[ Page 5475 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 4: Office of the Premier –– 5475

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Guno

Mr. Clark

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Jones

Mr. Rose

Mr. Cashore

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
(continued)

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

MS. EDWARDS: I want to direct a request to the Premier, Mr. Chairman. It's a very small thing that I want, but a very important one, I think. I know that some of the members who have been sitting in this House have heard me go through my Columbia River Treaty routine several times, but I want to be very clear about it for the Premier because I'm making a request that will reflect the attitude and commitment of the cabinet.

Mr. Premier, the Columbia River Treaty is administered by two entities, one Canadian, one U.S. The entity in Canada is the B.C. Hydro. As the entity that administers that treaty, Hydro negotiates long-term, short-term and daily agreements between itself, the Bonneville Power Administration and the corps of engineers in the U.S., for the generation of power and for the use of the water that is in the storage reservoirs in Canada under the Columbia River Treaty.

The Columbia River Treaty system provides power under the treaty. It provides for the designation of improvements since the treaty, which depend on it. What is sold is the treaty amount of power, then interruptible power — which are not in firm contracts — and short-term contracts of approximately six months or so. Hydro has input into the decision on these sales — as I say, almost daily input in some senses, but certainly monthly input into the planning, which is both short-term and long-term.

The treaty itself is based on power generation mainly, and flood control. But the treaty was sold to British Columbians and to the people who lost their land and some of the other values that went with the bottom land. It was sold on the basis of a recreational value. It was sold that way in both the U.S. and in Canada –– I have talked to people on both sides of the border — the government entities, the entities themselves that administer the treaty, government people, residents — and the people who do the controlling say they must provide for power under the treaty, for the most efficient power generation, and for flood control.

Nevertheless, with the threat this spring of drought and a very low level on various reservoirs — but I speak particularly of Koocanusa reservoir in my riding — the citizens are outraged with what could happen with the drawdown that would leave what was formerly a reservoir as a simple river. A number of public meetings in the U.S. brought the issue to the attention of the politicians down there, and there was an attempt and there is a continuing attempt to address the problem of the recreational value of that water.

The Bonneville Power Administration people said to me: "Tell Hydro to consider this recreational value, because they are worse than we are at wanting to use the water mostly for power generation." What this means, Mr. Premier, is that Hydro needs to have a policy word. In other words, it needs to know, I believe, from cabinet that if this province in fact believes there is a recreational value to the water, they will take that into account in a fairly small number of negotiations that they can do, but it could be significant in low years. The treaty has clauses that allow it to deal with flood conditions; it does not have clauses that allow it to deal with drought conditions. I think that has to be done with those of us who are here who can do something about it.

What we need, then, is for this government to give a direction to the people who are literally doing the day-to-day negotiations that when it gets down to a drought situation, the recreational value of the water in Canada is something that must be taken into consideration. That can be done around the treaty. There is no requirement that the treaty be opened again; it doesn't need to be. What we are dealing with is a very small bit of latitude that is left after the terms of the treaty are recognized, but enough latitude that I believe that this promise made to the people of British Columbia — when the river bottoms were flooded — that they would have a recreational resource could be kept. Four of your ministers have said that they believe this recreational value should be recognized: the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid), the Minister of Environment and Parks (Hon. Mr. Strachan) the Minister of Forests and Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis).

Will the Premier make a similar commitment to the recreational value of the water in the Columbia River Treaty waters? Will he make that commitment known by writing it down or by seeing that it is recorded in some way so that B.C. Hydro — as the Canadian entity dealing with the daily administration of water distribution — will know that the government of British Columbia wants it to take into consideration the recreational value of that water? I think it is an important thing to say. It is not a big thing, but it is a matter of some priority. What it says is that this government has an interest in the recreational value of that water. It will not only be the reservoir on the Kootenay River behind the Libby Dam. Some other reservoirs, I am sure, will be affected by this priority and this recognition. So I would ask the Premier now if he will make a commitment to make that statement representing the view of four of the ministers who are interested and who have already said that their commitment is to recognize the recreational value of the water? Will the Premier do the same in a recorded fashion? In other words, will he write it to B.C. Hydro?

[10:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I can't make a commitment to say something about something that we don't have all of the information on. As I understand it, it has been thoroughly canvassed with other ministers, and certainly I would rely upon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to gather whatever information is necessary from the other ministries and to relay this information to B.C. Hydro or to any of the people who might be involved in talks, negotiations or, as you say, daily dealings. I will say that we, as a government, take into, consideration every concern wherever and whenever possible, and we attempt to address these as best we can.

[ Page 5476 ]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Premier, I just want to make another point that comes partly from what the Minister of Energy said last night. He agrees with the value of seeing the recreational value of the water. He said to me, "Of course you have to remember that Hydro is a power generating institution," and I recognize that. That's one of the problems with Hydro being the entity which administers the Canadian part of that agreement.

That's why I want you as the Premier to represent the collective of your ministers who are willing to be committed to the value of this water for recreation. I want that priority to be put by someone other than the Minister of Energy, whose primary interest may be the generation of power. I want to go beyond that and get past the idea that the bias of Hydro will obtain when Hydro is doing this work for uses other than the generation of power.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't think we can determine this morning where or what the priorities ought to be at a particular time. There are many circumstances that influence all of this, and while I agree that it shouldn't be simply a consideration of generating power at all costs or without consideration for all of the things, I am sure that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — who communicates with Hydro on a regular basis — will consult with the other ministries and take forth the information.

MR. HARCOURT: When I was last on my feet, we left off at the whole question of the fundamental difference of policy between the government and the New Democratic Party on the very important question of settlement of outstanding aboriginal rights and claims. The Premier made it very clear that there was a genuine difference of policy, philosophy and approach. I said at that time that the result of the government's policy was that native people and many other ordinary men and women of British Columbia felt a great sense of injustice and, as I said, a sense of being betrayed; that there was not a commitment to deal with this impediment to the development of British Columbia. The Premier made it very clear on Friday, at the ceremonies to recognize the municipal status of the Sechelt band, that there was a clear difference of approach and opinion between the Social Credit Party and the New Democratic Party. I wanted to come back to that point, because it's fundamental to the prosperity, stability and progress of British Columbia that we confront and deal with this outstanding injustice.

During the ceremonies in Sechelt, the Premier stated: "I think it's safe to say we don't recognize land claims, so we obviously have a difference of opinion with those claiming the land." His Minister of Transportation and Highways, who has responsibility for aboriginal issues, tried to make out that the municipal model was the model for helping the native community towards self-government and economic self-sufficiency. The Premier and the Minister of Transportation in charge of aboriginal issues made it very clear that that's it; that's as far as self-government is going to go as a municipal form of government. I want to make it very clear that that is not the end.

I want the people of British Columbia to be aware that as far as the leadership of the Sechelt band is concerned, that is not it. The new Sechelt chief, Thomas Paul, and the past chief, Stan Dixon — who is now a band counsellor — have made it very clear that that is just the first step towards selfgovernment. Their desire is to use that model to grow towards a form of self-government and to move towards economic self-sufficiency and greater economic development programs which are potentially very promising for that band and for many other bands and tribal councils throughout the province.

The Premier should be aware, as should the ordinary men and women of British Columbia, that the Sechelt band and their tribal council still have outstanding claims and intend to pursue those claims. Those are not now settled because of the innovation that this one band was prepared to introduce, which is the start towards self-government with the municipal form as the starting point. As you'll recall, our caucus voted for that start, but it is one step along the journey towards resolving the great injustices that exist in British Columbia as far as aboriginal — and non-aboriginal — peoples are concerned. The problem we have to get back to is the refusal to recognize aboriginal title and rights and to enter negotiations.

That is long-standing Social Credit policy, whether it be under the previous Social Credit administration or the present one. That policy is out of touch with the vast majority of British Columbians, out of touch with the reality of, what needs to be done in this province. Many British Columbians are calling for a change to the government's policy: labour leaders, church leaders. As a matter of fact, a poll published in the Premier's favourite newspaper, The Vancouver Sun, showed that a majority of British Columbians favour settling land claims by negotiations, not by confrontation, not by paying lawyers $150 or $200 an hour to fight it out in the courts. The majority of British Columbians want the political leadership in this province to have the political will, the courage and the foresight to sit down and negotiate political settlements to a political issue. This is a political issue, not a legal issue. A number of prominent business leaders that I've spoken to over many years also told me they prefer negotiation and settlement through a political negotiations route to that of using lawyers and the courts. They want to remove the present uncertainty by getting the claims settled.

My question to the Premier: who are you listening to in this stubborn refusal to change your policy so that we can remove an obstacle to the social and economic progress for native people and for the province as a whole? Who are you listening to?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think I understand the position of the New Democratic Party on this issue. Certainly it's been repeated again, and previously so as well, by the Leader of the Opposition. We do differ in that we do not recognize the land claims, and we say any and all negotiations with respect to compensation must be between the federal government and the native groups. Certainly it doesn't involve the provincial taxpayer.

The Leader of the Opposition has indicated again now that he would personally take the lead and negotiate land claims. He's of the opinion that it is a political thing and it ought to be up to a politician — perhaps the Premier of the province — to negotiate such claims. I'm reminded of a statement which the Leader of the Opposition made in Prince Rupert not so long ago when he said that native Indians still held aboriginal title to British Columbia's land mass, and no sustainable resource development could occur in B.C. until the provincial government would admit it. He went on to say to the IWA conference that there would be more confrontation unless the provincial government changed its policies on land claims.

[ Page 5477 ]

He must be aware that according to the information available to us, approximately 120 to 125 percent of the province is claimed by various native groups. That's true. There is 100 percent, and then there's overlap where they claim that which is claimed by others. Approximately 125 percent of the land mass is claimed. I just don't know how the Leader of the Opposition will explain to other people who are presently living on the land, that have lived on the land for many years, and their forefathers perhaps before that, how they might become leaseholders as opposed to landholders given a settlement by negotiations between a Premier and the various native groups.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

He also hasn't explained what the economic impact would be, what the economic development or the lack of it would be given that uncertainty and given the fact that perhaps economic development could be established on lands that might then be removed if the Premier were to negotiate such. I realize it's a very difficult problem, and I realize it's been with us a long while. I appreciate, as well, that the federal government is now having to deal with it in the courts, at least in some instances. We'll have to wait and see what the outcome of that is.

In the meantime, however, we've not sat back and said there's nothing we can do or won't do. We've had the Sechelt band agreement, and certainly if you watched the coverage in the newspaper and on TV and on the radio — and if you had been there you would have seen for yourself — you'd have seen the great enthusiasm among the native people in Sechelt for the agreement.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I hear the comment from across the floor: "So what! One band." I believe you have to start somewhere, and certainly I'm proud of the fact that our government was able to make that start and do so successfully.

I had a meeting yesterday with the Carrier-Sekani people. We were talking about economic development for the Carrier-Sekani people, and they've made some suggestions to us. They were very excellent and most reasonable in their presentation and their approach. Certainly their suggestions will be well addressed. They are looking for economic development, and they are looking to provide opportunities for their people, and I think that's most commendable and we wish to cooperate with them in every respect.

