[ Page 5315 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988 (Bill 52). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 5315

Committee of Supply: Premier's office estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 4: Premier's office –– 5316

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Clark

Tabling Documents –– 5328

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 40). Hon. L. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 5328

The House met at 10:09 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House today the mayor of Ladysmith, Mr. Alex Stuart, especially in this week when I spent a few minutes in Ladysmith last week when the mayor, with his initiative, unveiled the Ladysmith historical railway museum and all the other good things that are going on in Ladysmith. I'd like this House to give him a very special welcome.

MRS. GRAN: Visiting Victoria today are two very close friends of mine from Langley, Betty and Walter Martin. Would the House please welcome them.

Presenting Petitions

HON. S. HAGEN: I've been asked by constituents — the Society of the Friends of Strathcona Park — to present a petition to the House, which I'd like to present at this time.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1988

Hon. B.R. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988.

HON. B.R. SMITH: This is another one of these bills with a number of amendments to acts. I'll just highlight a few of them.

We've made some improvements to both the Commercial Arbitration Act and the International Commercial Arbitration Act to address a number of concerns expressed by practitioners. The object of all of these is to make commercial arbitration more desirable, more attractive and less judicially intrusive.

The bill also incorporates amendments to four statutes to enable the province to participate in the national workplace hazardous material information system. These amendments provide for an appeal mechanism on the disclosure requirements under this system. This is an important initiative in which the government has been cooperating with industry and labour to furnish accurate and more complete information on potentially dangerous substances to better protect workers on the job.

Amendments to the Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act will reduce the size of the PNE board from 16 to 12 directors, allowing for representation from the economic regions and clarifying the term of the board and the chairperson. It is urgent that these amendments be enacted before the current PNE board's mandate ends on September 30 of this year. These amendments were requested by the present chairman as well.

Mr. Speaker, amendments to the School Act will permit a fee to be charged for general educational development testing and for historical transcript searches. These amendments prohibit a person who is unqualified as a medical practitioner from becoming an acting director of a health unit and a school medical officer. The amendment also permits pupils with communicable disease to attend public school classes in accordance with ministry policy. That brings the law in line with the policy.

The Education (Interim) Finance Act has some amendments which eliminate certain school board enrolment reporting requirements and authorize the minister to determine the amount of supplementary grants.

Amendments to the Evidence Act contained within this bill will enable any person to take an affirmation instead of an oath. The amendments will also empower requiring an affirmation where administering an oath will result in inconvenience or a delay. Amendments also deal with the taking of evidence of children, to parallel recent amendments to the Canada Evidence Act, which allows people under the age of 14 to give their evidence. These provisions will establish inquiries which are to be made when determining the admissibility of a child's evidence. This brings a very new sensitivity to evidence from children in civil matters. A major change arising from these amendments is that there will no longer be a legal requirement for corroboration in order for a case to be decided on the evidence of a child. As well, a judge or other presiding officer will be given the authority to allow a person to testify outside the courtroom, or behind a screen, in circumstances of alleged physical or sexual abuse. These amendments will enable civil matters to be handled with the same sensitivity for the child witness as will be possible in criminal cases, some of which may be related to incidents involving the same child.

[10:15]

The bill also amends the Social Service Tax Act regulations to clarify eligibility for an exemption...this legislation with current administrative practice.

Mr. Speaker, a minor amendment will reintroduce the title and provide for the appointment of associate deputy ministers.

The purpose of amendments to the Heritage Conservation Act....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Does the minister have leave to continue? He has exceeded the two-minute limit.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Because of its being a grab-bag bill, could I just have a little longer and ask for leave?

Leave granted.

HON. B.R. SMITH: The purpose of the amendments to the Heritage Conservation Act is to give the Ministry of Tourism, etc., authority to manage heritage properties utilizing certain provisions of the Park Act, as needed for this purpose. These sites will include: Barkerville, Cottonwood House, Fort McLeod, Blessing's Grave, Fort Steele and Kilby general store museum.

This is a brief introduction highlighting the major amendments. I thank the House for its indulgence and I move first reading.

Bill 52 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 5316 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee of Supply. Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE
(continued)

On vote 4: Premier's office, $6,756,134.

MR. HARCOURT: Dealing with vote 4, it goes without saying that the actions of the Premier of our province reflect the approach he takes to the job of Premier and the workings of his office under vote 4. There is no question that the Premier's contribution to the debates of this House tells us a great deal about his approach to his work, the character he brings to the office, and, most importantly, the leadership he is prepared to show on issues of integrity and honesty.

On Wednesday, June 15, the Premier made statements in this House....

HON. MR. VEITCH: If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is casting any aspersions upon the hon. the Premier, I would ask that he withdraw them without equivocation.

MR. HARCOURY: None whatsoever.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well then, withdraw....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The imputing of improper motives, as all members know, is certainly against the rules and wasn't done. The member is saying he is not doing it, so we will proceed on that basis.

MR. HARCOURT: On Wednesday, June 15, the Premier made statements in this House which reflected on the integrity and honesty of the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. The Premier's actions go to the heart of how he approaches his job as Premier and the workings of his office as funded under vote 4. I have a very simple question to the Premier: does he want at this time, in the context of his estimates, to send a message to the people of British Columbia about honesty and leadership, and make an unqualified withdrawal of his remarks on June 15 against the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think we have to recognize the nature of the situation when we were discussing the estimates last week. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew was making certain innuendoes in the line of questioning he was presenting, in my opinion at least. I rose to point out that all of us from time to time are certainly made aware of concerns by individuals or groups; they are brought to our attention, and they tell you things about other people. That's not to say you need to believe them, pursue them or use them in a line of questioning or in suggestions in order to impugn the person about whom these things are said.

I used it as an example, and I think I pointed out then that these things come to us, these things are said, and that we shouldn't.... I was following up on the line of questioning that was being presented then. We have a habit — and as I said then, we have certainly seen it from the other side — of using this to, through questioning, cause the innuendo to reflect on the person of whom the questions are being asked. I used it as an example and I said that these things come to me. I don't have to believe them. I don't have to pursue them. I don't usually pursue them.

As a matter of fact, it's not my style; I've not done this and I don't feel comfortable doing this. I used it as an example, and I think it was clearly that. I made that point, and I am sure most of those listening recognized it was an example.

MR. HARCOURT: It appears that the Premier is truly unaware of the gravity of this situation. He uttered untrue and slanderous remarks about the member's professional integrity as a lawyer and as a MLA, about his father and his family, and he made them in this Legislature. Then outside of the Legislature, the Premier said that he knew those remarks were untrue, and that he was going to continue to make those kinds of remarks.

I would like to ask the Premier again, in the interest of honesty in leadership and honesty in government: will the Premier withdraw those remarks and apologize?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I said outside the Legislature that I did not believe all of these things that were told to me, and obviously I don't. When rumour is given to me, or when people suggest things about a particular person, I don't go out every time such is given to search out the validity of them — whether they are true or untrue. What I said is I didn't believe it.

It's simply because most people — and certainly the people here — would not be party to that sort of thing. That's why this whole line of innuendo through questioning as such is not to my taste. I think to say I didn't believe it.... I didn't get into whether it was truth or untruth. I didn't research or pursue any of those things because I....

MR. CLARK: Withdraw it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If it pleases the member more, I would certainly withdraw the comment — if somehow he felt offended by that.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the Premier for withdrawing those comments. That's much appreciated, and I trust it puts this entire regrettable matter to an end. I was pursuing at the time a line of questioning related to a decision government made on August 14. I want to continue to ask the Premier some questions in relation to the decision made by order-in-council on August 14, 1987, the effect of which was to take away from the Agricultural Land Commission land which is generally described as the Terra Nova land.

