, Mr. Speaker? I was watching closely to make sure I didn't accuse you of transvestite tendencies or anything by calling you Madam Speaker. I noted when you came in, sir.

In 1986 the corporation actually paid a common-share dividend: cold, hard cash of $10.3 million to the province. Surely the most obvious and safest conclusion is that the picture is improving.

We have come a long way. The interventions, though at the time they were criticized by members on this side of the House too. certainly, suggesting that perhaps that was not a good investment.... I would remind members, Mr. Speaker, that nobody questioned the validity of the approach, which was that the government has an obligation to get involved in the macroeconomic management of the province in order to create the transportation networks that will enable us to reach and exploit our resources. I think that principle has remained intact. as I say, up to the present.

My point is that perhaps the new initiatives made possible by Bill 19, and what is called the amplification of powers of the Minister of Transportation and Highways to make regulations governing railways.... Those kinds of powers, I fear, also make it possible for government to do things to change the nature of the public ownership of B. C. Rail; to in fact change the approach we have all accepted as given, desirable and commonsensical; to take an approach, it seems to me — and I put the matter as kindly as I'm able — that's ideological in the extreme, zealous. Not moderate, but zealous; a radical initiative.

I suggest that the initiative, as we begin to see more of it, looks to be all the more frightening. We're talking about a massive shift of money and a massive shift of power. By most people's definition, that kind of shift on the sort of scale that has been indicated and intimated by the Premier. who says,"You ain't seen nothing yet," and who says,"But everything is potentially on the block," is what is usually described as small "s," small "r" social revolution. Understandably, when people are confronted with revolutionary activities, especially on the part of government, they become concerned, exercised and upset. Small wonder that we have signs of individuals claiming they will protest government's initiatives.

[5:30]

I want to touch briefly on another small piece of B.C. Rail that tends, unfortunately, to get lost in the shuffle. I am referring now specifically to the properties' division of B.C.

[ Page 2716 ]

Rail. I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if in fact we are saying to the minister responsible for the operation of B.C. Rail that we are amplifying his powers by this quantum amount, then it seems fair to conclude that we are also making it possible for the minister to effectively dispose not only of the actual property — the rolling stock and such — of the railroad, but also its assets. A very large part of those assets of B.C. Rail is land, properties. Indeed, B.C. Rail now owns outright something like 46,000 acres of land. Some may say: "Who wants all that land up there, anyway? It may not be very valuable." I don't think that's true, and I don't think anybody would argue that; I am being facetious. The predicament we have with the land owned by B.C. Rail is that nobody really knows what the value is. There has not been any kind of up-to-date assessment on that property for a very long time.

The issue that some of us perceive as a possible development and eventuality is that we might be in a position, given that the minister has this new amplified power to make regulations, to sell off some assets very quickly and at a very much reduced price, a price much below what those assets ought to bring. Before anybody hastens to say,"You're being entirely unreasonable, Mr. Member; no government in its right mind would do that kind of thing," let me just remind hon. members opposite, if I might, of the experience in Saskatchewan. It's small scale, but nevertheless the point is valid; namely, the privatization of highways in Saskatchewan, where $40 million of equipment was sold for the grand total of $6 million. If it can happen in the "Devine" world of Saskatchewan, it can certainly happen in this fantasy world of British Columbia. I want to suggest that we should be on guard against precisely that kind of thing happening.

I want to go back to a theme I stated some time ago when I was talking about section 2 of the bill: removing the ceiling on the number of parliamentary secretaries. I was arguing the case at that time, you'll recall, that what that kind of measure did was to fuel the cynicism already out there, because people began to wonder whether in fact government was looking out for the people's interests or rather government members' interests. The point I made then and which I come back to now is whether in fact this kind of power given to a minister might also fuel the speculation about some very wealthy people becoming a great deal wealthier by private land speculators being able to buy in at rock-bottom prices and make a great deal of money. The capacity inherent here for patronage, for reward, for corruption, of course is immense.