[10:30]

They were also very pleased with the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and the fact that we've seen negotiations between various groups about seeing the social services provided to the various Indian bands involving the native community. They are very grateful and very happy for the progress that is being made, and they encourage the Minister of Social Services and Housing to continue that process.

They are also very happy with the fact that we are assisting in the funding of the teaching of the native language courses in order to maintain those languages where possible. Some definite progress is being made, particularly with the Carrier-Sekani people, and they're pleased with that. So there are a number of things we're doing, and I think we're coming at it very responsibly. We obviously do not want to put the economy or the economic development of the province at risk by coming at it otherwise. We'll continue with the approach that has been developed, and further meetings will be held on an ongoing basis with the various tribal groups.

MR. HARCOURT: I want to deal with some of the comments the Premier has just made. He once again made it very clear that there is a substantial difference of philosophy, policy and approach in settling these outstanding aboriginal rights claims.

There's also a great difference between the way Social Credit runs the government of the people of British Columbia and the way a New Democrat government would do it; in particular, with the approach of the Premier's office. The Premier said that he wanted me to personally negotiate with each of the tribal councils and bands involved. I can assure the Premier that I wouldn't do that, because there are lots of good people that could be delegated to carry that out on behalf of the people of British Columbia. I don't believe in a one-man gang. I don't believe in a Premier's office having a staff of a hundred people and the Premier trying to do everything and to approve every expenditure over $500. That's a dumb way to run the government of British Columbia. There are lots of experts around; there are lots of good negotiators around; there are lots of good people who could carry out that function.

When I say we would negotiate, that would be the political will; that would be the political courage; that would be the realization that it is a fundamental negotiation that has to take place in this province. Of course the Premier wouldn't be at the table for all of those negotiations. The Premier would give instructions for that activity to take place, would make sure there were good staff in place, and those negotiations would take place. Clearly the Premier doesn't understand how to run a large government, a large operation like the province of British Columbia. There is a very clear difference, not just in policy but in the way the Premier's office should operate.

I agree with the Premier: we have quite different ways of being in the chief office of this province. If we became government after the next election, I wouldn't try or use the way that he has run his office, because it's a disaster. Why would I want to repeat a disaster?

The Premier also mentioned comments that I made to the Nishga Tribal Council at their annual convention in Prince Rupert and to the IWA convention in Vancouver. What he selectively cut out, though, was that they are the same comments I have made to the chambers of commerce in Prince Rupert, Terrace, Smithers, Quesnel, and throughout this province, Mr. Chairman. I haven't said one thing to one group and another to another. I have said very clearly on behalf of New Democrats that aboriginal rights exist; that they haven't been extinguished; let's negotiate. I've said that throughout this province, and I'm proud to say it on behalf of New Democrats and on behalf of not just natives but non-natives in this province, the vast majority of whom want us to negotiate instead of having confrontation, refusing to deal with the real world and living in a fantasy land that is going to hurt this province in a continual way.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's important that the Premier has pointed out not just the difference in policies but also in the way we would run the Premier's office. I think that's very

[ Page 5478 ]

important. I don't make one statement to one group and a different one to others. I lay out New Democrat policy clearly and consistently throughout this province, and I'm going to continue to do so.

The Premier then said that there's 120 to 125 percent of the province claimed, so how would the Leader of the Opposition explain that people are going to become leaseholders instead of owners? What that points out, Mr. Chairman, is the profound, wilful blindness and ignorance that goes on in this government, which will not look at what the native people are saying. They won't look at it; they won't listen. They're not listening to what the native leadership are saying, what the majority of British Columbians are saying, which is: sit down and negotiate. Then maybe you'll understand the difference between aboriginal title and the Torrens system that We have in this province. Maybe you'll understand the difference between the concept of ownership and use native people have and that of non-native people.

As a matter of fact, I think it's a disgrace that a government that has had the possibility since the Nishga case, since the Calder case, of understanding what aboriginal title is all about, and the difference between aboriginal title and the fee simple ownership under our Torrens system, haven't done so. You've had 12 years as an elected person to understand this concept, and you refuse to do so. You've just once again demonstrated the wilful blindness that goes on in this government — the ostrich, put-your-head-in-the-sand attitude that is harming this province's development.

The other important question that the Premier brought up is the economic impact that would happen if we got sensible, sat down and negotiated a fair deal for native and non-native people alike. Let me tell you, the economic impact is harmful right now in this province. There's all sorts of development being held up because of the insecurity and uncertainty. The South Moresby park is a classic example of what's being held up because this government refuses to sit down with the Haidas and negotiate a peaceful settlement, which would then lead to an economic boom in the Charlottes that would be of tremendous benefit to all British Columbians. But you refuse to sit down and deal with the claims of the Haidas that would free up a tremendous amount of economic development for a lot of the unemployed citizens of the Charlottes, both native and non-native. That's a classic example of where this government is harming the economic development of this province instead of helping it

If you won't listen to the majority of ordinary men and women in this province, to labour and church leaders, to chambers of commerce, to native people, Mr. Premier, why don't you at least take notice of what the courts have had to say, which is: "Don't use the courts to settle this issue of aboriginal rights"? The B.C. Court of Appeal, as a matter of fact, has provided a strong hint that all parties might find a process, of negotiation better for resolving claims than litigation. In particular, Mr. Premier, if you would like to listen, in the Sparrow case in December 1986 the B.C. Court of Appeal pointed to the insertion of section 37 in the constitution as providing for the definition of aboriginal rights by negotiation. Mr. Justice Macfarlane noted in his judgment:"In doing so, it" — the constitution — "recognized what is obviously the fact. Many aboriginal rights are inadequately identified and defined. It made provision for resolving those doubts by a course of compromise and negotiation rather than the win-or-lose process of litigation."

There we have it: the highest court in this province saying negotiation, not litigation. What are we gaining from litigation but a bill for $100 million that could have gone into far more useful activities in this province. I want to know if the Premier will listen to the B.C. Court of Appeal and abandon his refusal to negotiate land claim settlements. Or will he continue to see our courts clogged with cases involving aboriginal claims?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: One of the problems is that the Leader of the Opposition sees society in B.C. as being made up of groups — native groups, unions.... It's all a matter of having to negotiate with groups as opposed to viewing the province as it really is: a place made up of three million individuals. That's where we differ. I think we need to consider the impact on all of those individuals who live in those areas of which you speak.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Nor have you really made any mention of where the money would come from or how much money might be needed to settle all of these claims if, in fact, we are unable to turn over the land or if, with the land, we need to provide money. Is it to come from...?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'd like to point out that the Leader of the Opposition was allowed to make his comments with the due respect of his colleagues in the House; and I would ask the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) to give the same regard to the Premier. Please continue, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry he continues, but I'm sure he will change his approach to this. We certainly want to hear all sides of the debate.

The Leader of the Opposition has made no mention of where the money would come from or how much money would be needed to settle these claims — whether it's to come from the pockets of B.C. taxpayers, even though the land claims, if they're to be negotiated, are definitely a federal responsibility. I think there is every reason for British Columbians to want to hear more on this particular topic, especially from the Leader of the Opposition.

He mentioned the Haida claims and suggested that the establishment of a park at South Moresby could not be settled without addressing these claims of the Haida people. He must be aware that the Haida claims really cover the whole of the Queen Charlotte Islands. South Moresby is intended to be a park, not a place where we'll see other types of economic development, although naturally there could be economic spinoffs from the establishment of a park. I think that as a government for all of society in B.C., we should determine, along with the federal government, what we expect to see at South Moresby or what we want in the final analysis for the park itself.

As I mentioned already, we will certainly continue to meet with native groups throughout the province, as I did yesterday. We're continuing to make improvements. We're not into, as has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, negotiating land claims. Again, that is something that has been taken to the courts, and obviously the federal government, as we've said previously and I've just said

[ Page 5479 ]

again, has a role in such claims or matters that might be decided by the courts. But we do not accept that the Premier or the Premier's office, or, as he is now saying, despite his earlier quote about taking it on himself if he had to.... We don't believe that we can turn the things the people here have worked for, the lands they hold, over as something to be settled by the bureaucracy either. We just wouldn't leave that to the bureaucracy, as is now being suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.

[10:45]

MR. HARCOURT: What the Premier has said is that he is going to continue to allow $100 million of taxpayers' money to be wasted, putting it into the pockets of lawyers and tying up the Chief Justice of this province for months and maybe years. He's going to continue to see important development projects held up while these cases are in court. He's going to continue to risk the court settling these cases on narrow legalistic grounds, which won't please anyone. The Premier is going to continue the harmful and wilful blindness of this government's not dealing in a leadership way with this outstanding issue, which has to be resolved. The Premier has made that very clear.

I was really quite astounded when the Premier said that South Moresby is going to be a park with no economic benefits: tell that to the people in Banff and Lake Louise. The South Moresby park is going to have tremendous economic benefits for tourism, with many visitors coming here. It's going to be the sparkplug for economic development in the Charlottes, so don't downplay the economic benefits of that park.

One of the things that has got to be resolved, as I said, is the insecurity and the uncertainty created because this government won't sit down and negotiate in a political way with the Haidas, the Nishga and the other tribal councils and bands throughout this province. The Premier keeps talking about special interest groups. Mr. Premier, there are three million people in this province. It is a province the size of West Germany and France –– 360,000 square miles; it's a huge province. We are here to represent all of the people of this province, and I wish you'd start doing that instead of just representing a select few of the wealthy, the privileged and big business. I wish you'd start representing the three million people in this province, the vast majority of whom want to see a negotiated and fair settlement of these outstanding claims.

The Premier asks: "Where will the money come from?" He knows where the money will come from. It will come from the federal government, which has the prime responsibility of settling these outstanding claims on behalf of the people of Canada. We have said that from beginning to end. We're saying that the party that's missing from these tables and that doesn't have the ability to sit down at the table is the province of British Columbia. That's our point. We want the province of British Columbia at that table to make sure there is a fair deal being negotiated for the people of British Columbia. If you're prepared to just let the federal government do the negotiations on behalf of the people of British Columbia, that's a real admission of failure and an abdication of leadership of the worst sort.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There's nothing that better demonstrates the lack of change of attitude or policy of this government on aboriginal fears better than the negotiations on a master tuition agreement. What happened after nearly a year of negotiations is that the province signed into agreement with the federal government — this April as a matter of fact — a provision that there be federal payments for the costs of status Indians attending public schools. What happened is that once again the native people were let down. What they were promised in Kingcome Inlet — open, consultative, cooperative government — didn't happen; the same thing that happened on Bills 19 and 20, and the same thing that's happened on so many other things this government's been involved in.

Let me tell you why your failure on the master tuition agreement negotiations is so important. The aboriginal people have a track record of their young people not receiving graduation from our high schools, and they have attempted to address that. The aboriginal leaders in this province have attempted to address this by asking for a clause allowing bands or travel councils to negotiate their own agreements with school boards so as to give them more control over the service provided to their children. The fact is that 75 percent to 80 percent of native children do not complete secondary school, and it's an indication of the present failure of the system.

