[ Page 5129 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 4: minister's office –– 5129

Mr. Williams

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Gabelmann

The House met at 10:07 a. m.

Prayers.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this morning are three very special people in my life. They are strong supporters of mine, and more important than that, they are very good friends. I'm pleased to introduce my mother-in-law and father-in-law, Herman and Phyllis Hanson from Kelowna. They are accompanied by Mrs. Hanson's sister, Jenny Jessop from Vancouver. Would the House please join me in welcoming them to Victoria.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the gallery today is the mayor from one of my municipalities, Hudson's Hope. I think almost everyone in the province knows about the hydro dams there, which are the source of electricity for British Columbia. What people may not know about are the beautiful lakes that has created and the access to beautiful scenery. The Peace River is the only river that cuts through the heart of the Rocky Mountains from one side to the other. Also, I might mention that it is probably very quickly becoming the world centre for fox farming as a result of the initiative of people in Hudson's Hope. I would like the House to give a very special welcome to mayor Les Braaten from Hudson's Hope.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the precinct today are two people from the central Fraser Valley. On behalf of the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) and myself, I would like to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Ben Epp. Would the House please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
(continued)

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

MR. WILLIAMS: This is the most expensive Premier's office in the history of British Columbia, so I guess if we want to look at cost effectiveness, we should just see what we get for our dollars there in terms of results.

It's interesting to reflect on the Premier's first trip to Europe after becoming Premier. We all recall that those were euphoric days. When the Premier came back, he announced likely new major projects in British Columbia. He said, when he came back on February 16, 1987, that plans for a $50 million meat-processing plant for the Prince George area to be constructed as early as the summer of 1987 were pretty well concluded. It was going to make sausages for export to Germany. There were going to be 600 jobs and the price tag was $50 million. Maybe the Premier could advise us where that plant stands now.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This particular group could not get their finances together without some further government participation. The policy of our government has been that we will not give grants or continue low-interest loans and the like; industry has to stand on its own. This policy has been very well received, incidentally. Generally speaking, a number of industries that might otherwise have turned to government for some assistance have proceeded on their own in any event, once informed of the policy now in place. Because of it we are seeing healthier industries established throughout the province.

The meat-processing plant was well researched by the people from Germany. They saw a market in that we produce only about 22 percent at best, and 18 percent at a low, of the meat consumed in the province, so we can certainly produce and process much more meat for our own purposes.

We've had a problem with feedlots, in that they found it difficult to compete with Alberta because of the various subsidies that are in effect for grain in Alberta to assist the feedlot operators. We've made some considerable change in that respect, however, because we recognize that we must try and encourage these same operations here in order to see the meat-processing and such other activities furthered.

This first proposal has not been lost entirely on us, in that as recently as April or so further discussions were being held with the initial proponents about this. In the meantime we have had other people look at both Kamloops and Prince George. The rationale for Prince George initially was much that there is a large labour force available. It's close to the Peace, so they can get their grain for feedlot purposes. Obviously there is a lot of beef that might be raised in the Nechako and Cariboo areas.

It has not been lost entirely. In the meantime, as I said, there are other people looking at it. I'm not giving up. I'm not the pessimist who throws in the towel and says it must be over. That's obviously not my nature, and that's not the nature of people on this side. in any event, We are optimistic. We keep working at it, which is why we're seeing so much progress in so many areas. Those things don't always come about exactly as we wished them initially. We don't give up; we continue on.

I expect that we'll still conclude something and if not, hopefully we can get back to the initial proponents and find others to pick up on this. Much of the work has been done, and much of the material is available. We are talking to at least three parties in total now, one of which is looking at both locations, another which is looking to government for advice on location, and the initial proponent.

[10:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: It's fascinating, Mr. Premier; the saga continues. We don't know where this plant stands now. In the interim, there have been New Yorkers, and then there is somebody else. Prince George was interesting because there was a labour force there. Now Kamloops is interesting because there is 20 percent unemployment there. The opportunities in British Columbia are absolutely boundless.

Mr. Premier, you said that this project would involve 5,000 hogs a week — that is, the sausage plant in Prince George. Could you tell the House if you have any idea how many hogs there are in British Columbia currently?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't have the exact information of how many hogs there are in the province of British Columbia. I haven't done a count or a tally of the hogs. Frankly, I expect it changes from day to day for a

[ Page 5130 ]

variety of reasons, therefore I don't have the information available for my estimates right now. I should have anticipated the question of how many hogs there are in British Columbia. We hear from the member, and obviously there is a great deal of pessimism there: he doesn't think the area is capable of providing for a meat-processing plant — be it in Prince George, Kamloops or both.

I will repeat, and perhaps I can best sum it up in this particular quote: "We won't give up. We're continuing to work for this." Mr. Member for Vancouver East, better an optimist who falls short than a pessimist who wins.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Optimist, Mr. Premier, I checked Statistics Canada and the number for this year in all of British Columbia is 219,000 hogs. Your plant in Prince George was going to require 5,000 hogs a week; 5,000 times 52 comes to 260,000. Why, before a year was up, there would be no more hogs to run through the sausage factory. There are similar problems with cattle.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: I see. But we already have other plants that are only 50 percent capacity, Mr. Premier. Most of our other plants are running at 50 percent. So all the existing plants with sunk capital and paid-off mortgages would have a distinct economic advantage over the new plant in Prince George. They would use the product in their plants.

You wonder what kind of briefing, what kind of data you stuff in your pockets on your way to Europe. You wonder how you meet these folks on your way to Europe. You wonder what kind of help you get. Although you've been firing the civil service right and left, there are still a fair number of civil servants in this province who might have told you how many cows there are in the province, how many hogs, and basically how feasible this idea was of a huge meat packing plant in Prince George.

On February 18, following your trip to Europe, Mr. Premier, you said: "The project is definitely going ahead." I wonder if you're aware of the study carried out in 1984 by the Ministry of Forests that looked at rangeland in British Columbia. That's the base for cattle, by the way — forage with respect to the grassland. They said they doubted the feasibility of ranching expansion. Your own experts in grazing in the civil service in the province doubted the feasibility of ranching expansion in terms of producing the number of cattle you're talking about for that particular operation.

John Berry, the regional director for Agriculture Canada, said: "I don't know of anybody having done a detailed analysis with respect to this plant." Mr. Premier, isn't it reasonable that a detailed analysis should take place before you talk about spending $50 million and before you say construction will begin this summer?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm going to have to remind people here — everybody's been trying to forget — that the member for Vancouver East was once a minister, and he was noted for one thing particularly: he milled out more studies, alone in his ministry, than anyone ever saw for the whole of government in the history of the province. He was called the study king. He had more studies on each and every thing, and he was involved in a number of activities.

As I recall, you came to see us one time when I was the mayor in Surrey. You were going to establish an oil refinery in Surrey. You had all sorts of meetings for this oil refinery in Surrey. Of course, we as a council had some concerns about this, and you weren't too concerned about the concerns we had. In any event, we did talk about this, and you had all sorts of studies. Then you went to Richmond and were going to establish a steel mill, if you recall. The steel mill never came about, of course, but there was a lot of talk and a lot of meetings. And you had one proposed for Prince George. I'm not faulting you for proposing these things. Undoubtedly, all of those studies that you produced might have filled the whole of this room, because you had studies for everything. You had bureaucrats and civil servants working on studies, and you had every consultant in the province employed for studies. We know all of those things, and we've gone through that experience. You're now suggesting we should have civil servants counting hogs.

But forget all of that for the moment. The point I would like to make is that I don't fault you for all the proposals. Where I would fault you is that you never saw it through. Mind you, in fairness, you weren't there that long. But you never did see it through. There's always that air of pessimism which prevails with members on the other side, as it did when they were in government as well. Again, we are pursuing this. We will continue to pursue this. If there aren't enough hogs in the province, the Cariboo is big country; and so is the rest of this province. Nechako and all of those places have much opportunity for increasing farming activity.