With that perspective, I want to elaborate on our concerns on this side of the House with respect to that property and clarify the reasons why I was pursuing that line of questioning. Certainly, as the day progresses, I think we should be able to put that issue to rest one way or the other by the end of estimates.

Just by way of background on that, in June 1986 the Richmond....

HON. MR. REID: Is this in reference to vote 4?

[ Page 5317 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Minister of Tourism wishes to be recognized, he should stand in his place.

HON. MR. REID: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. In reference to the discussion of that member, the estimates make no reference to the Terra Nova property in Richmond. I wonder how this is relevant to the estimates of the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your contribution. The Chair will determine the relevancy of debate.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, the purpose is really to review the role of the Premier with respect to that decision. The other day it was suggested that I hadn't put forward all of the information to provide the appropriate backdrop, so I'm trying to do that today instead of just going to the questions in isolation. I would suggest that the other side can't have it both ways,

In June 1986 the Richmond Advisory Planning Commission recommended that that property be removed from the Agricultural Land Commission. That APC group was chaired by the sister-in-law of one of the proprietors and owners of Progressive Construction, who is also one of the employees of Progressive Construction. However, rightfully I think, the record shows there was no conflict-of-interest in that situation, as she appears to have left the meeting or at least to have indicated her interest in the land in question.

The Land Commission has described the land in question as agriculturally "the very best that we have." The Agricultural Land Commission has gone on to say that there is enough other land in Richmond for seven years of future residential growth. No justification exists for future residential use on the basis of need. The Agricultural Land Commission has looked at other alternatives in the region and has recognized that there are regional alternatives available for residential growth.

The Agricultural Land Commission agreed with an agricultural report prepared for the council which found that any significant use, impact or conversion will irreversibly impair the ability of agriculture to co-exist as a healthy parallel community to the urban component. The area, as the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you mind taking your seat for just a moment? The Chair is having difficulty tying your comments and questions to vote 4. I would appreciate it, if you wish to continue in this vein, if you could demonstrate for me the connection between the line of questioning you're pursuing and this particular vote.

MR. SIHOTA: To get to the point quicker, there was a rejection of the application to remove the land by the Agricultural Land Commission in a subsequent appeal to cabinet. On August 14, 1987, by way of order-in-council, cabinet approved the release of those lands from the commission. Could the Premier tell us whether or not he was in attendance at that cabinet meeting to allow for the land to be released?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before you answer, Mr. Premier, I might just tell all members that it's the Chair's understanding that matters such as this that transpire in executive council are for that body only and are not divulged to others. I leave it up the Premier, if he wants to comment.

MR. SIHOTA: If I may clarify: I'm not asking what was discussed at all; I'm just asking who was present.

[10:30]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In fairness, I recognize that I should perhaps anticipate this sort of questioning. Therefore I have no difficulty with it. The Terra Nova lands have been very controversial in Richmond for a good while, and as MLA for the constituency along with the second member (Mr. Loenen).... We've both been aware of the controversies. As a matter of fact, the second member particularly was aware of the discussions, since he was a member on council. I was well aware of the discussions too. I recognize also that a long time back the community plan had provided for these lands to be designated as residential and that the services were so designed, so all that background information was known to me.

I also realize that there was a great desire by many in my constituency to see much of these lands left to green space or to provide access to the river and allow people to stroll along the river and the ocean front to the golf course area. I recognize all of this, and I appreciate that Richmond is a community that is very aware, conscious and appreciative of the quality of life that we enjoy in the community. It's a beautifully developed community. I think it's a model of good planning. We've seen park space provided within the town centre and elsewhere, and the people appreciate that. All of this awareness was with me.

This particular application for the Terra Nova lands has been with us for a good while, and it has certainly been discussed extensively in the community. The line of questioning at the last committee meeting where we discussed Terra Nova was with respect to Progressive Construction and Mr. Ilich and his involvement, since he's the owner of Progressive Construction, or one of the family members.

I just want to take this opportunity to recognize Progressive Construction and Mr. Ilich for what they've done in the Richmond community. That's recognized, I believe, by members of the New Democratic Party, by members of the Social Credit Party or any other party and by people throughout the community. I don't believe there's a social agency — a worthwhile cause of any sort — that somehow hasn't benefited from the tremendous generosity of the Ilich family, and they do so without seeking credit for this. They've been extremely involved and enormously generous. As a matter of fact, I couldn't think of any company or individual that has been more generous. Without questioning the politics of a situation or the people involved, they always considered only the need, and they've responded tremendously. To my knowledge they have never sought anything in return from anyone, whether it was someone in council or a council, a commission or commission members or provincial government or members of the provincial government. They have never as much as asked, let alone sought any other sort of favour — not at all. They've always been outstanding in every respect. I just wanted to say that, because I have a tremendous respect for the integrity of that company, the family members who run the company and the people who work for the company. In my opinion they are all beyond question; they're exemplary.

Having said that, I was also well aware that this was a controversial issue and that questions might be asked about it. So when ELUC was dealing with it I never questioned the progress or where it was going; they dealt with it. And ELUC

[ Page 5318 ]

dealt with it on the basis of all the information provided them. as they always do. They obviously, too, consider factors that perhaps might not be considered or wouldn't be considered in the same light by the Agricultural Land Commission. I think the role of ELUC is well known. They deal with many applications involving a variety of concerns, but they deal with requests for land to be used for other than what perhaps the commission sees it being used for. So that's quite common. They deal with it effectively, and they deal with many applications in the course of a year.

They dealt with this one, and I believe they dealt with it well and fairly. They certainly considered — because, as I understand it, they went back to the application a good many times — all the factors and had input from many people before the decision was finally arrived at. But when it came to cabinet, as these generally do, I left.

MR. SIHOTA: I appreciate what the Premier had to say about the contribution of the family to the community. I think that's well recognized everywhere, and it's been well documented and acknowledged.

In respect to the process, I appreciate the Premier clarifying for the record both the process of ELUC and his involvement in the cabinet decision. I take it the Premier has confirmed that he was not present when cabinet met to discuss this issue. I take that from his answer.

Just one other question as it relates to the issue of the Premier's attendance at that cabinet meeting. Could the Premier explain whether he provided an explanation to cabinet as to why he chose to leave from that determination?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As you've already pointed out, Mr. Chairman, I cannot talk about what is said in cabinet, but the cabinet was well aware that this was a major application, one of considerable controversy in my constituency, and I felt it prudent not to be present.

MR. CLARK: With respect to the Terra Nova lands, would the Premier confirm for us that it's his view that this was, however, an appropriate decision; in other words, that he fully supports removing the land from the land reserve? Is that correct?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think in all of these matters obviously the amount of support we lend to particular decisions may vary in degree for whatever reasons. I've said already that I wasn't aware of all the debate and discussion except to know that there was a great deal of it before and after it came to ELUC. I respect the decisions of ELUC.

MR. CLARK: So the Premier is saying that his support varies for any number of government initiatives. I am sure that is the case for all members of the House.

I wonder whether he could be a little more specific, as the MLA for Richmond and someone who has followed this, as he indicated, and who has an interest in this matter — a great deal of interest, presumably, simply by virtue of being the MLA if not by being the Premier — as to whether or not this is in fact something for which he has a great deal of support or which he has questions or concerns about, or whether he thinks that this rezoning application or the removal of the land is a positive move for Richmond and for British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've already said that I respect the decision and the process of ELUC. I am also respectful of the amount of debate and the decisions that are made by local council. I understand that it's been dealt with many a time at the council level and that they've been supportive of the application. I respect the decisions of local council.