The native leadership came up with a creative, positive — and, they thought, successful — proposal to allow bands or travel councils to negotiate their own agreements with school boards. The new agreement does specify that the education provided should be evaluated for appropriateness and student achievement, but there is no provision for aboriginal representation in this evaluation process, none. Instead there's a provision in the new agreement for a kind of voucher system. This proposal was unanimously rejected by the aboriginal representatives in the negotiations because the voucher system would allow local agreements between band and boards but the money would still be paid directly to local school boards. The boards would be under no obligation to reach an agreement since they'd be paid anyway, and aboriginal people have no way to force compliance once an agreement is in place.

We have heard from the negotiating committee, who feel that they were blindsided, that they were betrayed in these negotiations, that they're not getting what was necessary for the young native people in this province to at least get graduation from high school, let alone the training that's required by young people in a modern world.

I'd like the Premier to tell us why this agreement was signed over the objections of all the aboriginal people involved in these negotiations.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Leader of the Opposition made reference to some comments that I made at Kingcome. Frankly, I certainly enjoyed my stay in Kingcome. I intend to go back and visit again soon, hopefully. because I made many good friends there.

We did talk about openness and consultation, but they also knew my position with respect to land claims and they knew that the government does not recognize land claims and does not intend to get into the negotiations such as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting ought to be done.

I would remind the Leader of the Opposition, again, that just to talk about this and to suggest that he or bureaucrats in his office — were given the opportunity that I enjoy today — would negotiate directly with native groups in order to have these claims settled is definitely a problem, and I think if

[ Page 5480 ]

he pursues that, it would cost many jobs and much investment.

He must appreciate as well that this would obviously take a long time to get done. It wouldn't get done in a year, or two, or five, or perhaps ten; it might be 20 years, and the economy would, in fact, be frozen for all of that time. The fact that there would, as he suggests, be a provincial involvement would be a tremendous risk, particularly to people working in sawmills, logging camps, pulp mills and paper mills. There is a tremendous risk to the economy, and it wouldn't be for a year, or two, or five, or ten; it would be for decades.

I recently attended several meetings in Port Alberni where the people working at the mill are concerned about some of the suggestions being made about much land being set aside for environmental reasons. I've not heard all of the argument. They want to preserve large tracts of old stands of timber, and they've given their reasoning for it. I've not heard all sides of the argument, but I can assure you that the 4,000 people that work at the Somass mill are extremely concerned about that sort of approach or that sort of direction, because they can well understand that it could cost them hundreds or thousands of jobs. They're concerned. What's being suggested now by the Leader of the Opposition would obviously wipe out that mill and many others.

So the economic impact of this is something we should not overlook, and we can't talk about this as lightly as he is without giving due consideration to what the effect is on all the people working now.

I pointed out the mill in Port Alberni, because I was there last week. It's a good example in that there are 4,000 people employed there, and the whole area that they're dependent on is one of those being claimed. But we can't consider only the impact on the 4,000 people at the Somass mill; the whole of that community is dependent on the mill. The payroll from that mill determines how the merchants do in their shops in the town of Port Alberni. The payroll there and elsewhere in the province determines what happens to people who work in Vancouver or Victoria. We're all very dependent on those resource industries. To go at it as lightly as what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting is irresponsible. He certainly hasn't considered who would pick up the billions of dollars of cost. Would this be paid by provincial taxpayers, and how would they pay it, when suddenly many of them become unemployed on account of this as well? It is a very serious matter.

I agree and I reiterate that I certainly want the openness and consultation that we're having now with native groups throughout the province. We'll continue to have that. I am aware that we haven't addressed all the problems over the years. There's a great deal to be done. When I met yesterday with the Carrier-Sekani people, they pointed out the problems they have and how they want them resolved. They don't want to see their people dependent on welfare or any other type of handout; they want to be independent. They want economic development opportunities. They don't want to see their youngsters drop out of high school; they want to see them not only continue and finish high school but go on to post-secondary education.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If hon. members wish to speak, they should stand and will be recognized in the usual way. Is the Premier finished?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've already mentioned that we have special funding for the Carrier language program at the College of New Caledonia. We have a native resource centre in Salmon Arm which is relatively recent and providing a tremendous service to the people not only in that immediate area but elsewhere throughout the province. We have a native education centre in Vancouver. We have 2,000 Indian students in post-secondary schools this year, which is certainly a tremendous improvement over previous numbers.

We have appointed many native Indians to various college boards, and we want to continue that process. We definitely want to see them have a greater involvement. There are many things that need to be addressed, and we're going to be addressing them, but we're going to be doing it in a very reasonable and rational way, not taking the approach outlined by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GUNO: I thank our leader for allowing me to respond, at least in part, to some of the remarks just made by the Premier on what he characterized as a very serious matter. Indeed it is; it's been a very serious matter since the time of contact.

To put this matter in proper perspective, we ought to try and shift it away from the economic and social aspects and recognize it for what it really is: a very fundamental human rights issue, one that has been with us for some years.

[11:00]

If I can take it a little further, what would the Premier think of the native people if they were just to abandon this claim? If we were to do that — the native people — we would, in essence, be denying our own being. The position that you take is not a new one. I'm afraid our party adopted the same one in 1972, but it has changed since then. It is not a non-position as you say; it is a position of extinguishment without sanction by law.

If you were to read the opening remarks by Murray Coolican, who was appointed as Chair....

Interjection.

MR. GUNO: It is that kind of indifference that's indicative of....

Murray Coolican, chairman of the task force appointed two or three years ago by the federal government to review the whole matter of land claims, said in the opening remarks of a very important report that there are two things you have to remember about land claims. One is the obligation to resolve this matter. The importance of recognizing the obligation is backed up by our history, by law and by its political importance. He also said that there is an opportunity involved here. It is in the interests of all British Columbians that we have a vibrant Indian community, and land claims is the vehicle to do that. That is recognized by an incredible range of segments in B.C. society.

We have the unions now engaging in a dialogue with the aboriginal leaders to try and understand what we mean when we talk about land claims. We have the church groups — Project North — committed to try and come to some kind of understanding as to what this whole process is all about. Indeed, some of the corporate leaders are now saying that maybe there is something to this; maybe there is more than just putting our heads in the sand and hoping it will go away. Mr. Premier, it is not going to go away.

To exaggerate the scope of the problem in terms of negotiation is detrimental to the people of British Columbia,

[ Page 5481 ]

because there are really only two alternatives. The first one is continuing confrontation, whether it be through the courts or in demonstrations, and that is the policy this government seems to have adopted. The second alternative, which is more difficult but in the long run would be beneficial to the people of British Columbia, is to engage in negotiations. Negotiations imply that you sit down in good faith and come to a just resolution, not only for the native people but for all the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I just want to respond very briefly again, to say that we are initiating many new programs. We are certainly continuing to meet with native groups in order that we can hopefully work together to bring about resolution. It won't be the same in every area or for all of the groups regardless of where they are. I am sure that when we speak to the tribal council of the Carrier-Sekani people, it may be different from the agreement reached with the Sechelt people. It can vary from place to place, and they take different approaches to how the problems might best be resolved. In fairness, these people often have different views on what might best be done, and of course, depending on where you are, solutions can be different. We want to work it out in cooperation with the people, not to divide them along lines based on land claims and to then see the bickering and the fights continue — not at all. What we are saying instead is that we should work at it together. We are all British Columbians. We should all work for strengthening the province and providing greater opportunity for all of our people, regardless of where they are or what particular group they might be with.

MR. GUNO: I gather the Premier was just recently in Sechelt to take part in the formal recognition of the Sechelt self-government model. And he's right: the aspirations of the aboriginal people in British Columbia are certainly fairly complex ones and not ones that you can put in a single slot. It is going to be difficult.

I would like to canvass the Premier's knowledge of land claims. Aside from the fact that he views it as some massive land-grab that would deprive third parties of their property interests, some huge transfers of resources and that sort of thing.... That is not really what it's all about. If you took the trouble to talk to some of the leaders.... For instance, the Nishga Tribal Council policy on land claims has two principles, and they call it co-existence and sharing.

MR. CLARK: That's radical.

MR. GUNO: It's a radical concept, I agree, but it is a recognition of the fact that we, as a native people, comprise a definite minority in this province. But we still have some very legitimate rights that are recognized by the courts, and there is no way you can skirt around that by offering a few programs that will allay the fears of just some people. It is the fundamental question that has to be addressed, and it has to be addressed soon if you are going to, as our leader has pointed out, lift some of the development uncertainties that exist in many areas of the province.

I just want to know if the Premier can expand a bit more on what he knows about land claims. What does he mean when he talks about land claims?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm pleased that the member made reference to this. He obviously recognizes better than anyone here that it does differ from one particular council to another. As a matter of fact, in the Smithers court case, which is perhaps one most people might be best familiar with, the native Indian petitioners want full sovereignty. I guess it goes all the way from full sovereignty to something somewhat considerably less in the meaning of land claims. There's no one definition for it, but it does concern us that in the case of the Smithers land claim, for example, which is a very large one, the one that's being dealt with in the court in Smithers, the demand is sovereignty.

I know that the Sechelt agreement has been talked about somewhat, and I want again to say that there was a lot of support for this, not only from the immediate community, both native and otherwise, but also we had people like Frank Calder, former MLA and minister and member of the Nishga tribe, present there to congratulate them and to commend them on this.

There's wide support from other native peoples as well, and we're making good progress and shouldn't give up on that. We should continue. If you get into this land claim argument as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, you're looking at decades. Just the one situation in Smithers is taking years and costing much money, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, for lawyers. Being a lawyer, he knows what they charge and why they charge it. I'm not all that familiar with this.

I can tell you that we should not give up — we're doing it regularly throughout the province through our ministry — on trying to meet with native groups and trying to resolve those problems in a way that they would like to see them resolved.

MR. GUNO: The Premier again exhibits his lack of knowledge about this complex business by referring to the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en case as the Smithers land claim case. Smithers has nothing to do with it except the fact that it's the site of the court.

I think the real crux of the problem is the inability of this government to really engage in meaningful dialogue with the native people. Maybe that would be a prelude to a commitment to settle the matter, because I just can't see how any rational being can contemplate that we could solve such a complex social issue through the courts.

The Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en people took this legal action because of years and years of frustration, watching the whole spectacle of our rights being frittered away by the irrational resource management of this government, and they felt they had to take some very immediate action to protect their rights. As any people will do, they will frame their rights in the widest possible way, including declaring sovereignty. That makes sense. It's a strategy, I think, that everybody who thinks about it at all will recognize. You can't say: "These people are trying to declare sovereignty, so let's just not negotiate with them." I think that's an absolutely asinine way of doing it.