The agricultural community can expand in a variety of ways. We saw greater growth in that community in 1987 than we've seen in the history of this province. Agricultural income in 1987 was at a record high, and '88 is going to be better still, and we're going to continue to work for agricultural people, for farmers to have opportunities in this province. We want to see every sector of this economy grow and expand and produce jobs and create economic activity.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's all good fun, Mr. Premier, but it's become the hallmark of this administration that there aren't the studies, that there isn't the homework and that the Premier sets himself up for a pratfall almost every time he opens his mouth. The problem with this administration is that you generally don't carry out the studies. You talk before you think, and you pay the price. There's no question about that.

If the regional director of Ag Canada says there are no studies.... Dr. MacEachern, whom you since got rid of, said no major provincial studies were underway either. It's business as usual in the Premier's office.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: I just know that when you spend $50 million, you'd better do your homework or you're going to lose the money. It's as simple as that. I hesitate to remind the Premier that when he was mayor of Surrey he hired yours truly to carry out a few studies in Surrey that he subsequently followed, which was some of the best work he did in Surrey.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: You overcharged us.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sure I did.

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

[ Page 5131 ]

bucks in subsidies: $250,000 from the province, $250,000 from the feds. That's a subsidy. Other people in the industry are concerned about it because it's a subsidy. You know that's unfair.

There's another kind of subsidy that tells us about the success of the cattle industry currently in British Columbia: $17 million in farm income insurance. It's the worst in modern history here. There we are.

The interesting thing is that it wasn't until July 29 of last year that we were told that that group was looking for $30 million in interest-free loans. I think that was the plan all along. When you came back from Europe, we didn't hear any of that stuff. It was gung ho. It was 50 million bucks, it was private sector money, it was construction, it was jobs, and it was all going to happen.

The press came out and said: "It's taking a dive. It isn't going to happen after all." Then you said: "Holy smokes! They couldn't be further wrong than that." That was said from Fantasy Gardens, so it might have been tongue-in cheek. You said: "It's slow, but not dead." Then you said: "Well, there's a New York firm interested too."

I think you knew right from the beginning, Mr. Premier, because I've looked back in Hansard. When you look at those fudging words of yours in Hansard on this question from the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), you said this on March 10 last year. This is what you said when asked about the sausage plant in Prince George: "What I expect will be asked of us is that we assist the farmers." Well, everybody knows that it's fair to help out the farmers; at least that's the tradition in this part of the world. And then you said: "You can't have a plant sitting waiting too long." Well no, $50 million, throw an interest rate at that, it's $500,000 a month. No, you can't have an empty plant sitting too long. Then you said: "So we need to perhaps" — the wording keeps repeating itself — "be involved in somehow assisting the farmers." That's what you said in March.

That was the smell of a scam, Mr. Premier: $30 million worth of help to farmers. What was the real scheme? The real scheme was to give farmers money to buy shares, $30 million worth, in the sausage plant. That's what the promoters wanted. That's not exactly "help the farmers," Mr. Premier.

The same scam, the same exercise, is underway with respect to the ethanol thing up in the Peace River country. It's the same kind of game. You can cloud it and say: "We're against subsidies. We don't want to give industry subsidies in British Columbia. It's free enterprise. Everybody sink or swim on your own. Use your brains and your effort. If you win, great, and if you sink, okay."

[10:30]

You'll always buy the scam. We'll help out the farmers, perhaps. We can figure out a way, perhaps, to help out the farmers, maybe, because it's reasonable to help the farmers. The industry has declined a bit, and what we'll do is help them buy shares in the sausage plant. Come on! That was the scam all along. It's pretty clear now that the thing was a fiction or a scam. You can say they may be new people from New York. Hey, if they can con you from Germany, watch out for those guys from New York. And maybe we'll go to Kamloops.

The world isn't just a world of salesman, Mr. Premier. I'm sorry to say the modern world is one that requires the studies; it does require that backup. That really is one of the problems of this administration. You think you can keep gutting the civil service. You think you can accept the golden handshake all over the place and not lose great depth in terms of human capital. Well, you can't, and there's a tremendous rebuilding job to be done in British Columbia already because of what you've wrought in terms of the public service to this province — let alone the pratfalls, the one-day wonders and the comments from between the car and buildings and so on.

I've thought about it. Mr. Premier. and I don't know what kind of machines they need in a German sausage factory. I didn't get into the question of the need for analysis of the Subsidies and overcapacity and tariffs in the European common market because we were going to send sausages to Germany. Those are only details, and only bureaucrats or planners would be interested in them. How does it really matter when you're spending $50 million. That's all that counts. "It's just good news, and I'm a good-news man."

But I've thought about the kind of machine you need in a sausage factory. I think a useful item in a sausage factory might be one big bull-chipper, and I just wonder if the Premier is ready to volunteer.

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

I don't know whether to take all this stuff seriously. It's unreal. This is such deep debate. We go from counting hogs to buying bull-chippers. Obviously things can't be so bad when the opposition has little more to talk about than such trivia.

I want to get back to the studies the member is obviously concerned about. I appreciate that he wants more studies, and I can well understand why the steel mill, the oil refinery, the other steel mill and all those things that were proposed during the NDP years didn't come about, because with all those studies and all those pessimisms, obviously it can't happen. There are all these problems in Europe, so therefore it can't take place. I don't see how anything could ever get built with that attitude, and it prevailed during those years. Heaven forbid it should ever happen again, and I'm sure it won't.

I do want to address, as well, a bit of innuendo which is continually used by some members — particularly the first member for Vancouver East — about different things. He very casually mentioned in the course of his remarks that Western Lettuce Now received a grant for $500,000. You know, of course, that was very carefully.... You'll remember there was a long delay in the grant being given to.... I forget the name of the firm it's adjacent to.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Bevo. The critic for Agriculture knows about this, as does the House Leader and the Leader of the Opposition, because all these people were, I understand, called by the proponents for this. I was getting messages back from the proponents: why couldn't we deal with this, because the Leader of the Opposition and other people agreed? Since they had talked to them, as well as other members on both sides, we handled that very cautiously. It did not, nor would it, go to Western Lettuce Now. It went to another firm. It so happened that the person that manages Western Lettuce Now also manages the other. That's where the only connection comes. To suggest that somehow Western Lettuce received a grant for $500,000 when they've stood well on their own feet without any government help.... They did it all themselves. They built eight acres of green-

[ Page 5132 ]

house; they're employing dozens of people; they're exporting lettuce, cucumbers and peppers to the United States as far away as New York and California. They're good, taxpaying citizens. They work from early morning until late at night, and you stand up there, Mr. Planner, Mr. Member for Vancouver East and put these people down to somehow having accomplished this because they got government help. That's what you do all the time. You put people down and you don't care who they are, where they are, how hard they work or how much they contribute. You always, in the course of it, have to put somebody down.

You sit there — the majority of you — and spend your time and have your researchers find people whom you can insult, put down and belittle and whom you can make out to be people who live off government, as you do, people who always need to get assistance from someplace else and who aren't being given credit for their own efforts. Why do you have to do this all the time? I wanted to address that other innuendo which you so nicely slipped in, and it's too bad this happens so often.