I also understand that many of the people who are signatory to a petition that was circulated were really concerned about the maintenance of park and green space and access to riverfront and oceanfront, that this is being addressed and that a lot of those people who may have had concerns about any decisions that could be made about the land for that reason are now reasonably satisfied that it is being addressed; and I respect their opinion.

MR. CLARK: Did Mr. Ilich make representations to you as the MLA in Richmond, prior to the land coming out of the land reserve, that he thought this was good for British Columbia and Richmond? I'm not asking at this point whether you gave any assurances or otherwise, but whether or not, just in the course of being the MLA and his representative in the Legislature, Mr. Ilich met with you at any time to discuss this potential removal of land from the land reserve.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As a matter of fact, I was not aware of the land holdings until it became fairly controversial towards the end. I was not aware of the land holdings or who held the land throughout most of the process. It wasn't until the very end that I did become aware. Mr. Ilich never spoke to me about this. As a matter of fact, I haven't had the pleasure of meeting that often with Mr. Ilich. I've seen him at various functions, but he certainly has never come to me for any type of assistance or advice. They are a very independent people and they manage well on their own.

MR. SIHOTA: We will leave that topic for the time being and perhaps return to it at a later time, although again I appreciate the Premier's explanation.

I want to turn now to the other matter that this government has had to deal with significantly during the past few months: the sale of BCEC lands. I want to go over some of the events to make sure that we are on all fours with respect to the factual progression here in terms of the chronology of events as they relate to the Toigo situation.

Will the Premier confirm that shortly after the government's election in October 1986, there was a cabinet meeting held in Langley, at which time the cabinet.... I don't want to know what the cabinet discussion on this was, but just to confirm whether or not at that time a proposal was received by cabinet from Mr. Toigo to develop a portion of the Expo 86 site.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I suppose again I could use the argument that we don't discuss cabinet business, but in the whole matter of the Expo lands, I have nothing to hide and certainly I have attempted to provide all of the information whenever asked. I have not a thing that I need to hide or be ashamed of in any respect.

I will say.... I think it's generally known, because again, if asked, I would answer it. I can't provide the details of whatever was discussed in a cabinet meeting, but it is true that.... I forget the name of the company; Whitbury Holdings, I believe. It is connected with the White Spots; I

[ Page 5319 ]

believe it is the real estate arm for White Spots. It had a leased space in that particular area of the Expo lands around the B.C. Pavilion in the form of a large White Spot restaurant, and afterwards they took over what was originally the Canadian Club and later became the B.C. Club. They were concerned, one year after Expo, that there wasn't a great deal of activity, which I imagine led to their lease holdings being a little less than profitable in return for the amount of money paid. They were obviously concerned as to what the development might be, or how it could be, and they were concerned about the business and their investment in the B.C. Club and the White Spot restaurant. So they had asked some time before — I don't know the exact date, but it goes well in advance of the election — whether they could make presentations as to what they believed might be a good proposal for at least a part of the B.C. Place lands. They were granted that, as is often done when particular groups proposing economic development proposals wish to do this. A presentation was made by a Mr. David Podmore and was received, but no action was taken on it.

[10:45]

MR. SIHOTA: Was any subsequent action taken on that presentation, although there was no action taken in November 1986?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No. The proposal was simply received then, and no action whatsoever was taken on that proposal, to my knowledge.

MR. SIHOTA: When next, to the best of the Premier's recollection, were further representations made by Mr. Toigo with respect to the development at Expo and the sale thereof?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: To my recollection, Mr. Toigo, through Shato Holdings, was involved in a proposal by the Vancouver Land Corp. At least — let's put it this way — I believe they were together, along with others, involved in developing a proposal, and that was generally known.

MR. SIHOTA: Was that proposal with respect to the sale of Expo lands?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, it was.

MR. SIHOTA: To put it another way, it did not concern or relate to the acquisition of all BCEC lands or assets?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No. Again, to my knowledge, the Vancouver Land Corp. had never expressed an interest in all of the assets; simply in the Expo lands.

MR. SIHOTA: This was a joint venture thing between Shato and the Vancouver Land Corp.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I believe it was Shato and the Vancouver Land Corp. The Vancouver Land Corp. was made up of a number of people, all of whom I'm not sure. But certainly I'm aware of some of the people involved.

MR. SIHOTA: It's my understanding that in April 1987, a further representation was made by Mr. Toigo with respect to the Whistler convention centre. Am I correct in that understanding?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I don't believe there was any presentation made. I was aware that an expression of interest was given in conversation, and that's the extent of it. I think it was simply an expression of interest because Mr. Toigo — through Whitbury I believe — operates the restaurant in the Whistler convention centre.

I suppose it was a similar concern that led to the comment or the suggestion that there could be an interest, if ever the convention centre and its adjacent lands were placed for sale. Then he or his company would be interested in bidding for that particular acquisition or at least putting forth a proposal. However, I don't know what it might have been. I was aware that there was an interest.

Again, it probably relates to the fact that they operate a business in the centre and have done. It's not only a restaurant, but they've catered for all the functions held there. I imagine from a business standpoint they've probably had a greater interest in the centre than anyone else might have, because of the catering and the restaurant.

MR. SIHOTA: When we discussed the November 1986 application, the Premier indicated there was no follow-up on that. Was there any follow-up with respect to the expression of interest on the Whistler property?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There was no follow-up, Mr. Chairman, but I think the member may be referring to a comment made by Mr. Peter Brown that I read in the paper, where he said at a breakfast meeting once that mention was made of it. I'm not surprised, because I think that we did have a breakfast meeting — I can well recall that — with the chairman and the president, during which a progress report was given and possibilities were talked about.

The Whistler convention centre was of concern because when you look at a convention centre and consider that convention centres are generally used to promote communities in that they attract conventions or meetings, and thereby bring business to a place.... Convention centres are used more for that purpose. They're not really moneymakers per se, and not the type of thing one can easily go out to sell or dispose of.

Since all these things were a part of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, and since a number of things were discussed, and since the opportunities that existed for various parts of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation were discussed, that matter, I am convinced, would have been one of them.

MR. SIHOTA: According to Mr. Brown at the time, it's my understanding that a formal offer was made with respect to the Whistler convention centre in April 1987. Was that indeed the case?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No formal offer was ever made for the Whistler convention centre to my knowledge. I think people had expressed an interest, but no offer had ever been made. I don't recall ever seeing an offer, except more recently. There are other negotiations taking place.

MR. SIHOTA: Did the Premier make any representations on behalf of Mr. Toigo to Mr. Brown in relation to the Whistler convention centre?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have never made representations on behalf of anyone other than the people of B.C.

[ Page 5320 ]

on any subject or any matter. I think if it's in the interest of the province or the people of the province, I will certainly bring it forth, as I'm obliged to do. I've never made representation on behalf of anyone because it might somehow benefit them or be of interest to them, unless it was of interest to the province. No, no representations were made per se on behalf of Mr. Toigo, Shato, Whitbury or anyone else.