You talk about Sechelt government. Even Mr. Stan Dixon has acknowledged that this is an interim measure to deal with some of the most pressing economic problems that they have and enable them to pursue some of the economic possibilities. They have engaged with the Department of Indian Affairs to try to have more control over the lands that they have. It is not in any way to be, even for Sechelt, accepted as a model of self-government, because it isn't. It is not even a model that you can describe as a delegated municipal type of government.

[ Page 5482 ]

The aspiration of the native people in British Columbia remains constant, and that is to negotiate a more comprehensive form of self-government that ultimately will be entrenched in the constitution. This is in recognition of their distinctiveness as a people in this country. The sooner the Premier understands those aspirations, maybe the sooner we can start seeing some movement.

MR. CLARK: Just before we move on to other matters, I would ask the Premier to introduce his staff that are here today.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've introduced the staff previously, but I can introduce them again: Ian Fraser, Jan Hemming, Stu Colbertson and Eric Denhoff.

[11:15]

MR. CLARK: I want to deal briefly with a different matter, if we could, and that is the Agrifuels ethanol plant proposal near Dawson Creek. Just by way of background, in the last couple of years we've seen the Agrifuels proposal turned down six or seven times by the Ministry of Economic Development and the B.C. Development Corporation. We saw it turned down by the Ministry of Agriculture and by the Partners in Enterprise program. I understand that the principals then met with the Premier in the Premier's office, and as a result of that meeting and subsequent discussions, the government decided to promote the plant. The first budget allocated $10 million in the Agriculture ministry for loans and a 2-cent-a-litre subsidy for ethanol production.

Given that initiative, I wonder if the Premier could give us an update as to what's happening on the Agrifuels proposal.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The people I met with were those who came to see their MLAs and the minister of state. They were largely representative of the farming communities, so in fact it was in response to the farming community in the Peace River that we finally reconsidered the matter and put a proposal to them where, if they could meet certain conditions, they might wish to proceed with their ethanol plant. I guess they're still trying to meet all those conditions, and we've made it very clear to them that they must meet those conditions prior to our involving ourselves with the establishment of an ethanol plant.

MR. CLARK: So you're still fully supportive of the proposal for an ethanol facility there and still actively considering promoting such a proposal — provided, you're indicating, that it meets some guidelines.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member uses such words as "fully supportive" and "promoting." No, I've not been promoting. I would certainly support the proposal if they could meet all the conditions.

MR. CLARK: Aside from that initial meeting with certain representatives, your office hasn't been involved subsequently. For example, could the Premier advise whether he's met with Mr. Don Phillips or any others who are actively lobbying on behalf of the company, working for the company proposal? I'm not suggesting any impropriety here; I'm just wondering whether you've met with Mr. Phillips or other principals from Agrifuels Canada.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Unfortunately, not for a long while. I would certainly welcome any opportunity to meet with people promoting economic development in the province. But I guess they've had some difficulty with some of the conditions, so we've not had any such meetings for quite a while.

MR. CLARK: If possible, could the Premier give us some rough indication as to what he means by "quite a while"? Have you met with them in, say, the last year?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's certainly many months ago.

MR. CLARK: The reason I want to discuss this with the Premier is that I have here a memo written by the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), where he discusses the Agrifuels proposal. I'll quote a little bit of it for the Premier: "Why do free-enterprisers keep talking about ethanol from wheat as a transportation fuel in British Columbia? It is not economic. It is the worst of a number of poor alternatives to gasoline. It would have to be subsidized heavily." He goes on to quote from Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources officials working with Agriculture and Fisheries officials working with Economic Development staff. Those three ministries together have said this about the Agrifuels proposal:

"An ethanol plant based on grain would require large subsidies on a continuing basis. There's no prospect of achieving full taxpaying status until crude oil costs rise above $40 per barrel." Currently it's at $16 per barrel. Ethanol in gasoline faces a loss of market share by offering a product with inferior performance characteristics. Chrysler forbids ethanol use. Gasohol is the most expensive fuel of all the alternatives studied."

Finally, it says: "Withdrawal of the 2-cent-a-litre road tax remission is recommended on ethanol blends."

This memo from the Minister of Energy to the Minister of Economic Development is dated April 12, 1988, so it's about two months old. The last paragraph is interesting. It says: "A U.S.-based firm backed by instant consultants who claim to have an in with our government keep bringing the matter up. Give them top marks for tenacity, otherwise show them the door." Let me give top marks to the Minister of Energy for this memo which clearly discredits the proposal, and I must say it echoes many of the remarks that I made in here over a year ago.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Given this statement from the Minister of Energy, perhaps the Premier could reconsider his government's support for this clearly flawed proposal which originated — or at least was generated — by a meeting that you had with people from the industry. As I said before, we've had this proposal turned down eight times by various government departments, until they met with the Premier's office. The Premier's office intervened — that's legitimate — and asked this to be pursued. Now that the Premier's office has asked for it to be pursued, and we have the latest data from the Minister of Energy, perhaps the Premier could reconsider his support for that proposal.

[ Page 5483 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I heard some interjections across the floor, and I have to agree that obviously the member for Vancouver East representing the party that really doesn't understand too well what happens in those outlying regions of the province couldn't be expected to be familiar with the Peace River country. But the Peace River country is a part of beautiful British Columbia, and it's a very wonderful part that contributes generously.

If the people of the Peace River, like those I have met, want to promote economic activity and diversity in their region, they're going to get the Premier and the ministers and everybody on side supporting them, because we too want diversity and opportunity for the people in all the province, regardless of where they live. All the development does not have to take place in Vancouver East, downtown Vancouver or some of those places. There are also opportunities that we must pursue and not simply dismiss out of hand because they exist in the Peace River country, the Kootenays, the Cariboo or someplace in that other very important part of our province.

We want to pursue it and give these people every opportunity. As I've already said, there are, no doubt, varying views on such a new project; there are different opinions on it. I would certainly accept those opinions — we would give due consideration to them all. What we've said to the people of the Peace River country is: "Here are the conditions that you'll be required to meet in order for us to participate in this economic development project." If they can come back and meet all of those conditions and satisfy us, then definitely we would want to help them. The Peace River country contributes very generously to the economy of this province, but they want diversification as well.

MR. CLARK: The Premier indicated that it's my problem that I come from Vancouver East, and I don't understand the Peace River country. I was quoting your Minister of Energy, who was quoting officials from three ministries: Agriculture, Energy , Mines and Petroleum Resources and Economic Development. All three of the ministries concluded that it didn't make any economic sense. We're all in favour, as the Premier knows, of economic development in the region. But we're not — at least I'm not — in favour of subsidized economic development, and I know the Minister of Energy is not as well.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You've never been up there. When was the last time?

MR. CLARK: Yes, I have.

Given that the Minister of Energy has made this categorical statement.... I can't think of a clearer statement. It's a credit to the minister that he would be as forthright as he has been in the last few days. It is a very clear and unequivocal statement that the plant wouldn't make economic sense unless the price of oil were to rise some 250 percent. I agree with the minister. It's quite clear that's the economics of it. Given that the economics aren't there, will the Premier agree not to allow the government to lend money to this proposal, at least until this condition is met: that the price of oil reaches $40 per barrel?

I don't have any desire to delay the passage of the Premier's estimates, but in light of the comments in this memo, which are scathing in terms of U.S.-based instant consultants that claim to have an in with the government, and in light of the fact that all three of the experts in government ministries have said this doesn't make any sense, and in light of the fact that the proposal was turned down at least nine times by various ministry departments, I'd like the Premier to try and defend the proposal, which is still being pursued by this government in the face of all the overwhelming criticism, including from his own Minister of Energy.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We have to give the farming community in the Peace and elsewhere in this great province every opportunity to seek diversity. We should not be so negative, and we should not be discouraging them. As I said earlier, if they can meet all those conditions, I will sit down with the farmers of the Peace River, as will the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage), any day of the week, because we want the farming community to seek out this diversity and to have opportunity. We are not a downtown Victoria-downtown Vancouver party only; we represent the whole of this province.

MR. CLARK: Let me just read to the Premier what the Minister of Energy said about helping the farmers. He said the plant would have to be subsidized, and the same number of dollars paid directly to our Peace River farmers would mean more to them than an ethanol plant in northeastern B.C. He goes on to say that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, surveying numerous alternatives, concluded that U.S. grain farmers would be better served by direct subsidies than by putting the same amount of tax money into ethanol production. "Give grain farmers a direct subsidy," the U.S. report says, "and farmers will be better served both from an income and a cost point of view."

Given that your Minister of Energy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture say that it would be cheaper for the government to give cash directly to the farmers than to subsidize a clearly uneconomic project, would the Premier reconsider his support for the proposed project and, in fact, consider supporting directly, through subsidies, the farmers in the Peace River region, who are hard hit by various factors?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am sure that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the government of the U.S. will take great comfort in the fact that the member for Vancouver East supports their views.

MR. CLARK: I simply want the Premier to either reaffirm his support for this project in light of this very scathing criticism or say that he's reconsidering his support for the project.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We always support the farmers and always make sure that we look after that farming community. It's the backbone of the province; it’s very important to the province. We don't want to discourage the farming community. We want to provide opportunities for them to diversify and use their products in a variety of ways, which is why we recently became involved in assisting an industry in Summerland which will now process many tree fruit products. So we seek diversification for the farming community. We are concerned about the outlying regions of this province. We aren't always — as that member is — focusing in on downtown Vancouver and downtown Victoria; there's more to this province than downtown Vancouver

[ Page 5484 ]

and downtown Victoria. We have to listen to the farming community and involve them as much as possible in all opportunities, and not just rule them out - let's give them a chance.

[11:30]

MR. CLARK: The Premier is saying that it doesn't matter what the cost is. We know that it's a $9 million annual subsidy. That's the proposal — 2 cents a litre to ethanol. If all of the ethanol is consumed in British Columbia, it's a $9 million tax loss to the treasury for this project. That's in addition to the $10 million to the farmers and the $23 million farm guarantee, for some proposal which is clearly described as a scam by the Minister of Energy. Who's promoting the project? The former Minister of Economic Development, Don Phillips. Remember Don Phillips and his $25 million to Louisiana-Pacific? Well, he's got another one working right here, and the Premier's supporting it.

I just want to ask a couple of other questions regarding this memo to the Premier. It talks about a paper written by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), and it says: "...the development of an ethanol fuel industry for British Columbia using public sector purchases of ethanol." Is the Premier aware that his government is considering stimulating this development even further, in fact subsidizing it even further than already indicated, through using public sector purchases of ethanol?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Obviously, if we ever arrived at a time when the cost of the 2 cent relief on a litre of gas containing ethanol would amount to $9 million, ethanol would be a tremendous success, and the farming community in the province would benefit enormously. I hope that he has done that calculation, because if those figures came about I think we could all stand in this House and applaud the farmers of the Peace for the enormous success they were able to accomplish through turning their grain into ethanol.