MR. HARCOURT: You should speak about innuendo.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's right, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, Leader of the Opposition. I guess you remember last night, when the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) started the whole thing again with innuendo. It doesn't matter whether innuendo is given by question or by comment. Innuendo is innuendo, and if you start that stuff, I suppose we could probably — and it's very difficult for us — follow on the same course. We're not that way. Somehow you always have to play that game, and I regret that, because you bring in other people — not people in the House but people outside the House who don't deserve to be involved, who really shouldn't be dragged into it.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's interesting, you know. The problem, Mr. Premier, is not a subsidy particular to any company. The problem is you talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are the one who paraded around this province saying, "I don't believe in subsidies and I'm not going to give them," and at the very same time you've given them. Whether it's Bevo.... I don't know who they are and I don't care.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm standing up and saying it because it's Bevo, and there was some involvement with Western Lettuce. At any rate, the important point is that $500,000 in subsidies was granted in the last six months by this administration, half of the money coming out of the coffers of British Columbia and half out of national revenue. You go around the province spouting off about no subsidies, and then you dip into the till and give them. Well, make up your mind, Mr. Premier. Are you for subsidies or are you against them'? Answer. If you're against them, will you take the $500,000 back from the lettuce outfit'?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We still have a subsidiary agreement in place with the federal government. We have attempted to change some of those agreements whereby there would not be the involvement with them on a subsidy basis, but hopefully we could take another approach. We have not been successful in getting these changes made. These agreements supply across the country, and obviously British Columbia is going to try and work and do whatever is necessary to get its fair share of federal programs. These are available because we paid for them. We are not getting as much as we should in many of those areas, so where they have such programs — unless they want to change them as we would seek the changes — we are going to try and get a fair share of them.

Let me say as well that you made reference to Agrifuels. Agrifuels was supported by the mayors and the councils locally. We had delegations from the agricultural community. We put a proposal to them and said: "If you can meet these requirements, then our participation will be as follows." They haven't been able to come up with that package or with those conditions, and until they do, there is no involvement by us. But it was the agricultural community that sought some involvement and our participation in that particular project.

MR. WILLIAMS: It would be interesting if the Premier could advise the House what studies his Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) carried out with respect to Agrifuels and whether he ever recommended the project. I'm sure he didn't, because the Ministry of Economic Development turned it down seven times, so you shunted it off to the agricultural boys who don't have any background in this kind of work. Ask the Minister of Energy, Mr. Premier, how many of these plants in North America are occupied and producing that product now. Fifty percent capacity, Mr. Premier. You check with your Minister of Energy. He'll tell you that agrifuel plants across North America are running at 50 percent capacity. Doesn't that tell you volumes about whether you should add to that industry? Doesn't anything register? Is it unreasonable to ask for a study from your Minister of Energy on the viability of an ethanol plant up there? No, I guess it doesn't. You keep up that game you're in, and you'll have us broke in no time.

I'd like to get back to the other good news you keep telling us about. Remember back in November 1986 when you promised us South African prefabs? You said that there was a deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars after you met with Mr. Babb, the ambassador to Canada from South Africa. What happened, Mr. Premier?

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

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm just waiting, and there are people all over British Columbia just waiting. The people in Prince George, Vanderhoof and now Kamloops are just waiting for these big projects and these big plants that the Premier has promised us. After you met with Mr. Babb, Mr. Premier, you said that you were going to get a more firm proposal this time from other representatives. Could the Premier advise us what other representatives he met with regarding the firm proposals for the hundreds of millions in investment from South Africa?

[10:45]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again the member calls for more studies, but he's against meat processing. He says it won't work. He's against agrifuels; he says it won't work. He's against prefab housing for South Africa because I

[ Page 5133 ]

suppose it's a philosophical thing. But we did pursue it, and we did have private sector people look at this. As a matter of fact, I met with the Hon. Joe Clark, and the advice I was given was that it would be difficult to obtain export permits for prefab housing to South Africa. So if a private entrepreneur was able to arrange or to arrive at an agreement with a purchaser in South Africa and was able to design the sort of unit they are seeking.... These units, as I understand it, were to be used for the very low-income people in South Africa.

If that arrangement could be arrived at, the message given us by the Hon. Joe Clark is that it would be difficult — if not impossible, I gather — to obtain an export permit. So now you know the history of that. It certainly wasn't something that the private sector wished to pursue, given that information from the minister responsible in Ottawa. Having said that again, I don't think we should give up attempting to see what other opportunities might exist for prefab housing elsewhere in the world or, for that matter, to try to convince Ottawa that if 50,000 houses could be sold to assist lowincome people in South Africa, this could be a good deal for those people as well as for people in the province working in this industry.

I know we disagree philosophically on that, and we can debate that separately. I don't have any problem with that debate. The bottom line again is that you appear to be against all of those things and say that it can't be done, or that we must have a lot of studies — but given that, it won't happen anyway because of conditions in Europe or Africa or wherever. I don't believe that we should be so pessimistic about all things. You continue on this pessimism, but despite your pessimism, we in government have a great of optimism, and the results are showing.

The forest industry has never been healthier in that we are seeing expansion in pulp and paper and of sawmills, and we're seeing logging activity growing throughout the province. There is lots of activity in the forestry sector. The mining sector is picking up. For the first time in many years, there is growth and new activity in the mining sector. I've already mentioned that 1987 was a record year in agricultural activity as far as income was concerned. In 1987, tourism was at an all-time high, except for Expo 86 which was a little ahead. That was certainly a wonderful but unusual year in that regard, but 1987 led history otherwise in numbers and revenue.

In manufacturing activity, we led the whole country in relative growth. We're ahead of Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and the Maritimes; we're leading the country. All of this activity didn't come about because we were a bunch of pessimists looking for studies. All of this came about because we have in Victoria now a very optimistic, positive government that isn't looking for studies and commissions and committees, but which says British Columbians are capable of doing these things.

Whether it's Vanderhoof, Quesnel, the Okanagan, the Kootenays or the Peace, things are happening throughout this great province because we have capable, positive people and an entrepreneurial spirit. Despite the NDP and your comments, that entrepreneurial spirit will prevail, and we will continue to see the economy grow.

MR. KEMPF: As I sat in my office listening to my monitor, I really wasn't going to enter this debate, but I've heard some words bantered around this morning that I think require a little clarification. One of the words used a number of times in that gallant speech we just heard from the Premier is "pessimism."

I guess I've got to ask this House this morning if the 65 loggers who will show up tomorrow at 10 o'clock at the B.C. Forest Service office in Burns Lake boycotting the small business sales going up at that time are pessimistic. They're not pessimistic, Mr. Premier; they're fighting for their very lives. They're fighting for their very livelihood, which this government, through its actions, has taken from them and is giving to the multinationals. If that's what you call progress in this province, and you throw at this side of the floor that we're pessimistic....

You know, I never thought, hon. members, that I would ever advocate carrying a placard, but I'll carry a placard tomorrow morning along with my constituents in Burns Lake for the first time in my life. I never, ever thought that I would do that in the province of British Columbia, but those loggers, those small mill operators, have their backs to the wall. They have nowhere to go. Their livelihood is being taken from them — and they're called pessimistic?

I want to talk a little about the meat-packing plant for Vanderhoof. The story I heard thrown across from that side of the floor this morning is absolutely false, Mr. Premier, and you know it. I was very involved, as you very well know, because I set up the meetings. I set up the two-day tour you had to look at those kinds of plants in Germany. You know perfectly well that it was not money for the meat-packing plant they were looking for. They were looking for government to support the agriculturalist.

All they wanted from this government was a little help to ensure the agriculturalist, the farmer, a place in that scenario. All they asked for was a little backing to ensure that feedlots could become a reality, so that plant would not run out of the raw material necessary to keep it going. Yes, there weren't enough hogs in this province to support it; there weren't enough cattle in this province. But there could have been with just a little support from government.

Don't you tell this House that the financiers from Germany weren't about to put up the whole amount to build that plant, because they were. It was my constituent, whom I have been a friend of for many years, who was behind it, and I knew the ins and outs of that proposal. That proposal was dashed.

HON. MR. REID: By you.

MR. KEMPF: If it was my involvement that dashed it, and if that's why the government of the day put it down, that's a real indication of the kind of government we have.

You know, I wasn't going to enter this debate, hon. members, because it isn't necessary to throw innuendo across this floor in order to tell what the people of British Columbia think about the present administration. All you have to do is go out there in the hinterland. They'll tell you in no uncertain terms what they think about this administration.