MR. SIHOTA: To put it this way then, if I understand this right, the Premier never approached Mr. Brown and asked him the status of Mr. Toigo’s concern about the Whistler convention centre. Given that Mr. Toigo had expressed an interest — I think that's the best way to describe it from what the Premier has had to say — and given that there was some understanding of this by Mr. Toigo, I take it the Premier is saying that he never made any further inquiries of Mr. Brown to see what was happening with respect to Whistler.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, my only recollection is that in discussing the various opportunities as they existed, mention was made that this would be difficult to deal with and that perhaps the only options available — it appeared then, I gather, to the chairman, in conversation with the president — were that it had to be a public facility in one way or another and that there possibly wouldn't be an opportunity for private involvement. My recollection is that I simply mentioned: "Well, I believe there could be." Mention has been made to me about the principal operators in the centre, that they would have some interest and would be prepared to make a proposal. That's the extent of it.

MR. SIHOTA: Another question to the Premier. The Premier mentioned when we were talking about the November 1986 situation and Whitbury Holdings, and the cabinet discussions which took place in Langley, that Whitbury was concerned — if I understood the Premier right; he can correct me if I'm wrong — about the lands being vacant for one year. It seems to me that that doesn't quite fit, in that Expo had just terminated a month before that. Could the Premier explain or elaborate on his comment on that matter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I recognized after I said it that obviously that wasn't the length of time. I think my mixup was with the dates. Certainly they were concerned that there was no specific plan being proceeded with or that there would be inactivity for some time. The point I was making was that from a business standpoint there was that concern. I apologize for the dates; I realize I was a little mixed up on them. I don't have the dates in front of me; I'm just going by the questioning. I wasn't aware of the line of questioning that there would be this morning, so I don't have the dates in front of me.

MR. SIHOTA: Will the Premier confirm that there was a subsequent meeting in May 1987 to discuss Mr. Toigo's interest in the festival park at Expo?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In May 1987, no. Again I don't have the dates, and now I'm really getting concerned about them. There was a proposal for a portion of the Expo lands, the site occupied by the B.C. Pavilion and that which goes with it. The proposal was a festival park-type thing, with restaurants and such. That was the proposal early on. I believe — no, I know — that a later proposal involving the

Vancouver Land Corp. again provided for a festival park. And I gather that even the latest proposal by Li Ka-shing also uses the same lands that were at one point proposed for a festival park for a park area. It has something to do with soil conditions, as the member is aware. So the park proposal, I believe, in one form or another, has been a part of everything put forth by everyone in the process.

MR. SIHOTA: Would the Premier confirm that prior to any concern of Mr. Toigo — which I understand was in May 1987 — with respect to a festival park, there was a submission by York-Hannover for the acquisition of those assets? If that's true, could the Premier tell us what the quantum of that offer was?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As I recall it, the York-Hannover proposal might have been as early as September or October 1986; again, I'm going by memory. The York-Hannover proposal was attractive in some respects, in that it would allow the rides to be maintained locally, and that was of considerable interest to everyone, especially to the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid), who saw it as an attraction for the area.

Other than that, it's difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the original York-Hannover proposal because, first of all, it sought permission from the municipality of Surrey, which they weren't able to obtain. It sought, and was conditional upon, permission for a long-term lease from the regional district, which they weren't able to obtain. It sought a commitment from the provincial government to have a JobTrac-type benefit available to them for five years, which we weren't able to provide, because it's impossible to commit for five years. But it was a request, and it didn't appear to be a reasonable one. It also sought a grant from government, and we had already decided that we would get away from this whole grant process. Plus, I believe, it sought an interest-free loan, which we weren't interested in. So to quantify the value of that is almost impossible. In any event, it was not a sufficient attraction for us to pursue it.

[11:00]

MR. SIHOTA: So we have a situation in which there was a representation in November 1986 with respect to Whistler and a representation with respect to the festival park, all involving Mr. Toigo. In December of 1987, if I understand it, there was another offer by Mr. Toigo with respect to BCEC assets. Am I correct that it was referred by the Premier to the responsible ministers in cabinet?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Just for clarification, just so the record doesn't go unchanged, there was a representation with respect to the first proposal for the festival park. There were no further representations. There was an awareness by me that there was an interest by the major contractor in the Whistler convention centre; that if it went out to tender, they would certainly have some interest in being involved because of their interest in the centre, as they were already providing services there. That's hardly a representation. It was simply an awareness.

I try to keep on top of things and be aware of whatever the interest is in whatever it is we want to see done on behalf of the province. To my knowledge, there was no representation by Vancouver Land Corp. involving Mr. Toigo or Whitbury or Shato, who were involved with them — they were simply

[ Page 5321 ]

working together on that. I think many people might have been aware, but there was no representation.

Having clarified that, the question then is: was there a further representation in which Mr. Toigo or Shato Holdings made an offer for the share of BCEC? That did occur. Mr. Toigo did, in November I guess it was, present an offer to cabinet for the share, not the land per se, of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. As I understand it — I don't have all of the details of the offer now; obviously we were already then into the preparation of negotiations for the Expo lands — the share did not necessarily have to include all assets. The share was the purchase.... Because the government, the people of the province, owned a share, the offer was addressed to the cabinet of the province for the share.

MR. CLARK: I just want to briefly canvass the Terra Nova matter again because a couple of things don't quite fit with me, and maybe the Premier can give us some more clarification. The Premier said he did not meet with Mr. Ilich with respect to any representations. You said you supported the removal of the land; you said the community plan supported removal at an earlier date; and you said you weren't even aware that Mr. Ilich owned most of the land. The question I have is: why would you excuse yourself from cabinet, given all those matters? It doesn't quite ring true — if this is, of course, on the up and up and everything's going clear. Mr. Ilich stands to make $29.4 million because of this act by your government. I just wonder why the Premier would actually excuse himself, given his remarks here today.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I did not say that I was somehow involved with the support of that particular application. What I said is that I was aware of the dealings or the considerations that were being given this by the municipal council and that I certainly respect the views of municipal council. I also said that I was aware of the considerations that were given by the Environmental and Land Use Committee of cabinet, that they had a number of meetings on this, and that I respect all those considerations and the decisions of ELUC.

Although that question was being pursued fairly effectively by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), I did not get involved in my personal views on that particular matter. Now you ask me why I excused myself from cabinet. I also said at the outset that I sort of anticipated the line of questioning we're having today. I've been in politics for 20 years, and I certainly appreciate the fact that this is an issue of considerable controversy in the constituency. As I said, I felt it prudent that I should leave the meeting, not because I was afraid to participate, but because I recognized, I guess — thankfully — that just being present might be somehow viewed by some members of the opposition as having an influence on the decision, an influence other than one that might be in the best interest of B.C. I assure you again that my only interest is always in the best interest of the province and the people of the province.

MR. CLARK: This doesn't quite fit with what we have come to expect from this Premier. The Premier says that because this is a controversial decision he's going to excuse himself from cabinet, and he says: "I anticipate the line of questioning here with respect to...." What is normal is that the Premier or anybody in the business world would declare some kind of conflict that one might have, and on that basis you say: "I declare my interest or my conflict in this matter, so therefore I'm excusing myself." That's not what the Premier is saying. The Premier is saying that simply because there is all this controversy in his constituency, he's going to duck the issue and not be part of the discussion in cabinet regarding removal. That does not fit with what we've come to expect from the Premier. Quite frankly, I find that very hard to accept.

I note the Premier is having a discussion here.