I'm sure that all members of the House would love to see us guard against those kinds of things ever happening; I would not suggest otherwise for a moment. I think we all ought to be united on that issue. None of us believes in that kind of abuse of the public trust.

One other brief reference that the House Leader opposite and some of my colleagues in the House — I see the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), for example — ought to have some sympathy for is that what B.C. Rail now does, of course, is provide a link, a connection, with northern communities that isn't there otherwise. At least for a good chunk of the year it isn't there. Especially when we talk about the more remote areas — take, for example, the Fort Nelson extension — what do we do if we say to a private operator: "B.C. Rail is now yours to do with as you will"? What do we do if that private operator says: "Well, I'm not making any money on the Fort Nelson extension, so thank you very much. I guess I'm just going to have to leave that one alone"? Or, "I'm going to do the same with Tumbler Ridge," maybe because coal prices will become depressed again, further depressed.

You can argue — and I see a quizzical look crossing the faces of a couple of members opposite: "Well, we can regulate that; we can write the rules into the deal, such that we protect ourselves." I'm suggesting that you probably can't write those kinds of rules in and still get a buyer. I'm submitting that, measured in basic, standard, orthodox economics, probably that extension of B.C. Rail doesn't work, isn't justified. It can only operate if in fact it is a public utility, publicly owned, publicy operated.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask for a little guidance and ask you how much time I have remaining to me?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would suggest about 40 minutes, hon. member.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I have in the past, as I'm sure members opposite well know, spoken for two hours on a particular subject. I'm not going to do so today because I do not have any kind of masochistic impulse deep within.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: My friend the hon. House Leader opposite has offered a rare witticism; to wit, that the others in the House perhaps do have a masochistic impulse, insofar as they are still here. I commend you on that; that's a good line.

Let me touch briefly on the one other area that is part and parcel.... There are two other areas that I could talk about. One is SkyTrain, which, it seems to me, is directly affected by this piece of enabling legislation. I say that and enunciate the point carefully so that my colleagues who may wish to talk about it can. The other, of course, is the development at Whistler.

On Whistler, let me make a very brief but important observation. I hope that members opposite will bear with me as I run through my notes quickly to find this particular part. Interestingly enough, Whistler became a Crown corporation in 1983. Though the government of the day in British Columbia didn't like to use the term and suggested it wasn't a bailout, most of the news media in the province concluded that it was a bailout — that the private operation was not working very well, and therefore the government had better get involved. It was adduced that one of the reasons the government had better get involved was that it had to protect its own investment. That's what the debate at the time makes very clear.

The point I want to draw to your attention, though, is a statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the time, in 1983.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. LOVICK: I think he's come back to public life in British Columbia; he left government for a while, but he returned in a somewhat different incarnation, talking about new beginnings and fresh starts and such stuff.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs in 1983 said that the Whistler development company didn't rate special treatment. As he said in his own immortal phraseology: "We cannot bail them out any more than a private developer."

[ Page 2717 ]

Well, as we know, what happened is that that powerful expression and enunciation of principle lasted a very short time indeed, because the bailout occurred shortly thereafter. The government did get involved. They did something for that private developer. The province assumed control of the company on the grounds that the company had great potential. In other words, the marketplace wasn't doing it. But the government would seize the day, seize the initiative, show that they weren't cowardly, recognize that government does indeed have a role to play in the macroeconomic management of the province, and therefore the government would jump in, despite the wishes of the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the time.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: I know it's not free enterprise, but they did it. The moral of the story is that they did it despite the fact it wasn't free enterprise. They did it because it was economic common sense, because it was a smart thing to recognize that there are jobs that the public sector and government, representing all of the people, ought to do. Part of the recognition was that the other side of the coin — the belief that there is no role for the government to play, that instead everything ought to be privatized, that we should dismantle the state — was simple, unadulterated economic lunacy.

I just want to end with this expression of hope: namely, that this government in 1987 will come to the same conclusions that other governments of the same political persuasion did, and give up on this lunacy of dismantling the state.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On second reading of Bill 59, the Chair recognizes the member for Prince Rupert. [Applause.]