We have to get straight in this House exactly what happened with respect to the possibilities of that plant in Vanderhoof. That plant, that employment, that $50 million windfall to the province. that building of a future for our agriculturalists, which they don't have now.... In fact, Mr. Premier, you'll find out in the next X number of months, because the policy of your Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) with respect to stumpage asked on agricultural leases

[ Page 5134 ]

will land back in your lap. Much of that land could have been turned into a very prosperous industry for the agriculturalist, growing what is necessary in that area — it's the best grain growing area in British Columbia, outside of the Peace River — to support that plant. You'll get that agricultural land back in your lap, because you have no idea what you're doing to the agriculturalist out there by stumpage rates. You have no idea what you're doing to the small mill operator and logger, the very people that we went to the polls, Mr. Premier, back on October 22, 1986, to support; the very people I went around my riding telling that the administration you had was going to support them. That hasn't come about. They've got their backs to the wall, those little guys who may seem unimportant, who aren't great in numbers and who possibly don't support, in a monetary nature, a particular party. But they are very important to me as the member for Omineca. They're very important to this province, as you will see come the next election. Asking $25 a cubic metre — in many cases, more than they can get for the end-product at the mill gate. And you call them pessimists.

Mr. Chairman, we've just got to get a few things straight here. Mr. Premier, on behalf of those small operators I ask you at this time to reconsider, to redirect your Forests minister in what he's doing to the small business person in the forest industry of this province; to go to Burns Lake tomorrow and say: "We've made a mistake. We're not going to break you. There is a place for the little guy in the forest industry of this province." I ask you this today in this chamber in all seriousness, because those people have nowhere to turn. It is their livelihood. It is not just their livelihood, hon. members; it's their way of life. You will be eliminating a way of life in this province, and I think that is worth talking about in this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, hon. member, I think it only fair to caution all hon. members that.... Although I recall with a great deal of clarity that when this debate started yesterday it was suggested that it would generally be a free-wheeling kind of debate, I would just like to remind members that we are in fact dealing with the estimates of the Premier. We're not dealing with the estimates of the Minister of Forests; neither are we dealing with the Ministry of Agriculture. Just so that everybody will know where we stand, we're dealing with vote 4, the office of the Premier.

MR. HARCOURT: Yes, indeed we are dealing with the office of the Premier. That's the whole point of why this government is in such dreadful trouble — the worst we've seen in this province.

I want to deal with an involvement of the office of the Premier, not just in every aspect of British Columbia government and business but in international affairs too. I am referring to some comments the Premier made about South Africa. He stated that there was a philosophical difference between him and the member for Vancouver East. Mr. Chairman, it's not a philosophical difference; it's a question of morals. It's the moral issue of 26 million black people being enslaved by three million white people; that's the issue.

It was the Premier who said we were going to sell prefab homes to the people in Soweto and in the black townships. What a ridiculous Fantasy Garden idea! They're going to be sold to the white enslavers of those black people; that's who they're going to. When he meets with the ex-Ambassador of South Africa, Mr. Babb, he legitimizes that enslaving.

He also said that it was Joe Clark who blocked the bid to arrange the export of prefab homes, and he went on to say that B.C. should lobby the federal government to change its views so that we could again encourage the export to South Africa. We don't have a philosophical difference, Mr. Premier. We have a moral difference about an immoral state called South Africa. I would like to ask the Premier whether he disagrees with the federal government's position on the economic sanctions against South Africa. Is that what he's trying to change?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's interesting. I've heard that member, the Leader of the Opposition, say time and time again that the Premier is trying to impose his moral views on the people of the province, that somehow what he's saying will be an imposition; when he expresses his views it's an imposition on the people of the province. Even my expressing an opinion on a particular moral issue is an imposition on the people of the province.

[11:00]

Now he says exporting homes for the poor people of South Africa is a moral issue, and that's why we're against it, and that's why we'll block it, and that's why we'll deny the manufacture of 50,000 homes in this province, and that's why we'll deny employment to people in the forestry sector, and that's why we'll stop a factory being built in Chilliwack or some other place manufacturing these homes — because it's a moral issue. It's our moral issue, he says, and therefore we're going to stop it; it won't happen.

I don't know where he's coming from. Frankly, I guess, it's the same old stuff. It's a bit of fence-sitting, and you sit a little bit depending on which way the wind blows when you're sitting on the fence. That's the sort of thing that I don't think helps a great deal.

I don't think we need to pursue this particular issue a whole lot. We know now that it's a moral issue for the NDP, not a philosophical issue. We know that because it's their moral issue they are going to try to do whatever to Put a stop to it. We won't get into where he gets his information as to which people will benefit by this, but I think most thinking people will appreciate that a 600-square-foot prefab home is not for the rich of South Africa. But be that as it may, he'll figure this out. Common sense doesn't mean a whole lot in any event, I guess.

We don't have to discuss this any longer except to say that if we can provide jobs for people; if we can provide economic growth; if we can provide opportunities for people to manufacture prefab homes to send to people regardless of where they are; if there are people in need, be they people in South Africa, in Europe, in South America, Russia, Asia, you name it, we should not say because it's our moral view we'll somehow deny them this opportunity.

Anyway, he related all this to the Premier's office by saying that it's because of the Premier that we're in such great trouble. Let me remind the Leader of the Opposition again that if having a healthy forest industry.... We're seeing expansion in building in the forestry sector, and the building of hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of pulp mills and paper mills throughout the province. If that's because of the Premier's office, I don't think it's so bad; I don't think things are so bad. If having new growth in the mining sector and finding employment for miners, keeping miners employed, finding an opportunity for them to meet their mortgage payments and to buy their food and to do things for their

[ Page 5135 ]

families, for their children, is bad because of the Premier's office, I don't feel so bad. If growth in the agricultural sector and in tourism, a record growth in manufacturing, leading the country, is so bad because of the Premier's office, hey, I don't make too many apologies. I say, give me more of the same, and I think people throughout the province will say, give us more of the same.

MR. HARCOURT: If the Premier really believes that, he has indeed taken on the persona of his Fantasy Gardens. If he thinks he can control the international price of copper, if he thinks he grew all the trees in this province, if he thinks that he's out there being the farmers of this province, if he thinks he's doing all that work out of his Premier's office, then indeed he has missed the whole point of our internationally based provincial economy. The Premier's office has grown to a proportion that even that kind of an ego shouldn't be able to contain.

Let's return to the Premier's office. We're not talking about the British Columbia economy; we're talking about the Premier's office in British Columbia. Let's talk about what's wrong with this province. This Premier and this Premier's office and this government are what's wrong with this province — not the people, not the provincial economy. You're what's wrong with this province, Mr. Premier.

I'll tell you why: because you don't understand your job. You don't understand what a Premier should and shouldn't do. A man who believes in morals and moral convictions should practise them. Practise them; don't just say it. And let's talk about where you're wrong.

I would like to let you know that your behaviour in the B.C. Enterprise Corporation sale of the B.C. Place lands and your involvement on behalf of your friend, Peter Toigo, was demeaning, unacceptable and an abuse of your office. It should never happen again. Let's make it clear; there is no innuendo here. We are not talking about Peter Toigo at all. We have never said that what he did was wrong. He was being a businessman. He was looking at a business deal, and that's perfectly proper. What was wrong was what you and David Poole did on behalf of your friend. That's what's wrong, Mr. Premier. You're what's wrong.

Let's look at the chronology of events, just to refresh your memory. On December 2, 1987, the Premier brings Peter Toigo's offer to the cabinet, saying that it was supported by businessman Sam Belzberg. On December 9, 1987, the cabinet decides to forward Toigo's offer to the B.C. Enterprise Corporation board of directors. On December 11, 1987, your own Economic Development minister discovers that the Belzberg claim is false and decides against the Toigo offer. Instead of leaving well enough alone, the Premier keeps it going.