Mr. Chairman, I quickly reviewed the orders-in-council that day. There were eight of them coming out of the cabinet meeting. The first seven were signed by other than the Premier; the last one was signed by the Premier. One might be tempted to conclude that in fact the Premier wasn't in attendance at cabinet that day and came late and therefore did not, in fact, either declare an interest or excuse himself but simply came late to cabinet and signed the last document. Is that not correct, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, it is my constituency, and I certainly am aware of what is happening in the constituency. As I've already said, I was aware of all the controversy surrounding this, and I felt it prudent that I perhaps excuse myself when these matters were being discussed. That wasn't ducking. I think that it was considering all the controversy in the constituency and some of the things that were being said in the constituency, and perhaps those were of a political nature and might have influenced my thinking; I can't go back that far. But certainly I don't think it would be fair.... Given all of that, I thought it more fair to all the people concerned if I simply was away then.

MR. CLARK: Could the Premier inform the House how many times he has excused himself from cabinet on similar matters?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, Mr. Chairman. I don't know, first of all, just when it happens or all the particular occasions or what the number....

MR. CLARK: Was this the sole occasion that the Premier has excused himself from cabinet on this kind of an issue?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ...have that information, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CLARK: I simply asked whether this was the only occasion upon which the Premier has removed himself because of controversy. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask the question again. The Premier said he has removed himself from cabinet on this matter because it was controversial in his constituency. Is this the only occasion where the Premier has removed himself from cabinet because of potential controversy regarding a decision made by the government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't think I can get into all of the dealings of cabinet. If he has a question on a specific other occasion when this might have occurred, I'll be glad to try and answer that.

MR. CLARK: Did the Premier excuse himself from cabinet on this matter with respect to Terra Nova because of his personal relationship with Mr. Ilich?

[ Page 5322 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think I've already explained this a number of times. I don't know what the member would like to hear said, but I can only repeat again that it's easy to explain the truth of it, which is as I've said it. I think they're wonderful people. They have been tremendous contributors to the constituency and to people everywhere — to people in the constituency and to people outside of the constituency.

MR. SIHOTA: Before we go back to the Toigo matter, I'd just like to conclude some of the points my friend from Vancouver East was making. The Premier says Mr. Ilich has been good friends of the constituency and, I take it, of the constituency association. Surely one of the factors that must have weighed in the Premier's mind at the time was the well-known fact that Mr. Ilich had loaned him a helicopter during the course of his campaign. I think the perceptions of that must have been a factor in the Premier's mind. Is that not correct?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I don't really have too much difficulty from time to time figuring out where the support might be for the Premier politically or the party politically. This is relatively easy to identify on most occasions. It's not too difficult to identify NDP members from time to time. I can spot them fairly readily; similarly, I'm reasonably aware of where the support lies for the free enterprise parties. So I mean there's no secret there.

[11:15]

MR. SIHOTA: Surely another factor that must have been in the Premier's mind at the time with respect to perceptions was, of course, the fact that Mr. Ilich had contributed to election campaigns of the Premier. Am I wrong in saying that contributions had been provided?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know where the contributions.... As I said, I recall this was talked about last week when the member from Esquimalt said that he personally was aware of where every one of his campaign dollars came from and that he made it a point to become aware. That's not how it is. The way that I, or those that I'm with on this side of the House, operate is that contributions made by people to the party is their business. We don't become involved with that. I don't ask the questions. I don't get involved. If Mr. Ilich or others donated to the campaign to your knowledge, I publicly thank them now, but certainly I didn't have that information. I don't have that information. That is the responsibility of the fiscal agent of the party.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it the Premier's response to that question, just to summarize it, is that he's not aware whether or not there were any contributions. Is that a fair way of putting it?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am not aware of individuals or companies per se that made contributions. I suppose it's fair to say that all of us have our own views of where it might be coming from. I would expect, for example, that certain organizations would probably be very supportive of the NDP. I don't question, whenever we discuss matters affecting those organizations, that because of the assistance to your party by them that this should necessarily be the deciding factor in what you do. I can assure you, and I'm sure you'll understand, that it's not a deciding factor with us in any respect. I guess we have our feelings as to where the support might be coming from, but individuals or companies or what or how much or when, I don't know.

MR. CLARK: The Premier has answered this in a general sense, but can he say that he is in fact aware that Mr. Ilich contributed to his campaign in Richmond?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I must intercede at this point. I can find absolutely no relevancy in this line of questioning with vote 4.

MR. SIHOTA: Just returning to the Toigo stuff — and I feel the pressures of time here — I want to....

AN HON. MEMBER: What's he got to do with it?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The debate can proceed quite nicely without interjections, thank you.

MR. SIHOTA: Again, I'm not asking about the content of the discussion, but is it true that on March 21, 1988, there was a discussion at a cabinet meeting — some have described it as a special meeting; others as an emergency; others as a regular meeting to try to fit it in for the Premier — and that the Premier expressed concern at that time that Mr. Toigo had been unable to meet with Mr. Li Ka-shing?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I can't recall the particulars. But certainly we can't get into a discussion of cabinet. That is for cabinet.

MR. SIHOTA: Did the Premier at any time receive any communications from Mr. Toigo with respect to his frustration at not being able to meet with Mr. Li Ka-shing?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The B.C. Enterprise Corporation apparently became aware. I guess Mr. Toigo had told them that he was traveling to Hong Kong on another matter. Apparently his son has a business connection, and they were traveling to Hong Kong on that matter. I guess in the process he had at least made it known to the B.C. Enterprise Corporation directly or indirectly — I don't know — that he was traveling to Hong Kong. The message I received was that he was doing this, and my contact with him then, as I've already said, was to convince him that he could not present himself in any way as being involved in the process; that in fact his discussions with him should not reflect that there was any commitment by anyone that he could negotiate or become involved in the process, because the process was closed. And that was conveyed to him.

He then traveled there, and apparently upon arrival — and again this is public knowledge; everyone was made aware very clearly — the message that he received was that a meeting that he had apparently arranged was off because they had been advised by B.C. Enterprise Corporation to not meet.

The B.C. Enterprise Corporation took that stance with all of the bidders — that they should not be discussing this; that they should be on their own in their particular proposals. Yes,

[ Page 5323 ]

I can say that he was rather frustrated or upset by that. I suppose having arranged a meeting as far away as that and finding when you get there that the meeting is off after you've traveled there, might upset anyone, regardless of who it is, who travels that distance for a meeting, among other things.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to ask the Premier the following question: why would the Premier be concerned sufficiently to warn Mr. Toigo not to hold himself out as some representative of the province of British Columbia? What was the Premier's reason for having that concern?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I did not say as a representative of British Columbia. What I said is that there was a policy of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation that during that particular process, those who were involved in the bidding should not be meeting with one another and that the information that they held with respect to their particular bid was theirs, as was the information held by others theirs.

The B.C. Enterprise Corporation was concerned that he having been a bidder with the Vancouver Land Corp., I suppose, at a prior time, would reflect on Mr. Li Ka-shing's understanding of what the policy was. I didn't go into detail, but it wasn't that I was worried that he would be presenting himself as a representative.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier indicated in his response to me two questions ago.... The suggestion was that the Premier had a discussion with Mr. Toigo prior to Mr. Toigo's visit to Hong Kong and subsequently learned of Mr. Toigo's frustration. Could the Premier tell us, to the best of his recollection.... First of all, am I correct in that the Premier had had a discussion with Mr. Toigo prior to his departure to Hong Kong, wherein he suggested that he ought to be careful in his discussions with Mr. Li Ka-shing?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, I became aware from the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. I met him quite casually on my way to the airport, and he was aware that there was concern about that.