But there is something else that the member seems to overlook. I think all hon. members, regardless of what side of the House they sit on, ought to be concerned about the environment. We can't simply continue to pump lead into the environment. If we can find a substitute for the lead in ethanol, it may be worth the 2 cents per litre to take that lead out of the environment, to keep this environment a clean environment. That should be worth something to the member from Vancouver East. I know how many cars go down 1st Avenue, Hastings and Cassiar and all of those streets in Vancouver. If we could take the lead out, I think we would all be the winners.

MR. CLARK: It's interesting. The Premier is grasping at a rationale for what's clearly a crazy project by every definition, including by the three ministers involved. I don't understand why he won't, in light of this kind of evidence, say that they're reconsidering their support for this project, which only has one supporter and that's Don Phillips.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Let me say again it was the farming community that I met with. It's the farming community that I keep in contact with. Just because you, Mr. Member from Vancouver East, believe this to be a crazy project.... You said as well — I heard you say it a minute ago — that Louisiana-Pacific was a crazy project. You may be calling it a crazy project because it's in Dawson Creek, which happens to be in the Peace River country; but there are hundreds of people who have derived employment from that project. They don't think it's a crazy project; they believe it's a good project.

If you were living in the Peace River country and looking for a job, you wouldn't think it to be a crazy project; you would say it's a good project. I suppose it's a matter of how you view this province. If it's simply from a Vancouver East perspective, I can appreciate your calling all of these projects that are somewhere far away in the province from Vancouver East crazy projects. But Louisiana-Pacific is doing well. They're paying their bills ahead of time. They're making money, thank heaven. They're paying their people and they're employing hundreds.

Those people don't think it's a crazy project. You can go ahead and call everything you want that's somehow beyond Cassiar, Vancouver East, Hastings and your constituency crazy. I say we need economic diversity throughout all parts of this province, which is why decentralization is so important, which is why we want to give these people an opportunity to have some input. Frankly, I love that Peace River country and I love those people there.

MR. CLARK: By the time the Premier gets through, it'll be the only seat held by this government. The Premier said that I think it's a crazy project. It's not me; it's your Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) who says this project doesn't make sense, and the officials in three ministries of your government who say it doesn't make sense.

I thought this was a free enterprise government. I thought they didn't believe in subsidies. The Premier has made this speech a dozen times and said that he doesn't believe in subsidies. But here we are subsidizing millions of dollars on a project that doesn't make any economic sense.

I want to just ask a few final questions.

MR. ROSE: One.

MR. CLARK: One final question, because the Premier has not answered one. I want to know if he is aware that, in addition to all of these subsidies we've dealt with, the Ministry of Economic Development has published a paper which talks about the government buying the products from the ethanol plant in the Peace River area. In other words, the paper refers to the development of an ethanol fuel industry for British Columbia, and the idea is to promote the ethanol plant by public sector purchases. Is he aware of that?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am looking across the way. and I see about 10 or 11 members. Each is from an area where the lots are generally not much bigger than 7,200 square feet. We're talking about a program to assist farmers. It's strange that the criticism should come from a member who lives in Vancouver East, where the lots aren't even 7,200 square feet — they're even much smaller. They're 25-foot lots, and you're criticizing a project for farmers.

This is an opportunity that the farmers wish to pursue. Hopefully it will come together. It may not; there are conditions they have to meet. I would hope, too, that eventually we'll find ethanol or other alternatives to the use of lead in gasoline. This is environmentally sound; it's a good thing. I think government, if they're able to, should take some

[ Page 5485 ]

initiative in using a fuel that is unleaded. I think we should show that leadership. I'm surprised that you'd be opposed to that as well.

Where is the leadership on the other side? Where are you, Mr. Leader of the Opposition? Can't you keep them in line? I would ask that you keep your members in line.

MR. HARCOURT: We're prepared, unlike the Premier, to listen. We're particularly prepared to listen to the three ministries that have said that this particular proposal is a bad deal for British Columbians. We're prepared to meet with the farmers in the Peace River, which I've done, and talk to them about the savage way this government has treated farmers, cutting off the income support programs and a number of other initiatives that those farmers have asked for in the Peace. They haven't been listened to by this government.

So don't talk about listening and about visiting the Peace River country. I think, Mr. Premier, you've spent more time in downtown Victoria and downtown Vancouver in the last few months trying to mend the bridges with your own supporters that you've burned with your own matches: four meetings in downtown Vancouver and downtown Victoria with the 20 Club. Don't talk to me about meeting with farmers. You've been meeting with the 20 Club to try to rescue your tattered government in downtown Vancouver and downtown Victoria — secret meetings with the big business funders of Social Credit. Don't give me this facade that you're meeting with the farmers in the Peace; you haven't had time. You're too busy in downtown Vancouver and downtown Victoria trying to raise money for your tattered party. Even they're turning you down.

Let's talk about spending. Let's talk about the Premier's spending in his office. I'd like to share some information. I'm not sure the Premier wants to share this information with the people of British Columbia. I wouldn't want to share it with the people of British Columbia either, as a person who came in here talking about cutting down bureaucracy and cutting out red tape, decentralization and all of that.

Let's just take a look at that; let's take a look at the Premier who promised that. Let's look at this year's estimates over last year's. This year the Premier is asking for $6.7 million, with 74 full-time-equivalent employees. That might appear to be a decrease from last year's actual expenditure of $7 million, with 80 FTEs, but last year's estimated expenditure was $2.7 million, with 58 FTEs. In fact, the Premier's actual expenditure was 260 percent over budget. The man who was going to cut back on expenditures and cut out bureaucracy and red tape was 260 percent over budget.

The reason for that is that the Premier centralized a number of important public programs like government information into his office. This shouldn't surprise anyone, given that in the previous year, 1986-87, as soon as he was elected, the Premier confiscated for his office $1.7 million and 38 FTEs from various ministries. That included government information services, $890, 000 and 15 FTEs; and the cabinet secretariat, $428, 000 and 12 FTEs. So we have this rampaging, centralized bureaucracy on a massive scale.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Premier, I'm thinking of sending you to Dick Gregory, the comedian. He deals with people who have bulimia, who need to lose weight. Your office needs to lose a lot of weight. I think both you and "the Fridge," Bill Perry, of the Chicago Bears should attend the clinics of Dick Gregory, because the amount of bulimia in your office is very unhealthy.

I look at this increase from 11 to 74 people — and who knows what's coming? — and I think your office is in need of that kind of clinical treatment or it's just going to explode. It just can't handle a bureaucracy that big; it can't handle that kind of red tape and centralization. It's going to be hard to keep tabs on all of that, particularly when you look at every expenditure over $500 and there's all of this madcap shifting around of the operation of the Titanic that you've been doing the last little while. It's just incredible what you've been doing to demoralize the public sector, to massively increase your office and to not stay within budget.

Mr. Premier, I'd like to ask you two questions. Why were you so much over budget? What will the new expenditures be for the rest of the year above and beyond your budget of $6.7 million for this year? What have you got planned to add to your budget?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'm so happy we finally got to vote 4. The estimates for 1987-88 were $7,051,068: the estimates for '88-89 are $6,756,134. We have a reduction. obviously, in the estimates this year over last year. It's because we have done some things in the office to continually make it more efficient. But we're aware — and I'm sure the member must be aware too — that there's a high volume of mail, and we want to attend to all of that. We want to respond to the mail in a very efficient manner, and we're certainly doing that.

[11:45]

MR. HARCOURT: So we need a 1,000 percent increase in the Premier's budget to deal with citizens writing to him; that's the explanation.

Let's have a look at the Premier's estimates for this year and the previous Premier's last year. The previous Premier, in his last year in office, 1985-86.... The budget for his office was $694,000, with 13 full-time-equivalent staff. This Premier's office budget of $6.7 million is almost ten times that of the previous Premier — a 1,000 percent increase.

If we ignore the centralization of programs from other ministries by the Premier into his office, let's look at how the Premier's office compares with the previous Premier's. Salaries, benefits and operating costs under the labels "Executive" and "Administration and Support Services" now total $1.8 million for this Premier, compared to $559,000 for the previous Premier's office. That's a tripling of the budget, a 300 percent increase. Whichever way you measure it, this is a bureaucracy, a centralization, that's out of control. It's out of whack and out of favour with the people of British Columbia.

I have some specific questions to ask the Premier about his estimates. If he'd turn to subgroup 20, professional services, it's estimated that he will be spending $510,000: $100,000 for administration and support services; $300,000 for communications; and $100,000 for federal-provincial and international relations. Could the Premier tell us exactly what professional services will be purchased with this money? Will any of this money be used for polling? Will any of this money be used for work by advertising agencies?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Obviously there was some confusion by the Leader of the Opposition when he was talking about a thousand fold increase and comparing an estimate that's some years old to the estimate today, and not including the fact that we've had the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations, complete with deputy and staff, turned into

[ Page 5486 ]

the Premier's office, as well as government information services. There is that difference. The bottom line is obviously a saving for the people of the province, and he should be aware of that, If he isn't, it's only because he hasn't bothered to find out or he doesn't want to find out. Suffice it to say that it's all available there, and he can calculate it for himself.

With respect to contractors or contract services for professionals, no, we do not do polling. We do not have advertising in this amount. It will be to bring in professional services on any number of matters that might be deemed advisable by the Premier or the government.

MR. HARCOURT: On the subject of polling, can the Premier tell us: was there any polling done by the government in the last fiscal year?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, I believe there might have been some polling.

MR. HARCOURT: Can the Premier tell us the details of that polling — how much polling, What it cost, who did it?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't have the details, but it would be up to the Ministry of Tourism to determine numbers of people crossing from the U.S. into Canada or visitors from Japan and China — that type of information gathering.

MR. HARCOURT: So the Premier is saying that the only polling done by his whole government was some Ministry of Tourism polling of visitors crossing borders.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think perhaps if we can put it into the context of evaluation of programs, there is a degree of that happening in Tourism, and possibly another ministry or two. I can't say; I don't have that information available. We do not, however, do the type of polling you wish to see done.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, would the Premier be willing to table the information on the polling that has been done by the government — the details of that — with the Leader of the Opposition?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think if the Leader of the Opposition wants specific information about polls or surveys done by the Ministry of Tourism, then he should ask the Ministry of Tourism to get this information. They'll get it for him.

MR. HARCOURT: The Premier will not make that information available.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, that's not the answer.

MR. HARCOURT: Well, I've asked the Premier to.... First of all, you said there was some polling done in the Ministry of Tourism. Then when I asked you if that was the only polling done, you said it was done in two or three other ministries maybe, and maybe others — "I don't have that information with me" — and on that basis, Mr. Chairman, I asked the Premier if he would be willing to collect the information from all the ministries involved so that we can see the amount of polling that was done and the details of the polling done by this government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, I wouldn't want to be accused of being a one-man show and gathering information from other ministries and presenting it to the Leader of the Opposition. I think in the name of decentralization and ministers being responsible for activities within their ministry, and of the good workings of it, as the Leader of the Opposition would understand, obviously he should get it from the ministries.

MR. HARCOURT: So the Premier will not extend that courtesy to the Leader of the Opposition.