On February 4, 1988, at a B.C. Enterprise Corporation meeting, the board is told that Mr. Toigo's offer is still on the table until February 29. The B.C. Enterprise Corporation decides to focus on one or two other bids. On March 4, not leaving well enough alone again, the Premier blindly blunders on with this interference from his office by appointing his principal secretary — directly, not indirectly anymore — to the B.C. Enterprise Corporation board, as though he hasn't got enough to do.

On March 11, 1988, Mr. Poole tells the board that Mr. Toigo's offer is still on the table. The board is absolutely shocked, after having already rejected Mr. Toigo's offer. On March 16, 1988, the cabinet is told of two offers — Mr. Li Ka-shing's and the Vancouver Land Corp.'s — and agrees that the offer from the highest bidder, Mr. Li, should be negotiated further. The Premier asks questions, not about those two offers but about Mr. Toigo's offer, once again not seeing the total inappropriateness of his involvement in this matter.

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

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

MR. HARCOURT: March 17 and 18, Mr. Premier; I am sure you are aware of them. I am sure you are aware of these involvements of your office for your friend. The Ministry of Economic Development officer receives an inquiry on how Mr. Toigo can reach Mr. Li. The Ministry of Economic Development and the B.C. Enterprise Corporation board discover that Mr. Toigo has gone to Hong Kong, and Mr. Li is phoned to remind him, as the Premier knew full well, of the confidentiality clause in the bidding procedure, and advise Mr. Li not to meet with Mr. Toigo.

On March 21, 1988, Mr. Toigo phones Mr. Vander Zalm and tells him he was barred from meeting with Mr. Li. Mr. Vander Zalm calls an emergency cabinet meeting and asks why his friend can't get in to see Mr. Li.

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

MR. HARCOURT: March 21. A cabinet minister asks how Mr. Toigo discovered that Mr. Li's bid was the final one. Conflict between the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), which is well documented, starts over the B.C. Enterprise Corporation decision-making. On March 21, 1988, in Hong Kong, Mr. Li's office is told that the only way that they can get the deal done is to combine with Mr. Toigo. Mr. Li rejects that involvement.

On March 21, 1988, the Minister of Economic Development calls an emergency meeting of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation representatives and informs them of the cabinet meeting, and the board's response is extremely angry. That is when, Mr. Chairman, we made it very clear that that was an inappropriate, wrong involvement by the Premier and Mr. Poole in the bidding process for the B.C. Place lands.

Mr. Premier, you don't know how to be Premier. You don't understand the complexity. You don't understand the duty that you have to the public. You don't understand what's right and wrong. You don't understand that you can't ignore the rule of law and the Supreme Court of Canada, as you tried to do with the abortion matter in this country. You don't understand that you just can't wander around poking into boards, independent commissions, on behalf of friends. You can't sic your office staff to run interference for your friends to do their business deals.

Mr. Premier, if you think you are so right and you're so moral and you're correct, let's draw the line right now. If you think that the people of British Columbia feel you're listening to them, that you're in touch, that everything is rosy, let's draw the line right now, outside of this House. We'll step up to it. If you think you're right, let's call an election right now, Mr. Premier. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, I'm a fair man.

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

[ Page 5136 ]

MR. HARCOURT: That's right, you're a loser, Mr. Minister. Let's talk about winning and losing. Let's talk about 1984, the mayoralty campaign in 1984, Minister of Tourism. Let's talk about winning and losing: 1984 in Vancouver, a two-to-one margin. A visit from Fantasy Garden for three weeks into the city.... The Premier got whipped. He got whipped two to one by the mayor of the time, who just happens to now be the Leader of the Opposition.

Let's talk about the next time we had a chance to go to the people. We had a chance, the Premier and I, to go and talk to the people about the way this province should be run. It's called Boundary-Similkameen. Do you know what happened there? The Premier got whipped. The Premier got so whipped and he was so shocked, because he didn't want to listen to bad news; he didn't want to listen to negativism; he didn't want to listen to Mr. Poole bursting into our dinner with the Lieutenant-Governor, giving him this terrible news that he didn't want to hear from the people of Boundary-Similkameen, who sent him a message, almost two to one again, that he's wrong, that he's not listening, that he's unfair and that he's interfering on behalf of his friends.

I say to you, Mr. Premier, that if your Minister of Tourism wants to talk about winning and losing, and wants to find out who's right and who's wrong, let's go to an election. I'll give you a third chance, Mr. Premier. Let's go for an election right now on whether you're right or wrong.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, this is most interesting. I find that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is still wanting to be the mayor of Vancouver, because he keeps repeating what happened in 1984. Being mayor of Vancouver is not the same as being Premier; there is a difference. When you're the Premier you have to think about the whole of the province; you can't be concentrating simply on Vancouver. Being Premier means that you care about the Cariboo and you care about the Peace and you care about the Nechako and you care about the Kootenays, and you care about all of those areas throughout the whole of this great province. Being Premier is not being mayor of Vancouver; there is a difference. You keep going back to being mayor of Vancouver. And you don't make reference to the fact that you ran in Vancouver-Little Mountain twice for provincial office and you were thumped. You don't make reference to that. That's fine. You keep coming back to the fact that you were the mayor of Vancouver. Enough of that. But I know you'll mention it again probably. You'll probably again make reference to it at some time.

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's true. What would have happened if Gary Lauk had stayed on, if he hadn't resigned? I wonder where the mayor of Vancouver would be today.

I respect you for having said.... "Mr. Toigo did nothing wrong," you said. Mr. Toigo did nothing wrong; he acted as a businessman and he did....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Fine. It's a good point, and I appreciate that. And I agree with you. It's too bad that he has been dragged through so much and had so much publicity. He's a man who employs a lot of people in this province — I believe between 3,000 to 3,500 people. He has invested a lot of money in this province. He in fact for a time, because of all of the statements being made in the House by the opposition and by the media, left the province, spent a great deal of time elsewhere, and said he wouldn't invest again. He was a very discouraged man. He was very distraught at all of this — and understandably too. So I appreciate you saying that. I think it's very worthy, and I appreciate those comments.

[11:15]

Then you say the onus is really on the Premier. All of that which happened was the Premier's fault, and it was wrong, you say — many things wrong, terrible, enough that really all of this publicity and all of the things said and all of the things done and all of the innuendo and all of the columns by some of the people in the newspapers and the coverage on TV was worthy of it. The Premier really did a terrible wrong. So let's go over it, because you gave a good outline. You obviously did some homework. You've got all of those dates. Some of them I would question, but you're close enough. We'll go by your dates and accept them as given.

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It doesn't matter so much about the dates. You go on to say that on December 2 the Premier's office received an offer from Mr. Toigo and took it to cabinet — a terrible wrong. That's not becoming of a Premier, you say. I guess people in the media have suggested the same thing, because they've listened to much of this from the opposition. Let me tell you that when somebody makes an offer of that magnitude, because there is a process, or because there is a statement — a government — that they wanted to see something done, and they're a citizen of British Columbia and they want to become involved, and they address this to cabinet, I will take it to cabinet. Whether it's a friend or whether it's from you, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, or somebody else, I think I owe it to take it to cabinet. I don't believe it would be right....

Now that's my reading of being a Premier. Obviously you read it differently. I don't believe it would be right for me to say: "I don't think, although it's addressed to cabinet, that it ought to go to cabinet. I'll stick it in my pocket, or I will file it away in a bottom drawer, because I don't think that should go to cabinet." I guess that's what you are saying. I disagree. I don't think it was wrong to take something addressed to cabinet before cabinet.

Then you say that cabinet decided to present the offer to BCEC. Is that so wrong? Why shouldn't cabinet, who owns the shares in this Crown corporation...?

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The people own the shares. The government is responsible for the shares on behalf of the people. That's how it is. That's right, and I agree with that. Therefore why shouldn't the owners of the shares take it to BCEC — a Crown corporation — which is considering the disposal of a part of what was being offered for? Is that so wrong? Hopefully you will answer that.