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether they're pounding their desks because my colleague has sat down or I've stood up. Despite that, I will accept the accolades. To quote a headline in the latest provincial government report,"Effective Voice for Regions," I will attempt to do my job for the region I was elected to represent.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Now I want to talk.... But I don't want to shout, so if the members opposite want to lower the level of their catcalls to a slight din, I'll try to speak over it.

AN HON. MEMBER: We were cheering.

MR. MILLER: Oh, they were cheering; sorry. I want to talk about what I think is a principle involved in the bill, and that relates to the removal of the restriction on the number of parliamentary secretaries. I want to talk about it because I think it's relative to our system of government, and that of course is a principle that we will always want to debate.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I quote first of all for the members a statement made by the Premier which has caused me considerable concern since I read it. It was printed in the Sun of March 1, 1986. The Premier said as part of a discussion about government and government decision-making and the process of government that something had to be done to change the "totally antiquated British parliamentary system of government." That concerns me, because I ran and was elected on the premise that the British parliamentary system of government is what we had in place in British Columbia and that there was some conviction or some belief that that was a good system of government, one that's generally subscribed to by British Columbians and one that people didn't want to change.

[5:45]

I suppose the fears I have were enhanced somewhat when a representative of the Premier talked about the creation of the United States of British Columbia. And now, of course, we see that the plans are revealed — revealed for their lack of planning, but revealed nonetheless — and amendments are proposed to lift the ceiling on the number of parliamentary secretaries that can be appointed. It's clear that the reason this is in place is that the government wishes to appoint parliamentary secretaries to the regional ministers or secretaries of state or whatever their handle is; I think they've been called the regional czars — quite an appropriate title.

So we have the premise unfolding that instead of the system of government we normally have come to expect, where a member of the party that wins a majority appoints ministers responsible for certain policy areas and possibly appoints parliamentary secretaries to assist them in their duties, with the responsibility to apply that policy throughout the entire province on a fair basis. we see that the province is now going to be divided up into eight separate regions. That presents a few problems, because the intent of the government's program, as the headline says, is supposed to be an effective voice for the regions.

Yet we have the ludicrous example of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) being appointed the regional voice for the Kootenays. We find that the regional voice for the Nechako area is the member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers). We find that the parliamentary secretaries who are going to assist these ministers of state, these regional czars, in their duties, and who are going to sit on local committees in the region to help them decide what their priorities are, are people who have absolutely no connection with the area.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: You've been invited to join.

MR. MILLER: The Minister of Municipal Affairs talks about this party's refusal to join: I will deal with that, because I think it's fundamental to the argument I'm making.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: If you'll stop interrupting, I'll try to use the 14 minutes I have left to give you a little education, but if you persist in heckling, you might miss the thrust of my argument. So the choice is yours, Madam Minister. I know you to be the kind of minister who likes to listen rather than talk, so settle down.

Here we have the kind of ridiculous development of government where the parliamentary secretary, for example, is going to advise the people in my region about their priorities, is going to sit as a vice-chairman of a regional development committee, is going to travel all the way up from Cowichan-Malahat to Prince Rupert or Terrace and sit down there and say: "I don't really have any concerns in my constituency. Somebody else is taking care of that. I know I

[ Page 2718 ]

was elected to do it, but somebody else is doing it now. I'm coming up north here to help you folks out."

We have the member for Vancouver South, the Minister of Transportation and Highways — at least the current Minister of Transportation and Highways.... He displayed his complete unfamiliarity with highways in northern British Columbia and the severe winter conditions we get, and he is going to go up and advise the folks in Burns Lake and Smithers and those places of their regional priorities.

To compound that, we've had statements from various ministers.... I hope that I'm sticking to the subject, Mr. Speaker: it's the appointment of parliamentary secretaries in a radical departure from what has been traditional in a British parliamentary system.