MR. SIHOTA: So this was just an accidental rendezvous; it wasn't a pre-arranged meeting initiated by either party. Am I correct in that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I did not arrange the meeting, but I think he was aware. Yes.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier did not arrange the meeting. Is he then saying that Mr. Toigo arranged for the Premier and him to meet at the airport?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I was on my way to Victoria after a morning at the cabinet office in Vancouver.

MR. SIHOTA: Then am I correct that this was just an accidental bumping into each other at the airport? Is that basically what happened'?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I don't believe it was accidental in that respect. I'm sure that he was made aware that I was concerned, and he wanted to talk about his going there. I advised him that this was obviously against the policy within the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, and that if he was wishing to discuss matters of business, that was obviously none of our concern, but he was not to indicate anything that would lead them to think that they could open up some sort of a bid and see others involved in it. He was aware.

MR. SIHOTA: I guess that raises two questions. First of all, who made Mr. Toigo aware of your presence at the airport? Was that arranged through Mr. Poole or somebody like that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It was not Mr. Poole, but I'm not exactly aware of who made him aware. I certainly know that the B.C. Enterprise Corporation was aware.

MR. SIHOTA: Is it safe to say that one of the Premier's officials made him aware?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That could be.

MR. SIHOTA: Did the Premier, during the course of that discussion — it's not a cabinet discussion — discuss with Mr. Toigo the matter of Li Ka-shing's offer to acquire these assets?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Toigo was aware, because, of course, there had been some considerable press coverage and speculation as to who the people involved were. I think he was able to deduce this for himself. I believe that he was reasonably able to read and determine from this who possibly the successful bidders might have been.

MR. SIHOTA: Is the Premier saying that at no time did he tell Mr. Toigo that Mr. Li Ka-shing was one of the bidders for the Expo lands?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member seems to forget that already a year before I had been to Hong Kong, where I had met with Mr. Li Ka-shing and other people in the business community. Already then, a certain columnist with the Vancouver Sun who was with us on the trip was reporting these various interests. So it went back a long way.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't know if you'll take that columnist along with you anymore.

I didn't get an answer to the question. Did the Premier ever advise Mr. Toigo that Mr. Li Ka-shing was one of the potential suitors for the Expo lands?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I say again, that information was already known. or at least was being talked about by a very observant columnist way back in I guess it was October 1986. I'm not sure about that. I'm getting my dates and my years a little confused, but it certainly goes back a long way. This was, I think, already reported on then, so he didn't need to be told. nor did anyone else need to be told, whether Jack Poole or any of those other people who had expressed an interest. I believe it was well known within the community.

I didn't have to. nor would I want to, and why should I, go out and give this information as to who the interested bidders were. But I would suggest that probably in the eyes of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, on behalf of the citizens of B.C., the more people who might be involved in the bidding process, the more people who might be out there expressing

[ Page 5324 ]

an interest in the lands, the better, because we still live in a society where free enterprise competition tends to determine the value, in the final analysis. Dealing with one is very tough. Dealing with two or three is difficult. The more you have to deal with, the easier, obviously, the process and your chances of getting a fair return. So I don't think anyone discouraged it.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to say this to the Premier. It certainly is true that this might have been reported in the press and been the source of discussion all over the place. What I'm trying to ascertain — and I think the Premier has answered the question, but I just want to give him the opportunity to answer it fully — is: did the Premier ever discuss this matter with Mr. Toigo? I'm not interested in knowing whether or not everybody else knew about all this from what they had read in the papers. Did the Premier ever discuss the matter of Mr. Li Ka-shing being the sole bidder, or one of the bidders, with Mr. Toigo?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, did I ever say he was the sole bidder? Did I ever say he was one of the bidders, in the context of providing him information as to who the bidders were or such like? No. Did we ever talk about who the bidders were? Hey, I suppose if you meet with people, regardless of whether it's in the precincts or out in the city, here or elsewhere, in conversation they will say: "I read in this column, or in that paper, that these are the bidders. How many others are there?" I don't tell them this, but I believe it might be talked about.

MR. CLARK: You don't say no.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Does the second member for Vancouver East have a question?

MR. CLARK: My question is very simple. If someone comes to you and makes allusions regarding Mr. Li Ka-shing, you don't disabuse him of the notion that that's the bidder. Did you?

[11:30]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't quite understand what the question.... But if the question is, can I lie about it, the answer is no.

MR. CLARK: It's not a question of lying about it, Mr. Premier; it's a question of the integrity of a bidding process. If someone comes to you and starts talking about Li Ka-shing, you just continue along and assume he knows.... You should quite clearly have indicated that this is improper, and not confirm or deny — as the Attorney-General or anybody else in public office does when we have a secret bidding process — who the bidders are. You don't go along with the game. You go along with the game; that's what you're saying here. You're saying that you never told anybody, but you did not disabuse them of the notion, nor did you tell them that you couldn't confirm or deny who the bidders were. You simply went along with people in discussing matters that were supposed to be secret along the course of events. If they deduce those things, you say, "Good for you; you've deduced it," and you carry along the discussion.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The answer is no. I don't discuss secret information. I don't discuss information that is privileged in any way. The member obviously is attempting to twist this somehow to say: "Was it ever talked about? Did someone ever approach you and say is it these or is it...." I don't recall. I am sure that if they are reading the papers and they're making observations, it might have been mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, to the member for Vancouver East, who appears to take this far more lightly: I don't discuss matters that are secret or privileged.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier said — and I wrote this down when he said it — when answering my question about the discussion that he had with Mr. Toigo and the caution that he gave to Mr. Toigo: "Don't present yourself as being involved in the process." I am kind of intrigued by that. I am wondering why the Premier would say to Mr. Toigo: "Don't present yourself as being involved in the process." We're talking about the process of Expo lands. Why would the Premier use those words, first of all? I will leave it at that, and I have a second question that flows from that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Obviously, as I have already mentioned.... I'll go through it again. There was the impression — and rightly — with the B.C. Enterprise Corporation that he would be traveling to Hong Kong to do his business, but similarly to meet with one of the bidders and to try and see them involved in what he wished, which was the purchase of the share. We had a process already in place with respect to the Expo lands, and the process similarly required that people involved in the bidding process not be involved with one another. It was just as easy as that.

MR. SIHOTA: Am I correct in saying that the Premier advised Mr. Toigo of his confidentiality obligations under the BCEC process, the $250,000 process?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, you're not correct, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SIHOTA: Is it fair to say that Mr. Toigo was not bound by that confidentiality arrangement?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's fair enough.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier indicated, during the course of one of my questions to him earlier, that there was the matter of a subsequent discussion with the Premier wherein Mr. Toigo expressed his frustration, and when commenting on that frustration I heard the Premier say something to the effect that that was natural given the fact that the matter of BCEC was one of the main purposes of Mr. Toigo's traveling to Hong Kong. Am I correct in having heard the Premier say that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's not correct.

MR. SIHOTA: Would the Premier care to clarify my understanding of Mr. Toigo's frustration?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What I said is that he was traveling there on other business. He was also hoping to have this meeting. When he came there he was advised that the

[ Page 5325 ]

meeting was off. I'm saying that anyone traveling that distance would, I suppose, be somewhat frustrated upon arriving and finding out that suddenly the meeting is off. It would take a very patient individual to then say: "Well, that's okay. I'll go down and have a coffee and a scone and forget the whole thing."

MR. SIHOTA: I don't know that you would have scones in Hong Kong, but that's perhaps not the point. I know they have great East Indian food there, having been to Hong Kong a few times.

So Mr. Toigo gets there, realizes he can't meet with Mr. Li Ka-shing and, as a consequence of his frustration, I take it, he phones the Premier. Am I correct in that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, Mr. Chairman, but I did find messages almost everywhere I went for a day or two after.