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

[ Page 5137 ]

entrepreneur. He's done much by way of investment in the province. He has certainly contributed to a lot of worthwhile events and efforts in various parts of the province. I think he's a wonderful man, and he was involved in some of that process.

I believe that it was in that other offer you mentioned from the Vancouver land company that he was involved with. In any event, whether he was involved in the offer presented by Mr. Toigo, or in the offer presented by the Vancouver land company, what makes it so wrong that Mr. Belzberg be involved, or that the Premier or anyone else mentions in a meeting that Mr. Belzberg is involved or supportive of a particular proposal? What's so wrong about that? Is that such a federal case? What's going on?

I don't quite follow what you're saying by suggesting that I didn't know what I was doing, when obviously you don't understand the process. You go on to say that on February 4, 1988, the table was advised that Mr. Toigo had extended his offer to February 29. Is that so wrong? What's the big deal? Mr. Toigo, Vancouver Land Corp., Li Ka-Shing — I don't care who or where. Is it so wrong that they say, "We made an offer; we're now advising you that we're extending this offer," even though no one is prepared to accept the offer? That could well be, and that's the prerogative of BCEC and cabinet in the final analysis. What's so wrong with him saying, "I'm extending the offer" and the recipient of this advising the body responsible that the offer has been extended?

Maybe you're reading something very sinister into all of this because you seem to come at things from that angle. We hear so many innuendos all the time that it could be, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, that you're reading something into all of this. Then I feel sorry for you because that's bad for you; it makes you lose your hair.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Order!

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

Then you go on that at a meeting on March 4, we appointed the principal secretary to the BCEC board — a terrible thing. It was a decision of cabinet. The order gets passed in cabinet that the principal secretary should be.... Frankly, I think that's a tremendous help because it provides an opportunity for ongoing communications between a body which is very involved in the privatization process and the principal secretary, who is head of the privatization implementation committee for government. So the combination, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, makes perfect sense. You have the person that leads the implementation committee in government and the person who's also involved with the privatization by the Crown corporation most involved with it, BCEC. You say that's wrong.

I see you're consulting the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). You've really got troubles now. However, go ahead: consult the second member for Victoria. My goodness, you've got problems.

Then you go on to say that on March 11 the board hears that the offer is still on the table. A terrible thing — something awful. I guess Mr. Toigo has advised the board through the government that the offer he had submitted to government earlier would be available until the end of March — you say March 11 was the date. A terrible thing: he extended his offer. I don't know how or where that involves the Premier or how that involves the Premier's office, but you've already said it's not Mr. Toigo's fault, so I have to assume there's something I did wrong in accepting the offer or somehow in government advising BCEC that they had been advised that the offer was extended.

Then you go on to say that on March 16 the cabinet considers two offers and makes a decision. One is from Li Ka-shing and the other is from the Vancouver Land Corp. What's so bad about this? Obviously you bring it down to one in the end, because you can only select one. There were two considered, and we selected one. It's very important, I guess you say. But I don't know what's wrong with this.

The offer was accepted. Then you say: "Premier asked questions about Toigo offer." I don't know what this means. Maybe you'll wish to elaborate on what you mean by that. As I understand it, the offer by Mr. Toigo was considerably different and simply the Expo lands. What the questions, I don't know. Then you go on to March 17, and Economic Development receives an inquiry on how to be in touch with Mr. Li Ka-shing. I gather that's from Mr. Toigo, and that Mr. Toigo will be making contact. He wanted to see Mr. Li Ka-shing. You've already said Mr. Toigo did nothing wrong. Mr. Li Ka-shing did nothing wrong, so I guess I figure into this somewhere. But it's a terrible thing. I don't know.

Anyway, Mr. Toigo tried to make contact with Mr. Li Ka-shing. Great case you've built, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. On March 21. Toigo phones Vander Zalm to say that he was banned from a meeting by Mr. Li; Mr. Toigo did not phone Mr. Vander Zalm, but I did hear about it. I did hear that he in fact could not have a meeting with Mr. Li Ka-shing. When he arrived there he was told, or he was advised, or there was a message, that he could not meet with Mr. Li Ka-shing. Mr. Li Ka-shing had been advised that he could not meet with Mr. Toigo. That's fine. Big deal.

Anyway, I wanted to respond to that. I don't know whether I've cleared up anything because there's really nothing to clear up. But I did want to respond to this heavy case that the Leader of the Opposition put forth. I thought it should be responded to. Mr. Leader of the Opposition, it's a lot of trivia. I don't know what it all adds up to or what you think it might add up to.

Interjection.

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What's the charge? He said there's no charge against Mr. Toigo. He did nothing wrong. He's admitted that he simply acted in a businesslike manner, and all was fine, Then he went on and suggested that all of these dates somehow said that the Premier did something wrong. I don't think he's identified anything, but now that he's consulted the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), maybe they'll come up with something. It's interesting.

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

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

[ Page 5138 ]

have one thing I would like to remind all hon. members. The Chairman of this House is appointed by all of you to sit here and try to ensure a nice even flow of debate and to recognize people who stand on their feet and want to enter into the debate. It would be nice, I think, if from time to time the Chair was recognized rather than the people speaking directly to each other across the floor.

Also, I would like to suggest to all of you that I have been listening to interjections from both sides of the House. These also, I guess, are bound to happen once in a while and we have to accept them, but when they become a regular routine, I think we should proceed in the proper manner. If we do have something to say, if we stand and are recognized by the Chair, then we have the opportunity to say it.

[11:30]

MR. HARCOURT: Two points well taken, Mr. Chairman.

I will repeat it one more time. Obviously the Premier isn't listening to or hearing what ordinary people throughout this province are saying, what the media's saying, what the New Democratic Party are saying, what members of his own party, including the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the board of directors of B.C. Enterprise Corporation, are saying. Some of the top business professional people in this province have said: "Butt out, Mr. Premier. It's not proper for you to get involved and to use and misuse your office when we conduct the affairs of the people of British Columbia, which you've given to us." You've entrusted to those people the disposition of the assets.

I'm saying to the Premier that he was wrong to do what he did. He's totally unrepentant. He doesn't see it. It's sad that the Premier doesn't learn. He doesn't learn from experience. He thinks what I've just brought up is trivial. It isn't trivial, Mr. Chairman. I don't think it's trivial; members of the New Democratic Party don't think it's trivial; the people of this province don't think it's trivial; members of his own party don't think it's trivial; members of the fourth estate don't think it's trivial. He's the only one that thinks it's trivial, and that's why this province is in trouble. His party loyalists back him. They're part of his misuse of the Premier's office.

The other point I was trying to make to the Premier, Mr. Chairman, is who he represents. He represents wealthy friends. He doesn't represent the ordinary men and women in this province. If he did, instead of in speeches and clichés, you know what he'd do? He would show it by having the ordinary people represented in the selling off of their assets and privatization. That's what he'd do. He would not just have the wealthy and the powerful represented there, who are put into a very difficult situation because they're just the people who may potentially be bidding on the sale of these prime assets of the people of British Columbia. We don't have the owners of those assets, the ordinary men and women of British Columbia, represented; we just have the wealthy and the powerful. The Premier is not listening to that or hearing that, and I think it's sad that he's not capable of learning from experience.

He says that there are other places in British Columbia than Vancouver. That is really a revelation. I've been to most of those places, and most of them that the Premier was referring to — for example, Rock Creek, Grand Forks, Greenwood, Midway — are very proud of their communities. I'm proud of those communities too. I enjoy the fact that my office is British Columbia and that I'm prepared to listen and to learn. I'm prepared to go throughout this province, not with an entourage, not with a circus atmosphere, but to go into the homes, businesses, farms and ranches of the ordinary men and women who create the wealth. It's not the Premier's office.