The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid), who is known for being rather loose in his lips and his comments, much to the embarrassment of members opposite, wandered into the riding of Esquimalt and revealed the true intention of this rather nefarious scheme.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he say?

MR. MILLER: He said: "If you think we're going to let the member for Esquimalt know what's going on in his constituency, forget it. He's not going to know a thing."

Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed because I see members opposite thumping their desks. Obviously they approve. Shame! Shame on that member for North Vancouver!

So here is a government that on the surface says it wants to listen to the people, but when you examine the scheme that they're putting into place it's clear they don't want to listen to the elected representatives of the constituencies of this province.

It's not just my contention that that's the case, because I want to refer to the remarks made by the hon. first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) when he publicly said he had some deep concerns about safety on the highways of British Columbia around the privatization scheme and, when asked why he didn't relay those concerns to the Premier, said: "The Premier doesn't listen to his MLAs." That's from a member of that side.

Perhaps the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) might like to comment on that statement at some point in this debate — a member of the government side.

So here we have a very bad principle in a bill — a bill that, in my opinion, is part of a scheme to dismantle the system of government that we know and that should work so well for us.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: You misunderstand.

MR. MILLER: The minister says I misunderstand. The minister will have lots of opportunity — and I hope she takes advantage of it — to stand up and explain, because one of the other problems that not only we on this side of the House but the public of British Columbia have is the endless stream of contradictions between various ministers and the Premier. That situation got to the ridiculous point where the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) was asked about a particular committee and gave the wrong answer and, when asked about it, said: "Well, I wasn't sure if the Premier might have appointed a committee and didn't tell me about it."

You know, members, we have an obligation. We were elected under a particular system of government. We have an obligation to stand up and speak about how we feel, and I'm hoping that at least some of the members opposite will show the courage displayed by the member for Cariboo in talking about the Premier's unwillingness to listen.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I have to take a sip of water because I'm finding that I have to speak rather loudly to the members. They seem as unprepared to listen to me as their Premier is to listen to them.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: In this hubbub, Mr. Speaker, I've buried my notes, but I'll make a brave attempt to continue without them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member was making a great political speech, but he might try to find the notes that relate to Bill 59.

MR. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's always nice to receive those words of encouragement about my speechmaking abilities.

To return to the point, one other problem that I have in relation to the lifting of the ceiling of the number of parliamentary secretaries is the imbalance that I think is being created in the operation of this House. We saw in the last government that virtually every member on the government side, I think with one exception — I think there was only one individual who was out of favour — was on the payroll. In other words, they had some extra duties; the government gave them some extra duties.

We on this side have extra duties, Mr. Speaker. It's to be, hopefully, an effective opposition. In undertaking that, I feel that it's my responsibility to watchdog the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) in the application of government policy throughout the province of British Columbia. I don't think that it's proper for the Minister of Forests to also be responsible for one region of the province; he is responsible for the entire province. I don't think it's appropriate for the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), who was elected to serve the constituency of Cowichan-Malahat, to be responsible for a region of the province. I think it's appropriate for the member for Cowichan-Malahat to be a parliamentary secretary to a minister responsible for the implementation of a government policy. I see this as a fundamental shift in the system as we know it.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: As much as my speech may entertain the members opposite, I would hope they would be prepared to listen to the arguments of substance contained in what I'm saying. It's all too easy to ignore criticisms — and I've seen this happen in this House — because they come from a quarter that you just simply don't want to listen to. It's all too easy to think that because you happen to be in power, you can tolerate anything that your government proposes to do. You should reflect for a moment on the implications of this kind of policy when you're not in power. I don't want to debate when that might happen, Mr. Speaker, although I'm reasonably confident, given the fact that members over there, on the back bench particularly, very seldom get to their feet, that we will

[ Page 2719 ]

see some changes in this House the next time the people of British Columbia get a chance to register their concerns.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I'm receiving all kinds of good advice, Mr. Speaker, that my words of wisdom are indeed words of wisdom. I see the members opposite are also endorsing my remarks. So I will take this opportunity to move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.