MR. SIHOTA: I wonder if he could repeat that answer. The member for Vancouver East was talking to me at the time, and I didn't hear what he had to say.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I say again: I did find messages in various places I went to that day or the day after — or both — suggesting that I should be calling there, and what the frustration....

MR. SIHOTA: So the Premier is saying he never did discuss the matter with Mr. Toigo but was only aware of Mr. Toigo's frustration?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I never discussed it while he was in Hong Kong, and I certainly wasn't anxious to see him shortly after, either. So it might have been some time before in fact I spoke one-to-one with him about his frustration. He had, fortunately, cooled down some.

MR. CLARK: I hate to resurrect the discussion around Terra Nova again, but research has just passed me a clipping from September 10, 1986. That was just prior to the election being called. It's regarding the removal of Terra Nova lands.

The Premier is quoted as saying.... First of all, he's made aware that Mr. Ilich is the principal owner, and the Premier, in his comments a few minutes ago, indicated he was not aware that Mr. Ilich was the owner. He is made aware of that in September 1986, and then he says: "I would have no problem voting in cabinet on this very question. I will have no problem dealing with the removal of Mr. Ilich's land from the land reserve in cabinet." Could the Premier then reconcile his remarks in September 1986 with his remarks earlier today?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member need not apologize for the line of questioning that we've heard for an hour and a half or almost two hours this morning. It's rather pleasing, in a sense, because it shows that my estimates must be in perfect order. So I have no difficulty with the line of questioning.

I don't know what he's quoting from. If he wishes to send me a copy of the article from the Province — or is it the Vancouver Sun? — or wherever it is, I will certainly look at the quotes or the article.

I repeat: it wasn't a matter of having a problem voting on that issue or any other issue, as the member observed rightly. I'm not known to run from issues, but I recognize that perhaps there was a degree of prudence, simply because of the politics, the controversy and all of the debate that had taken place, that it might be just as well if I shouldn't be there.

As to the dates, I guess if you want to give me dates about all of the things that you are questioning me on, it might help; but you are both taking turns from one to another. I appreciate that it may be a part of the strategy. That's fine; it doesn't bother me either. Whatever it is, that's okay. But give me the dates, because it is a little difficult to keep going from year to year and month to month, as you are putting it.

MR. CLARK: The Premier has said a number of times that he has excused himself because of the controversy in Richmond. Could he indicate whether he means the controversy regarding removal of the best agricultural land in British Columbia from the land reserve, or the controversy regarding Mr. Ilich making $29.4 million because of that decision, or the controversy regarding the fact that this is an individual who contributed to your campaign and to your leadership campaign in terms of the helicopter?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would suggest that no answer to that question is required because it is not in order, Mr. Premier.

MR. SIHOTA: Returning to the Toigo matter....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, these are keeping everybody entertained; it's awfully silent in here today. I think everybody wants their summer holidays.

Just going back to the matter of Mr. Toigo and the Expo lands, how was it that the Premier became aware that the B.C. Enterprise Corporation had concerns about Mr. Toigo's impending departure to Hong Kong?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, the member need not apologize. As I said already to the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), I am very flattered by the fact that obviously things in B.C. are pretty good and that the estimates — and my particular estimates and all the individual things in the estimates as they affect my office — are in pretty good shape. So I am flattered by it. Continue. Please don't apologize.

I became aware because of a phone call from the minister.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm glad the Premier realizes that we are looking in a comprehensive and broad way at his estimates, and they are not in good shape. That is one of the reasons why we are taking a broad, comprehensive look.

One of the areas where they're in particularly sad shape is in the relationship with the aboriginal people of this province. The reason that is part of the Premier's estimates is the 1,000 percent increase in his budget — bringing intergovernmental relations activities into his estimates and his office — and the numerous interventions, statements and actions by the Premier in the very sad betrayal of aboriginal people that this government has been involved in.

[ Page 5326 ]

I would like to deal with that betrayal of the aboriginal people of this province. The first disillusionment with this Social Credit government — because the native people in this province were totally disillusioned with the last Social Credit government — was at the constitutional conference that occurred in March 1987, when the Premier had an opportunity to finally do the right thing for the native people. That, you recall, was a constitutional conference called to deal with — and it was constitutionally mandated to do so, in the constitutional process of building this country — the issue of native self-government.

[11:45]

The Premier, to the shock and horror of native leaders and ordinary non-native men and women in this province, cast the deciding vote to kill the dialogue and the constitutional discussions about self-government. One of the most important issues in this province, and the Premier, as one of his first acts, killed that part of the constitutional process to resolve the issue of self-government for native people.

He said he wasn't going to buy a pig in a poke — that the requirements of our native people to have their own self-government were a pig in a poke. This is somebody who had been involved in the provincial Legislature for 12 years. He had had 12 years in various cabinet posts to make himself familiar with the concept of self-government — what it meant and didn't mean — and to go fully briefed and prepared to that constitutional conference. Instead he went there without that kind of preparation and killed the deciding vote — barred seven votes. His was the vote that stopped that important part of nation-building. It wasn't because.... It was an important issue; it was because the Premier didn't have the political will, didn't see it as an important issue, and was going to continue the Social Credit policy of straight-arming and not dealing with our native people.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, he was instrumental in severely harming the first set of comprehensive claims negotiations in this province with the Nishga Tribal Council, by refusing to participate at the table as a party to those negotiations, which has not only hampered but harmed those negotiations, by funding lawsuits on the native fisheries, in opposition to what was being discussed at those negotiations with the federal government and with the Nishga Tribal Council.

He then continued the betrayal of the aboriginal people of this province on the South Moresby issue, where the people of the Charlottes, particularly the Haidas, to bring about some justice, to bring about a resolution of the outstanding issues in the Charlottes, felt that the only way that they could get this government's attention was to be engaged in civil disobedience. To see native elders — hereditary chiefs and traditionally peaceful people, who wanted to sit down and negotiate in good faith — be reduced to that kind of activity was indeed a telling comment on this Social Credit government. It was indeed a sad day for the people of this province.

The aboriginal people of this province again saw that obdurate, unenlightened, harmful approach in the claims put forward by the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en and Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Councils, when they were forced again to go to the courts instead of negotiating. We have a very expensive and a very lengthy lawsuit now proceeding before the Chief Justice of this province. We have the Meares Island case; we have litigation involving over $100 million. That is a terrible waste of taxpayers' and other moneys that could be going into negotiations, settlements and economic development. Instead it's going into lawyers' fees. The people of British Columbia don't want to see that waste of money, but we have it. It's of no benefit to British Columbians; just to a few lawyers. Ordinary men and women of British Columbia don't appreciate the waste that's going on.

It's part of a systematic betrayal of the aboriginal people that the Premier, through his office, has been involved in. Another example is the master tuition agreement, where the native leaders expected to be consulted and be party to the negotiations. The final decision was unanimously opposed by the native leaders of this province when the master tuition agreement was finally signed between this province and the federal government.

Another example of this systematic betrayal of the native people of this province by the Premier and his office was in the Stein, this very difficult land use conflict, which is further complicated by the aboriginal issues that are fundamentally important to this province's future. The Premier said that the first people in this province, the aboriginal people, were just another interest group which can't be allowed to interfere with economic progress.

The Premier and his government were prepared to go into an even more extreme position and ignore the findings of the B.C. wilderness committee's own recommendations to the government, which were that no action be taken until there were successful negotiations between the natives involved and the provincial government on the issue of the logging road.