I'm prepared to listen to them, and they're prepared to listen to the Premier when he says, supposedly in good faith: "Have a plebiscite on banning uranium mining." And they do. Eighty-five percent of the people in those communities vote for a ban on uranium mining. They then go to the Premier, and he says: "Guess what? I've changed my mind. I didn't like your vote, so because you had an overwhelming majority vote, I've got to protect you from yourselves. I've got to protect the ordinary men and women from themselves, because I want them to be employed." Do you know what they're saying to you, Mr. Premier? They don't want to be employed in uranium mining or exploration. They want a ban on uranium mining, and you won't listen to them.

You talk about the ordinary people of Boundary-Similkameen. You didn't listen to them. They gave you an overwhelming message. You were totally unrepentant, uncontrite. Your statements on the night of that by-election were absolutely pathetic. What you said to the people of Boundary-Similkameen will come back to haunt you.

I have been making a very simple point here. The Premier is wrong in misusing his office for his wealthy and powerful friends, in only having the wealthy and powerful involved in the disposition of our assets, which he's wrong in doing in the first place, because he never had the courage to seek a mandate from the people of this province to do all those things. We'd like you to go out and try to get a mandate, Mr. Premier.

Mr. Chairman, I'm quite prepared to take the risk of an election. If the Premier is a risk-taker, and he believes so strongly in what he is trying to do, let's find out what the people have to say. You didn't have the guts to take it to them in the last provincial election.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's completely unacceptable; I'll ask you to withdraw.

MR. HARCOURT: I will withdraw that.

Mr. Premier, you were not able to take before the people of this province what you really wanted to do in this province, because you knew you would have been beaten. So let's go and face the people.

The last thing that I'm trying to say to the Premier, Mr. Chairman, is that it is totally improper, when he is asked a question — as he was yesterday by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) — for him to bring an insult and call into question that member's oath, as a lawyer and as a member of this Legislature, and his personal integrity. It is totally unbecoming of the Premier of this province to do that and to then refuse to repeat it outside this Legislature, thereby demeaning the rules of this Legislature.

I'm saying that this Premier is unfit, that he doesn't understand his office, and that's the problem with this province. He, as the Premier, and his government, which lets him do what he is doing to the people of this province — the ordinary men and women — and the Social Credit Party, which foisted him upon us with an election platform that they wouldn't bring before the people, because they knew what would happen to them.... They had to hide it and bring it out after the election. Well, people have seen that smile, and

[ Page 5139 ]

they have seen, as I said at the time, the political cavities inside that smile. They've seen Bills 19 and 20; they've seen decentralization and privatization; they've seen the Coquihalla coverup; they've seen the Premier not being bound by the rule of law in his approach to the abortion issue; and they've seen what happened with Peter Toigo.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, terms applied to a member of this Legislative Assembly which refer to coverup or not obeying the law are unparliamentary and must be withdrawn.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we have quiet, please? Personal allusions are, of course, never acceptable, so the government House Leader is correct in what he says.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, it was Doug MacKay, the commissioner of inquiry appointed by this government, who said there was a coverup. I will show you the reports. He said this Legislature was misled. That statement was made in the commissioner of inquiry's report. I did not say the Premier covered it up at all. That was not the statement I made. I said the Coquihalla inquiry....

AN HON. MEMBER: Backtracking.

MR. HARCOURT: No, I'm just saying it in more detail. Obviously you haven't read the Coquihalla report, because you don't care. You're not listening to the people. You're not listening to the commissioner of inquiry. All of you. You're all into it.

Mr. Chairman, I don't take back anything I said about the Premier not listening, about being out of touch, about not being capable of being the Premier of this province. The issues aren't the fine people of this province and the bountiful resources that God has given us; the issues are this Premier and this government. They're the problem; not the people, not the resources, not the media. not the New Democrats. Look in the mirror, Mr. Premier. You're the problem.

MR. R. FRASER: I look forward to taking my place in this debate. Since we're likely going to hear all the words again, I thought I would use them myself. How about 1984, abortion, and one or two other things that you guys like to talk about quite a bit? Now that that's on the record and we've talked about that for a while, we can move on.

Oh, Boundary-Similkameen; we want to talk about that, too, because there's a lesson there. The Leader of the Opposition, speaking on the Premier's estimates, talked about special interest groups. If there ever was a party of special interest groups, it's that party across the floor, in my opinion. It's the party that says: "We don't like regionalization, we don't like decentralization. It's all bad for the province, and it shouldn't happen." When you look in the newspapers, you see great write-ups about the Leader of the Opposition, who says: "Oh, yes, we need great regional strategies to boost B.C.'s economy." That's the story we hear more and more — the contradictory remarks from the opposition. He says, for example, on Boundary-Similkameen or on the abortion issue, that we never learn.

Then you look at some other reports and see that the superintendent of brokers says that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) has committed an alarming number of factual inaccuracies and allegations. What does that member say? The member says in a later newspaper report: "I don't care, because I am going to go ahead and do it anyway." I thought that that was kind of interesting and that we might want to talk about it,

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) said that Audrey Moore, mayor of the Kootenay town we all know, says: "I'm horrified at regionalization." If you happen to look at this little book here, what do you find? On page 31 you will find that that same mayor, Audrey Moore, serves on three of the committees for the regional economic diversification task force for her area. Not too bad. Obviously she is working on it, not just rejecting it. She's working on it, and I kind of like that idea.

The point we get all the time is that although the opposition leader's words sound quite important sometimes, they don't have the ring of sincerity that I think they should have. I don't think he actually believes what he is saying himself. It's a constant thing with the New Democratic Party. They now think they are going to form the national government, and they say: "We're against NATO, but just in case we should get elected, we'll think about it later." Their leader, Mr. Broadbent, comes out to B.C. during Expo and says: "Workers unite. Don't go to Expo." The very next day, when I am at the Expo site, he is getting VIP treatment, going in the back door ahead of all the lineups at one of the pavilions. What does that tell you about the NDP? Let's do this; let's say that — it really is quite unbelievable.

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) said: "Let's not have any of that phony Asian investment here." It's in the book; it's in Hansard. The leader says: "I'm going to go to the Orient and encourage people to come and invest in British Columbia." Now which is it? The special interest groups....

He accuses the Premier of imposing his moral views on the public. Well, well, well, isn't that interesting! "And you never learn," he says. You know, there are a number of people around the province who really didn't think the government's policy on abortion was very good. And guess what: it's changed. But you don't change; the government changes. The government learns and the government thinks, and from the apparent loss in Boundary-Similkameen the government will learn more. In fact, if we lose a by-election or two, we will learn even more, because every event, whether it's an apparent win or loss, is an opportunity to learn something new, and we should never let those chances go by.

[11:45]

The member from Victoria said: "Where does the mayor of Kamloops live?" This is really important for the Premier's estimates. We went through it a number of times and found out where a number of the mayors live — very important. We have more important things to talk about than that.

I would like to ask the Premier to give us some information about the activities of the intergovernmental relations that he looks after. I want to find out what we're doing with respect to our connections with Ottawa, what staff complement we have with respect to keeping in touch with Ottawa, because it does disturb all of us in this chamber — all of you across the floor as well, I'm sure — when we see that 98 percent of the frigates are built in the province of Quebec. It does concern us when we see General Motors Corp. getting $250 million, and it does concern us when we see big programs going to Ontario.

[ Page 5140 ]

While we are not a big population and while our influence on the federal government will not be very significant, there is no doubt about the fact that British Columbia is an important contributor to the economy of Canada, and because of that, our connections with the government of Ottawa should be very strong. I want to hear what we're doing about it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As you're aware, Mr. Chairman, we did bring intergovernmental relations, which was a ministry, as a branch into the Premier's office, because most of the negotiations with Ottawa, be they on issues of trade, free trade, Meech Lake or the like, really involve the Premier's office. So all of that work is being done through the office — and very effectively, I might say.