Would the Premier then tell me if there was any polling authorized or done out of the Premier's office?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like the Premier to look at subgroup 40, the information, advertising and publications section under the Premier's office, where the spending will be $2.5 million. Could the Premier tell us exactly what advertising and what publications this money will be used for?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I really can. It's for information that we might seek with respect to free trade, Meech Lake, international trade initiatives, any number of things like this. I don't know what these publications are or, even less, what these publications might be. But it's a lot of information on various scientific, technical, legal and constitutional issues. So I don't have it.

MR. HARCOURT: I think it's anywhere from unfortunate to unbelievable that the Premier wouldn't know what's happening with $2.5 million of the taxpayers' money for information, advertising and publications. That's a very significant sum in his budget of $6.7 million.

I just heard a couple of sentences that it may go for something in regard to Meech Lake and maybe something for free trade and maybe something international and maybe some scientific journals. A "maybe" isn't good enough for $2.5 million, and I would like to have, rather than just a kind of mumble and a bit of a flip remark on $2.5 million, some of the details on where the major expense items would be. I don't need to know whether you're getting a subscription to the Vancouver Sun or whatever other publications you may be getting. I'd like to have some idea of where the general thrust is, under a $2.5 million information, advertising and publications budget.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition was questioning me about subscriptions. Now he's gone further to seek why the amount or what other things might be included. That's different, definitely. Provincial Report comes out of that, and it's certainly a major publication. We have the maintenance program for the Attorney-General, and the advertising and the promotion of that comes out of this. We have the strengthening of the family program; much of the initiative and coordination for that particular program comes out of this. So it's made up of those sorts of things. Initially you talked about subscriptions to various publications.

MR. HARCOURT: Initially, Mr. Chairman, I asked about the $2.5 million that was going into information,

[ Page 5487 ]

advertising and publications. I wasn't asking about a couple of subscriptions; I was asking about $2.5 million. If the Premier would be willing to supply more detailed information to me about those programs — the maintenance program and the family life program — I would like to have that information. Would the Premier be willing to supply that information to the Leader of the Opposition?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can probably give you some of these now. Because I don't know when you asked for that information.... Do you want, for example, the printing of the government telephone directory? That's a rather major expense and undertaking that comes out of this as well.

Let me give you this. It's the preparation of information materials for interministry programs and new initiatives. It's advertising related to various issues such as were mentioned, since we're the agency of record. It's wire service news release distribution, and publication of Provincial Report, the government telephone directories — which I've already mentioned — and the regional media directory. It's contracting for research; photography; advertising with respect to free trade, or the impact study so that our citizens will have this information available to them. It's advertising in the newspapers relative to the impact study. It's communications with respect to privatization, such as production of printing and advertising for the Environmental Lab, the Soil, Feed and Tissue Lab, the dairy lab, nurseries, B.C. Steamships, Queen's Printer, Forests, Highways— and the list goes on. It's direct mail, graphic design and brochures on such things as pension rights, standards of conduct, steps to employee ownership and the early retirement incentive plan. It's fees, travel and minor expenses related to the privatization program. It's printing through the Queen's Printer of employee information brochures, Executive Link and Info Line, newsletters and opportunities background and material.

There is quite a list of this, but if you want specific information, let me know, and I'll try to get you the specifics.

MR. LOVICK: Just a quick question to the Premier to clarify. Do I understand him correctly to say that all of the things he recently listed, including Executive Link, Info Line and all those things, are coming under the Premier's estimates? Is that the case? I see the Premier nodding his assent.

Now I'm confused, because we had a rather lengthy debate last night with your colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis), who is in charge of the privatization initiatives. We talked about an approximately $3 million budget there for privatization initiatives, and we were led to believe that Executive Link, Info Line and a number of other things were coming directly under the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources' estimates.

I'm wondering if the Premier would clarify this for us, because you can understand, I am sure, that we are beginning to wonder if, in fact, this privatization budget is even larger than we anticipated, based on the conversations we heard last night, which were in themselves surprising to us. Would the Premier care to respond?

[12:00]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Vote 4, under description item (d) — communications — provides for the planning, coordination, approval and implementation of all communications activities of government. So yes, it's correct that Info Line and such would be provided through my office. But the office does work very closely with the ministry, and obviously the ministry would be involved and look after the preparation of this material.

MR. LOVICK: Just to follow up that point, if I might, Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering — in the interests of clarifying matters and fulfilling the promises of open government and so forth, which I have no reason to doubt the Premier is sincere in having made some time ago — if he would be willing to assure this House that, in keeping with what his colleague the Minister of Energy agreed to last night, he would present to us a number of documents giving us a specific cost breakdown on all of those privatization initiatives.

The reason for asking, I am sure, is obvious. We have been searching for some time for the real cost, the total cost, of the privatization initiative. Now it seems we have discovered yet another batch of those costs, and I'm wondering if the Premier would be willing to give us the assurance that we can get answers to those kinds of questions. Will we get a complete accounting, then, of the costs of the privatization initiative?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Give me a specific question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please repeat, hon. member.

MR. LOVICK: All right. The Premier says he wants a specific question. I had thought I had given one, but let me try again, and I'll be very brief. Will the Premier table or otherwise make available to this Legislature the total costs for the privatization initiatives — specific costs that are assumed by his office?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This information will be available, as is normal, through Public Accounts.

MR. LOVICK: Well, I can perhaps understand the Premier's response to the question, but it would seem to me that if indeed your government, Mr. Premier, is trying to allay people's fears about how government dollars are being spent, how taxpayers' moneys are being spent, here is a marvellous opportunity for you to do a great deal to clear the air, to make people feel good about what their government is doing. All, it seems to me, that is required is for the Premier to say: "Yes, indeed, I will provide you with the same kind of information that my colleague the Minister of Energy has said he would provide." Instead, however, the Premier's response is to say: "Well, yes, you can find it. It may take you a long time, because as we know, it is a slow and laborious process to locate all of those expenses in Public Accounts. You can find it, but I'm not going to help you." Is that indeed what the Premier is really telling us? Certainly that's what's embedded in the answer: "Well, go to Public Accounts."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'm saying there is a proper process in Public Accounts. It's vetted and certainly has the authority of the auditor-general with respect to the accuracy of it. That information will be available to hon. members of this House, and I think it should

[ Page 5488 ]

be. It's a serious matter that you want to know about, and we should certainly present it in that form, as we have always done and as has been the custom.

MR. JONES: I was very appreciative of some of the remarks the Premier made in his introduction to the debate on his estimates. He said that the debate would be free-ranging and unconfined, and not only would he be prepared to discuss what the government has accomplished but also what lies ahead.

In that context I'd like to raise three issues with the Premier, issues about which I think there has been — and I think the Premier would agree — at least some degree of confusion and lack of understanding by the people of British Columbia on the directions of government. So I'd like to give the Premier an opportunity to clarify what his intent is with respect to these areas.

The first one I'd like to raise is the issue of the county system, and in doing so I would like to put that in a little bit of historical context, a history that I'm sure the Premier is very familiar with; but I think it is important to provide background to what I think is an important issue. The Premier will clearly remember the genesis of that issue. It was a 1979 discussion paper that came out of the then Ministry of Municipal Affairs, which was the portfolio held by the Premier at that time, called "Regional Government Reform." It was in that paper, Mr. Chairman, that the option of the county system was strongly favoured by the minister — now Premier. The paper suggested that existing regional districts be replaced by the county system, and the Premier, I believe, indicated at that time that regional districts would only have a fifty-fifty chance of surviving the year.

The second foray into this question occurred a couple of years later — I think a very important issue to the Premier at that time — and that was the introduction of his Land Use Act, a bill of some 100 pages. It was under that bill that the planning function for B.C. was to be removed from regional districts and the province divided up into various super regions, not unlike what we see now in the decentralization plan.

The Premier will clearly remember his famous leave-taking from that portfolio. He moved on to Education, where it was reported that the minister would use his portfolio to continue his pursuit of the county system. The Premier may say that is ancient history, that we've had a fresh start and a new government. But the history of the county system continued into 1986. In September of that year, the Premier said to the UBCM convention in Vernon that he strongly favoured the county system.

That has not been the end of it. Some seven months ago, in the November-December issue of the GVRD news, with Bud Elsie, the GVRD information services coordinator, the Premier was very forthright in his views on the county system. He said in that interview that he saw counties replacing regional districts in this province and indicated that he saw counties really as regional districts with changed functions.

Last October the Premier's principal secretary, Mr. Poole, in a famous interview with a variety of members of the press gallery — that's the interview where the phrase "The United States of British Columbia" was coined — indicated that the basic philosophy of the decentralization plan has its roots in the county system of government. The principal secretary also indicated that the government plans to assess the feasibility of providing all government services within a regional administrative framework. In addition, the B.C. School Trustees' Association, which I think is very concerned about the county system, indicated in their recent brief of April 1 to the Royal Commission on Education that discussions have recently been held with regional district representatives and government. Also, based on comments and initiatives out of Victoria in recent months, it is clear that the provincial government intends to look seriously at implementing a system of county government in B.C.

So there seems to be a good deal of evidence pointing this government in the direction of the county system. I know the Premier will want an opportunity to clarify his position. He did indicate that he's prepared to discuss not only what the government has accomplished, but what lies ahead. I would like to ask the Premier if he would indicate to this House if he is as firm today in his position on the county system as he was in 1979, 1986 and earlier this year.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think a lot of people would argue that we are a province of three million people. We have senators; we have members of Parliament and of the Legislative Assembly; we have regional district directors; we have municipal mayors and aldermen; we have school boards, hospital boards, water boards, sewer district boards, diking boards and commissions; and on it goes. It is a horrendous list. I think there is obviously some concern among many that the suggestion that we are possibly one of the most over governed people in the world has some merit, and that therefore there's no harm in pursuing systems that might be more efficient and more effective in some ways.

If, as has been suggested, we could come up with a county system that combined matters of a local nature — be they hospitals, schools, or dealing with roads, sidewalks and the likes — and therefore save the taxpayers not only considerable money but stress in trying to cope with red tape and wondering where to go; if that could somehow be accomplished and a good case put forth by some area where they wanted this particular type of government.... Call it county if you wish; that's what I've always referred to it as. There are models like this elsewhere in the world. Perhaps we should give these people the opportunity. We saw such a form in Fort Nelson, where, instead of a regular regional district with the town of Fort Nelson, we now have, in effect, the county of Fort Nelson. It's not a county such as we see in Alberta, Ontario, the United States or Britain; it's another form. But their wish was to at least try it for their particular area.

We had a similar suggestion, as I understand it — the Minister of Municipal Affairs will have more detail on that, I guess — from Williams Lake or Quesnel, I believe, where they wanted to see it considered. People on the Queen Charlotte Islands feel they're too remote from the mainland in having to deal with the regional district on a variety of matters. They would prefer to see some model of county system developed for them so that those decisions could be made locally with local input for less cost, and more efficiently. If they wish that, I would certainly be supportive of giving them that opportunity.