Mr. Premier, one of the sad parts of your vote and your office is the kind of actions and words that we've heard from you since you've become Premier. I want to reflect back to when you ran in the election to become Premier of this province.

In the last election campaign, you promised an end to confrontation, and you promised a fresh start. As a matter of fact, you went to Kingcome Inlet two weeks before the last election. It was a beautiful day. You were invited by the native leaders, who were hoping for a fresh start and were hoping that they would finally have a different provincial government to deal with. You were honoured in full tribal ceremonies with those magnificent robes and the welcoming dance. It was a photo opportunity. It was just a piece of the election. It wasn't in good faith; it wasn't to sit down and finally do the right thing. Those people feel deeply betrayed. I've talked to them since then, and they feel offended that they were used and abused in that way.

What I have just tried to outline in very brief form.... I could give you many other examples of how the aboriginal people feel betrayed by this Premier and his office, because your term has been one long string of confrontations between native people and non-native people — whether it be over development projects all across this province, from South Moresby to the Stein....

I would like to ask the Premier whether he will admit that the basic cause of these confrontations is the stubborn refusal of his government to recognize the existence of aboriginal title and rights in this province and his government's refusal to enter negotiations to resolve outstanding claims.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I suppose I could ask for withdrawal of the word "betrayal," but I won't bother with this. I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition didn't mean what he was saying, and I'll accept that.

[ Page 5327 ]

I would like to go over some of the things that have been suggested, particularly with respect to the Ottawa conference, where obviously the Leader of the Opposition is leaving the wrong impression, in that there never was a vote taken at the conference and everyone was very well aware that at least half of the provinces were opposed to what was being proposed — yes, for a good part because they really didn't know the meaning of it. I suppose some of the provinces not too affected by the proposal, even with its vagueness, might have been inclined to be supportive, but the provinces that were very affected by what might have been proposed definitely felt terribly concerned about it. That was, as I said, at least half of the provinces.

To suggest that B.C. was the holdout is totally wrong. I will say, however, that we are probably impacted more than any other province in Canada by whatever decisions are made in Ottawa. Certainly we have to be keen and aware, and watch very carefully what we decide on behalf of the people of the province.

Having said that, I recognize that there is obviously a difference in how we approach this. This government has a record of assisting native people in a variety of ways, particularly in economic development projects. Many have come before the Cabinet Committee on Native Affairs, and they have been dealt with there. These issues have been talked about, as have all of the other things you have just discussed in the estimates of the minister responsible for native affairs.

That is really where we would like to see the emphasis. Certainly we have a unique approach to self-government. We are the first province in the country to provide a form of selfgovernment to native people, and tomorrow we will be celebrating the provision of that to the people of the Sechelt Indian band. They are very pleased and will be celebrating tomorrow. Yes, I am sure that they are grateful to the Premier, the cabinet and the government for having made that possible; that's why we are invited to participate in those festivities tomorrow. That is an approach we are supportive of.

We have also been supportive, through the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, by providing them with more determination in how people in government provide for children on the reserve, That's been recognized. Again, in some respects we're leading not just in the province but in the country by making this possible.

That differs from what I have heard the Leader of the Opposition say. That is our approach to it. The approach that I have heard the Leader of the Opposition give is that he would sit down with native Indian groups to negotiate the land claims. That's going to be a difficult task, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. The claims, as we add them up, are in excess of 100 percent, so I don't know how you could ever satisfy everyone in attempting to resolve that one. I'll leave that with you, since you've already made that commitment. You'll need to work that out yourself — if you're ever given the opportunity, which I doubt. However, having said that, I suppose we still have to recognize what it was you said.

The Stein and South Moresby. You said there's been a lot of confrontation. You referred to Kingcome. I still hear from the people of Kingcome. That was, as you said, a very memorable and enjoyable visit, and I would hope to do it again soon. We established a tremendous rapport with the people at Kingcome, and I get more than just a Christmas card. I hear from the people. They come and visit yet, and I'm grateful for that. They are wonderful people, that's a pleasant place to visit, and I look forward to doing it again.

As for the Stein, we are still negotiating with the band council, and talks are continuing. They have been going on for a long time. We're following through on the advice of the Wilderness Advisory Committee; we didn't just run off in our own direction. We recognized the recommendations of the Wilderness Advisory Committee, and we recognize the pleas made by native and non-native alike when they say they need the resource in order to maintain the sawmills and the other places they work in.

South Moresby. I think we did very well, and we certainly responded to the message that came to us from across the world that people wanted to see the area preserved. We do have some ongoing talks with the federal government as to how we finally settle some of the economic matters, but that will be done.

I'm proud of the record we have provided. I won't get into the matter you referred to. the one before the court which the Chief Justice is dealing with. However, I say again that we have a position that differs from yours when it comes to land claims, and that's well known.

[12:00]

MR. HARCOURT: I was intrigued to hear the Premier talk about being the first to establish self-government for native people in this country and to enter into these sorts of innovative steps with native people. It would certainly surprise, I would think, Premier Bourassa — the negotiations with the natives in Quebec around the James Bay agreement. I'm sure it would surprise the federal government — the innovations they've introduced in the Northwest Territories. I'm sure the government leader in the Yukon, Mr. Penikett, would be surprised to hear that British Columbia is ahead of the Yukon in dialogue and discussions with native people. I'm not quite sure what fantasy that is related to, but it certainly isn't to the reality of this country.

For the Premier of this province to say that the matter of negotiation with the native people is tough and too daunting for him to handle is a terrible admission. To say that he doesn't have the leadership skills to sit down and deal with these.... I mean, to be able to make that statement in the middle of his estimates is indeed revealing.

You're right, Mr. Chairman. New Democrats believe that aboriginal title exists. It hasn't been extinguished, and we want to negotiate a fair deal for natives and non-natives. We think that's how we’re going to unlock the further potential of this great province of ours — not by putting our heads in the sand, as this Social Credit government does, hoping that when they bring their heads out of the sand, like an ostrich, the native people will have disappeared and their rights will have evaporated. That's just not the way you should lead this province, Mr. Premier. The people of this province expect better — and so did the native people before the last election. Not only were you wrong to mislead like that before the last election — that you were going to deal with a fresh start....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. opposition leader, will you please withdraw that?

MR. HARCOURT: I will withdraw that.

The people of Kingcome Inlet and the native leaders I have talked to feel very deeply offended. They felt that it was

[ Page 5328 ]

going to be a fresh start and that this government is even worse than the past Social Credit government, which is hard to do, because it had the worst track record in this country for dealing with native people. For you to be even worse than that is indeed a sad comment on the affairs of British Columbia in terms of our dealings with native people.

Mr. Chairman, I note that it is just past noon. I have a number of other questions to pursue with the Premier, as do other members of our caucus, and I don't want to impinge on the Legislature with the adjournment time now before us.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: Well, you certainly could use a diet, yes. I agree with you there. I am not going anywhere to eat, but as a courtesy to the House, Mr. Chairman, I'm just saying that it is 12 o'clock now, and I would move that 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. Veitch tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1988.

Introduction of Bills

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT,
1988

Hon. L. Hanson presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. L. HANSON: As the title suggests, Mr. Speaker, this bill amends several provisions of the Employment Standards Act. It will clarify the administration of certain sections of the act, make some small but significant changes to the appeal provisions and allow greater flexibility for employers and their employees to meet the minimum requirements of the act. I think both workers and their employers will be better served by these changes we are proposing. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 40 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:06 p.m.