As you are aware, of course, we have been able to accomplish something that I don't believe any other provincial government has ever accomplished: the establishment of a federal-provincial council of ministers to address the inequities that exist between Ottawa and the province of British Columbia. We've long talked about these inequities and the fact that we're not getting a fair share from all of the programs that emanate from Ottawa; that we pay far more to Ottawa than what we get back. This is not anything new; it's been thus for a long time. We've heard examples of where we pay something like $640 million annually to Ottawa in highway taxes and get back, on average, from $25 million to $35 million annually on highways. That's largely spent on the Alaska Highway, with some being spent on Highway 16 and some in the parks.

We have those sorts of inequities, and I'll grant you that they've existed for a long time. We have the inequity in agriculture where, for example, in industrial milk we're only permitted to produce about 3.7 percent of that which is produced in all of Canada. So we don't have butter being manufactured in B.C. It comes from Alberta or Ontario, even though it has a B.C. wrapper. You look at it: it says Fraser Valley or Dairyland. You'd think it was a B.C. product, but it's really from Alberta or Ontario, because we're not allowed to manufacture. We don't have enough industrial quota to manufacture butter. So it is also with cheese and ice cream, which we have to manufacture with powdered milk brought in from Ontario, because we don't have enough quota from the federal government to produce our share of these products.

We've attempted to address all of this. We've raised it time and time again, and fortunately, in fairness to the government in Ottawa today, they did recognize that and have established this council of ministers which meets fairly regularly. It's now being headed up by the Hon. Gerry St. Germain, who's a tremendous help and a tremendous minister for British Columbia. He is very concerned about bringing about this equity, so I'm sure we'll see it increasing and growing — an improved relationship between the province and Ottawa. But there's much to be done, so our office is working on this consistently.

We have also strengthened the office in Ottawa where we have B.C. House. Mr. Tim Kuash is in charge of the office. He certainly has with him good people that follow through on the various things that need to be negotiated, so that as these things are being discussed between ministers, they're also being discussed between our people in Ottawa and our deputies in Victoria and the deputies in the bureaucracy in Ottawa. There is a good rapport developing, which will better our chances to get a fair share. We'll continue on that course.

MR. R. FRASER: I have a couple of questions. We talked about some conflicts, and the Leader of the Opposition has asked you on a number of occasions if you would obey the law of the land, etc., and I've asked you that myself. I note with great interest that he points out that illegal strikes are no problem in his mind.

Apart from that, one of the questions that I want to ask you relates to some comments by him. I gather he has said that he would increase the spending in health care and education and social services by some $3 billion, and further, that he would increase the welfare payments about 50 percent. My information on that is that a 50 percent increase would cost the taxpayers of British Columbia about $500 million. With respect to fiscal responsibility, could you comment on those two items, please?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know just exactly what the figures would be for the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition that welfare payments be increased by 50 percent and some of these other suggestions that have been made. I can't give you an exact figure. I can take that question back and get more information on it, but I suspect half a billion dollars might not be unreasonable. Also, I suppose there are other issues that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I'll try to get some information as to what the cost of these would be, but I'm sure they would be considerable. Hopefully, before these estimates are finished we can get that information back to the House.

I do want to respond briefly to a remark made by the Leader of the Opposition that the Premier doesn't care about the poor and is only working with the wealthy. I want to make it very clear here — although I don't think I need to explain it to people in my constituency or elsewhere in the province -that I care about all of the people and that I work for all of the people — and all of us do. When I get a call from someone in my constituency or elsewhere who has a particular problem — be it a welfare problem, a social problem or a health problem — I go out of my way to pursue it. I've achieved some things in life, but I've achieved them because I worked hard at it. You don't, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, with all due respect, have to have been a legal aid lawyer all your life to understand the needs of people, regardless of the level of their income. So I take exception to that comment.

You also made reference to a plebiscite. I don't recall this comment: "You take a plebiscite on uranium-mining, and whatever the outcome of the plebiscite, we'll do whatever it is you wish to see done that you've expressed in the plebiscite." We have repeatedly said that there's a fair process in place, and that we're providing through the regulations that exist today more protection to the people and to industry than we've ever seen — I'm sure you have discussed this — anywhere else in Canada. I've also said there will be no uranium-mining in B.C. without these hearings, and the minister has said that many times. There's a process, and it's a very stringent process. I've also said that as long there's uranium available, as it is so easily in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, there won't be uranium-mining here.

But it's easy, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, to say: "If there's a plebiscite, we'll do something." You took a plebiscite in Vancouver: "We're going to declare Vancouver a nuclear-free zone." Then after the outcome of that

[ Page 5141 ]

plebiscite, you placed signs all around the city so that whether you're coming from Richmond, Surrey, Burnaby or Coquitlam, you know when you get there that you're entering a nuclear-free zone, and there's a great feeling of relief. That was your response to a plebiscite. You can use this for political purposes and do all sorts of things. When it comes to the uranium situation as it exists in the communities where you've been speaking about all these dangers and where you've perhaps — from what I've heard from others — thrown the scare into some of these people, there are good regulations in place — very effective and very stringent regulations, more so than what exists anywhere else in Canada.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, there was a question asked and a comment made by the member for Vancouver South — and the Premier answered — about me saying that there should be a 50 percent increase in welfare rates. That's a fiction. I said — as a matter of fact, yesterday on my monthly hotline show — that this government has given some insulting minuscule increases over the last six or seven years. I said there needs to be an increase in welfare rates. I said very distinctly that the government's finances could not afford what people need just to get up to the poverty line, but there needs to be an increase, I would just like to correct the record of that mischievous question and mischievous answer.

MR. GABELMANN: Before I begin — and I'm obviously not going to get very far today — I want to ask the House for its indulgence in making a couple of brief introductions.

Leave granted.

MR. GABELMANN: In the gallery this morning listening to us in this debate are four people from the Sayward Christian School. I'd like the House to welcome Berna Friesen, Carrie Friesen, Janet Rainbow and Rita Rainbow, if they would; and secondly, welcome a group of students here from Zeballos Elementary Secondary School in the community of Zeballos, accompanied by their principal Mr. Toporowski.

I just want to begin to take a couple of minutes that we might have to ask the Premier whether the Vancouver Sun on June 8 quoted the Premier fairly in terms of his....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: So the implication is that everything that's in the Vancouver Sun is wrong.

Let me just read a statement and ask if this fairly reflects the Premier's view: "The ILO is made up of labour organizations, and they tend to view it a little differently than the general populace would, the Premier said" — in response to the ILO declaration about the validity under international legal standards of our labour legislation. Does that fairly reflect the Premier's view?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Good for the Sun. Not bad.

MR. GABELMANN: The Premier's agreeing that he's quoted generally accurately in saying that the ILO is made up of labour organizations. I wonder if the Premier would care to tell the House who in fact does comprise the membership of the ILO.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This is a group made up of international labour organizations, and they are asked from time to time to make comments or recommendations on labour initiatives, legislative or otherwise, in various jurisdictions. These requests, I suppose, by and large might come from other labour organizations within that particular jurisdiction.

My comment, as reported in the Vancouver Sun, is quite accurate. They obviously view it in a fairly narrow way, I would think, and that would tend to be reflected in their expression of opinion on that particular matter.

[12:00]

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the Premier knows that the ILO was established as a result of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.

MR. MICHAEL: On a point of order, I would like to bring to the attention of the Chair that the hour of adjournment has been reached.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll take a minute, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder if the Premier knows that the ILO was established by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, re-established in 1946 by the United Nations, and is in fact an organization comprising 50 percent representatives from 146 governments around the world, 25 percent representatives from the business and management organizations in those 146 countries, and 25 percent labour organizations in those 146 countries. Twenty-five percent of the influence in the ILO is from trade union organizations, yet the minister, encouraged by another minister of the cabinet, talks about it being an organization of trade unions, an organization of labour interests. This sums up clearly what is wrong with the Premier in his operation of this government. The Premier constantly opens his mouth and speaks before he knows what he is talking about.

I'll have more to say about this in the continuation of these estimates on another day. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.