So I guess the bottom line is yes, I too am still searching for a better way, and I do believe the county system, when we're ready for such, will offer something that might not be available in the very expanded, bureaucratic or certainly difficult system that we have in place today.

[ Page 5489 ]

[12:15]

MR. JONES: I think the Premier knows that the Fort Nelson situation is rather unique. Their desire to establish a county was based primarily on a desire to broaden the tax base, and perhaps it does make sense in that area.

I take it the Premier's response was really that we do have too many representatives now, that we are over governed, and that he is as firm in his position today as he was in '79 and earlier this year. I also take it from the Premier's remarks that he would respond to initiatives from the particular areas rather than promoting this idea himself. He would prefer to see the initiatives come — he mentioned the Queen Charlottes — from the regions. So if the initiative comes from the regions, the Premier is quite prepared to respond but not to particularly advocate or promote the system himself. Is that correct?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have not been out there in an advocacy role with respect to this matter. I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs can certainly consider where, when and how it ought to be talked about at UBCM or otherwise. But we are making some progress, in that several areas are now looking to give it a try. I feel it offers some hope; when people are looking for ways to improve the system, generally you'll end up with an improved system.

MR. JONES: Does the Premier agree with Mr. Poole's assessment that there is a close connection between the county system and the government's decentralization plan?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The decentralization process is a response by government to the fact that we have many regions of this province where, whenever we devise rules by legislation or regulation, we don't really give sufficient consideration, I believe, to the differences as they exist between the Peace River and here. I think we need to find — especially when it comes to regulations — a way of approaching things as they exist in the Peace River when looking to regulate trucking or anything else in the Peace River country, as opposed to simply viewing it from a lower mainland or a Victoria mentality or approach.

That's one thing. It's also an attempt to have people from local government and various organizations in a region involved in identifying economic development opportunities as they might exist in one of the regions so that we can identify resources and see how these might be used to create new economic development opportunities. Without taking this initiative — and the decentralization process provides that — we will continue to see many towns throughout the province entirely dependent on one industry or one resource. It's our hope that we might instead obtain some diversification, and the decentralization process will go a long way towards that.

It's also a way of identifying where the people believe the priorities ought to be in giving equipment and facilities in health services, social programs and educational programming for their areas, so that once more it's not always Victoria telling somebody in the Cariboo or the Kootenays what it is we think best for them, but where instead they can have that input. That's not to say that we can ever totally take care of the big brotherism that tends to exist from Victoria out, but at least we can begin to approach that and help change the system to that end.

Decentralization is not a county system. It in no way interferes with the regional districts or the municipalities and the way they operate. If anything, it complements them. It gives them extra help, because after all they too, as much as the people involved in decentralization, would be seeking to find ways that will do the greatest amount of good for the people in a community or region.

MR. JONES: In 1979 when the Premier brought out his paper on regional government reform, I was a school trustee in Burnaby; and I think the Premier well remembers the concern of school boards around this province over the direction of the county system. That paper indicated that there would be consolidation of school districts, hospitals boards, etc., that the boundaries would conform to one or more school districts.

At the 1986 UBCM conference that I referred to, the Premier asked the question: "Should there be one education policy for British Columbia, or should it be changed to recognize the different geographic needs of the province?" In the GVRD news article that I reported on earlier, the Premier indicated that he would expect, as far as school boards were concerned under the county system, there would be a change in the function of school boards, and a county could potentially accomplish that.

In the interview with Mr. Poole in October 1987, he indicated that at some point such levels of government as school boards, hospital boards and library boards might very well be replaced by one regional council. We can see that in fact there is still concern on the part of school boards around this province that they fall into the category that the Premier indicates, that we are over governed as a province,

I'd like to ask the Premier directly: can he provide any assurance that the kind of effective governance we've had, whereby decisions were made close to the point of implementation by school districts which had democratically elected trustees to oversee strictly the education of that district...? Can the Premier provide any assurance at this point that school boards are not threatened by the future of this government in terms of the county system or the decentralization plan? Can he provide any assurance for school boards?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's kind of ridiculous. Obviously I can't guarantee that someone won't feel threatened by something. As a matter of fact, I've talked to lots of people — not just in the last while but definitely much more in prior times — about the county system. I found on school boards, too, it was generally divided along party lines. The NDP members within a school board system felt threatened by it because somehow it would eliminate them from a system as they saw it. The free enterprising types felt encouraged by it because it meant less government, less cost, less taxes. It's a philosophical thing as well, and people, I suppose, feel frightened at times simply because you hold a philosophy other than what it is they have. There are no guarantees that because someone is of an NDP philosophy they might not be threatened when another is proposing to consider or at least look at changes to assist them. I can't do that.

MR. JONES: The division on party lines is absolute nonsense.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's how it is. You know it; that's why you're talking about it.

[ Page 5490 ]

MR. JONES: The Premier remembers very well the letter he got from Gary Begin, the president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, in 1982. Gary Begin, who ran for the Social Credit party against Rosemary Brown, certainly not a particular New Democratic Party supporter, said to the Premier at that time: "If you intend to change the system of governance that has served this province well for over 100 years, please let it be known." I'm asking that same question of the Premier today. Please let it be known if that is your plan.

Is it the plan of this government to remove from local school districts the opportunity they have now to choose democratically the people that they would like to represent them in terms of governing education in that community, so that decisions made by those democratically elected people can be close to the point of implementation, so they do have good representation, so our democratic system works in terms of education in this province as it has for 100 years? Does the Premier intend to change that system of governance?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can't talk about what might be in future with respect to this. It will depend on the wishes of the people. We've seen it already, as I've said, in a relatively minor form from the people of Fort Nelson. We know that they've been talking about this in the Queen Charlottes and they've talked about it in the Cariboo.

If the people want this, if they want it because it's less costly, if they want it because it's less bureaucratic, if they want it because the decisions are made more effectively, if they want it because they are concerned about too much government, if they want it because it's less confusing and they are able to go to one person as opposed to three, if they want it for all these reasons, why should I deny whatever it is the people want simply because you, Mr. Member of the opposition, would suggest that in order to protect somebody already somewhere in the system serving on a particular board — whatever it is — there must be that sort of protection and assurance that you're seeking from me now?

No, this is a democracy. The people decide, and if the people decide that's what they want, that's what they'll get.

MR. JONES: The Premier indicated that he was prepared to indicate in debate on his estimates the future for the province of British Columbia, and in terms of the county system he has not been as forthright as he would have indicated in his introductory remarks.

I would like to remind the Premier of the position taken by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) in discussion of his estimates on May 13. The Minister of Education at that time rejected the county system. He said that there is no good evidence of how it would work better and no advantages to that system, and that he would hate to think of somebody elected on a platform of water and sewer systems making educational decisions.

I would ask the Premier that, given the experience of the Minister of Education, some 35 years' experience in our public school system as a teacher, a school administrator and a district administrator and almost two years' experience as Minister of Education.... That's compared to the Premier's very short term in that office, and I think most people in this province, particularly in the education community, would describe that period as a disaster and as the high point of confrontation. Given the kind of experience that the Minister of Education has, and given the fact that he has rejected outright the county system, will the Premier take the sage advice of that Minister of Education and reconsider his position about the elimination of school boards in this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't ever recall saying that I would eliminate school boards, and this is the sort of twisting that we hear too often from members of the opposition. That's grossly unfair and misleading, and all you're trying to do is frighten people and cause confrontation. That's bad. You don't need to create this confrontation. What you'd like to do is go back to the school boards now to their annual meeting and say: "The Premier has said he's going to do away with school boards." That way you could cause all sorts of confrontation. Then you could run to the media and say: "See, they are all mad at this Premier; he's causing confrontation." It was your garbage and your information that obviously was twisted and turned and made up that led to all of this in the first place.

I want to set that straight. I didn't say we would eliminate school boards. You went along and said: "Now look." I said to you that if all of the people want changes — after all, this is a democracy — I can't guarantee you there won't be change, if that's what the people want. You responded and said: "Ah, but...." — obviously suggesting that it's not what the people want that ought to be considered but rather the Minister of Education. He's been there as Minister of Education. He's been a school administrator. He's been a school principal. Therefore that's the deciding factor. "Hey," you say, "that's more than you've got," because you say that I was in the Ministry of Education for a time but it was very confrontational and therefore that can't be counted.

[12:30]

Sure, I've been a taxpayer for 50-odd years, I guess. At least, for the first number of years I didn't pay it directly; Mom and Dad paid it for me. But we've been taxpayers, and that's a consideration. You don't have to be a Premier or a Minister of Education or an administrator to decide what the system of government should be or how we can do away with bureaucracy and make the system more effective for less money. You don't have to be a Premier or a Minister of Education or a school administrator or a school teacher or a school principal.

I've been a taxpayer; I've been in business; I've paid business taxes; I've been an alderman; I've been a mayor; I've been a regional district committee chairman; I've served on the regional district; I've been Minister of Municipal Affairs, I've been Minister of Social Services and Minister of Education; I've been involved in all of these things. That doesn't mean that I should suddenly, Mr. Member from the opposition, decide what's good for people simply because I've been there or been all of those things. This is a democracy, and if the people.... Regardless of whether in this country, this province or any other province we have an NDP socialist government or whether we have a free enterprise government, it's a decision for the people. That's how it must remain — not because you've been somewhere or done something.

MR. JONES: I'd like to move on to another issue, another system. I don't have to say anything to the annual general meeting of the B.C. School Trustees' Association. They will take your words and interpret them, and they will

[ Page 5491 ]

decide for themselves. I don't have to do anything on that — the lack of reassurance. Or the people, the taxpayers, the business community.

The voucher system is another system that the Premier has expressed interest in over a period of time. On August 1, 1986, following the Whistler convention, the Premier indicated that he would examine a plan for tax vouchers that would allow property owners to direct their taxes to either the public or the private school system. Later on, in the fall of 1987, while the Premier was out of the country, I believe on a trip to the Pacific Rim, the Finance minister indicated that a committee of government was examining the voucher system. Given that background, would the Premier indicate whether or not he still supports the concept of a voucher system, as he did shortly after becoming Premier of this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If the people wish to see a different system because it provides a greater degree of accountability, or if they want to be party to choosing the type of education - providing, of course, they always meet a particular standard that children ought to have.... If they feel that the democratic system ought to permit them a greater say in determining where or what the education for their child, and they want to take whatever money is provided them through a voucher and add to this by working 18 hours a day as opposed to eight hours, I say God bless the people. Let's leave it to the people.

MR. JONES: I appreciate the answer from the Premier, indicating that again he's not promoting this thing; that the Premier would be happy to respond to initiatives taken on the part of the public. The initiatives I've seen to date have not really come from that source. I understand there was a resolution at the last Social Credit convention and that the primary promoter of this concept has been the Fraser Institute. The Fraser Institute is very anxious, in their words, to "McDonaldize" education — to turn it over to the marketplace where profit can be involved. If the Premier is interested in public opinion on the voucher system, perhaps he'd be interested to know of a recent United Communications Research poll indicating that approximately 60 percent of the population oppose the voucher system.

The Premier must appreciate that this is a very divisive proposal — divisive not only politically, but in terms of the potential outcomes of such a system. Given that the Premier must have, I would hope, a desire to reduce confrontation in the education arena of this province, will he now give some assurance that he will not introduce this unpopular and divisive system?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I agree that it was raised at a party convention. I didn't know it was being promoted by the Fraser Institute, but fine. They're people like all others, and if they wish to promote it, that's their business. I'm sure there are many people out there who, as groups or individuals, might be very supportive of the voucher system. I also know that with the NDP, philosophically this is bad because it gives people a choice. You would just as soon see everybody herded into one type of institution. That's more in keeping with your philosophy, and I don't argue that. You're entitled to your philosophy.

I repeat: it's what the people want. If the people want a system that gives them a greater flexibility and more choice than what they presently have, hey, it's not for me. I've been in a few positions over the years — or the Minister of Education, wherever he's been over the years — to decide how it ought to be. Let the people decide.

MR. JONES: The Premier indicated again that it's a philosophical difference we have, and it's clearly not a philosophical difference. No. Again we see a divergence between the Premier and his ministers, in this case the Minister of Education. The Premier is not listening to his Minister of Education, who I don't think philosophically would agree with me very much in terms of the philosophy of education. Again, we see the Premier not paying attention to his senior minister, the minister in charge of Education and of both public and independent schools in this province.

The Minister of Education indicated during the estimates debate on May 13 that there had been a task force to examine this particular proposal and that the task force did report to cabinet. The task force report confirmed the Minister of Education's view by rejecting the voucher system. Given the rejection of the voucher system by the task force that reported to cabinet and by his senior minister, the Minister of Education, is the Premier going to start listening to his advisers, even when they may disagree with him philosophically? The philosophical disagreement is not on this side: it's within your cabinet. Is he going to start listening to those who disagree with him, or is he just going to shuffle them out of cabinet? That was a rhetorical question, and I think the answer will be clear in a few days.

I would like to raise one further point that has come up recently. It's another area where the Premier is clearly at odds with his Minister of Education: the question of referendums. The Premier has some history in terms of referendums. He indicated during the leadership campaign in the summer of '86 that he might make use of referendums, and before the October '86 election he indicated that as part of open government he would like to see a system of provincewide referendums on controversial issues.

The Premier is aware that a few months earlier this spring there was a questionnaire circulated in his riding which had been circulated in other tidings such as Langley, asking of people if they were interested in having a referendum system on school tax. I'd like to ask the Premier, when he was on record before and after the questionnaire was distributed.... Why would he be asking that question when clearly his mind was made up on that issue?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It was the county system, and could I guarantee this member that there would never be a county system. It was the vouchers, and could I guarantee that we would never proceed with vouchers, and give the assurance of this to the B.C. School Trustees' Association and the teachers. Now you say it's a question of referendums. Can I give you an assurance that we're not going to have referendums.

In each case I've said I understand where you're coming from philosophically, and I say it again. I can appreciate that philosophically you appear to be — I think it's generally known — against referendums. You've opposed them. Listen, I've seen this from the NDP for years. When I was on the municipal council in Surrey, we always heard from the NDP that they were opposed to referendums.

I know there's a philosophical split on that issue as well, but it also tells us a little bit about the type of democracy you

[ Page 5492 ]

stand for and the type of democracy that I believe in. The type of democracy that I believe in says that if people, all things being relatively fair, equal and provided for, want to decide for themselves that they wish to pay extra to do something over and above what might otherwise be provided for, then let them decide. What's so wrong with people making decisions for themselves? Why do the NDP always believe that we must all be herded and boxed in the same group? Somehow we've all got to follow that government line, whatever it is. That NDP group as government — heaven forbid! — would say that everybody should follow: no diversity, no opportunity for change, no opportunity to say what you would like to see for yourself. I guess that is how the socialistic system works.

I say again in response that if the people want, because they have the democratic right to decide, to change the system, to be permitted to have a referendum to decide on something extra for themselves, let them decide. It's the people's choice.

MR. JONES: The Premier talks on one side of his mouth about decisive leadership in this province and on the other side about the people's choice on the voucher system and on the county system....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's not acceptable. Would you withdraw that, please?

MR. JONES: Certainly.

On the one hand the Premier talks about decisive leadership, and on the other hand he talks about letting the people decide about all these things. It's not a philosophical difference, Mr. Premier. This is the third area where you're at a philosophical disagreement with your minister. On April 26 the minister said: "I don't want a referendum. I don't think the government wants a referendum. There are many negative aspects to the referendum system." The Minister of Education understands that such a system would create educational inequality in this province and that we would have a two-tiered educational system. Perhaps that's what the Premier wants, but that's not want the Minister of Education wants.

The Minister of Education understands that it's your government, Mr. Premier, that has caused the concern among taxpayers by shifting the tax burden from the non-residential taxpayer onto the residential taxpayer. The Minister of Education knows that school boards have not been extravagant, as you say, and that we have the second-lowest per-pupil costs in this country. The Minister of Education knows that it's the people represented by school boards who have rejected this system.

In 1985 every one of the 75 school districts rejected the school tax referendum proposal. They know that it's inappropriate for school boards, because they won't be able to plan. They've seen what happened in California under proposition 13. I'm wondering when the Premier is going to begin to listen to his senior minister, the Minister of Education. And if he's so keen on referenda, when are we going to see a referendum on privatization, decentralization, the county system or labour legislation? In fact, I'd like the Premier to go even further: when are we going to see a referendum on a general election in this province?

[12:45]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, it's not whether the Minister of Education wants it, whether the Premier wants it or whether the government wants it. I'm saying let the people decide. There's no inconsistency between decisive leadership and letting the people have a say. You see leadership in dictatorship. You think that what it should be ought to be dictated to the people by an individual or a government. That is how you view leadership. I say that leadership can be talking about various issues that might be considered, putting the germ of an idea out there and letting people develop it and decide whether it's what they want.

Since we're still discussing the educational estimates, I wish I could hear from the member what he thinks ought to be added per-pupil to satisfy him or his side, the amount of money that ought to be available for education. He says that there's not enough money in education, that we're the lowest in the country and that there's somehow something wrong with that. I don't know whether that figure bears out, but that's what he said. He doesn't say how much he thinks ought to be added, and I guess he wouldn't say that either. I guess he probably wants to talk about it now, but in generalities, without getting too specific, because really you don't have that information. Even with all your research and all the things you say you've done, you've probably never really bothered to figure out what you would add and where the money might come from, whether you would close hospitals, cut out hospital programs, cut back on social programs, social services, services to handicapped or to seniors, or whether you would raise the taxes. You haven't said what you would do.

You like to talk in these generalities, and you've talked about all these things today. You've talked about the county system, but the people shouldn't decide; you've already decided you don't want it. You've talked about the voucher system, but the people shouldn't decide; you've already decided it's no good. You've talked about referenda, and you've already decided they're no good. You don't want the people to decide; you've decided it's no good. You've talked about all these things, but you've decided they're no good for the people and the people shouldn't have a say in whether they have them or not. It's the difference between that side and this side, and I thank God that I'm on this side of the House, and we're going to stay on this side of the House.

MR. ROSE: The Premier has been through a great deal this morning. I know he's getting tired. I don't want to burden him too much. I know he's very interested in referenda. They are common in the United States. They have another thing called "initiative" that the people can put things on. There's another one that's quite interesting, called "recall." If you get a petition, you can get rid of almost anybody in elected positions. I wonder if he'd care to put forward that as a possibility for a government initiative.

I'd like to talk just a little bit about agriculture. The Premier was beating himself all over his chest this morning about being a friend to the farmers. I'll admit that many of the rural areas are held by Social Credit members; all you have to do is look at an electoral map to find that out. Aside from a few commodity groups.... And since the Premier is a farmer, he'll know that many farmers are in desperate condition right now. There are 160 of them up in the Okanagan who want to take their land out of the land reserve because they can't make a living; they haven't got enough farm income. I don't need to tell you about the grape-growers; and they're waiting for some kind of saviour to come along, in terms of compensation. We've been waiting for months for that, and we haven't got it.

[ Page 5493 ]

There are only 9,000 farmers with cash receipts over $10,000 a year in this whole province. So if you're going to be a friend to the farmers, are you going to give them love or money? Somehow there's got to be some incentive programs or some bridging programs for these desperate times. There are farmers in the Okanagan that have to pay back. They had an initial payment; they have to pay back up to $15,000 for the final payments to the packing houses. So it's very difficult.

Another thing that I wanted to talk about is the Premier's intervention last September 29, and the bombshell he threw out about threatening to remove everybody from the national programs if the MSQ quota wasn't raised for dairy farmers. I have no trouble agreeing with the Premier; that 3.8 percent of the national quota is really unfair to British Columbia. I don't think anybody would deny an effort to try and raise that. There are some historical conditions and things that happen that relate to that whole thing.

I don't know if the Premier knows about it, but traditionally we didn't want that quota, and now we do because it's worth more. And certain consumption practices and production practices have led to a shortage for us. There's no problem with that. You'll get full support on that from both sides of the House, I'm sure. That's not the point. What scared everybody was the recklessness of pulling people who were in no way related to the milk program out of national marketing schemes in order to somehow achieve a larger MSQ, from 3.8 to whatever it was — I don't know what you wanted. I know we could probably absorb up to 6 right now, but whether we could do 11, according to our population, I don't know. I think that was terribly reckless.

Let me give the Premier just a little bit of a history lesson on national programs. There were no national programs before the early seventies, when we passed the Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act. It was a national program, We had Quebec chickens being dumped in here and putting our people out of business, and we had eggs from Manitoba doing the same thing. We're talking now about free trade with the Americans, and we don't even have it in Canada.

What we have is each province striving for self-sufficiency in those products. And we've been able to have an orderly national plan in eggs, where we aren't dumping and scrambling each other — if the pun isn't too outrageous — in turkeys and chickens, and dairying to a large extent, although it's slightly different, as the member for Central Fraser Valley will tell you, because he's an expert in this. It's quite different. But to risk those national plans in order to help the milk people was reckless. It was reckless and radical. I don't know what the status is now, but until those plans were in place, there was no security in the farming business. I know the Premier doesn't like marketing boards.

I have a ten-year-old quote here I'll quote right back to him. He said marketing boards were a pretty rotten way to run a business. He said that a lot of business people favour the marketing board system because it's a guarantee: if you're not a very good grower and you don't make enough at the end of the year, there's a government program to provide the subsidy for your produce. "Mr. Vander Zalm said: 'There would be more, better and cheaper produce and more employment if good growers competed with everybody else."' Well, that's what they used to do in the dairy business. There were 3,000 or 4,000 dairymen in the Fraser Valley; now there are about 1,100. And because they have a guaranteed source of supply, they've been able to survive. Ted Turner of the Canadian Wheat Board said that in the last ten years eggs have gone up, and they're in the board. They have a supply-management system. He said eggs went up 50 percent; other commodities went up 150 percent. So clearly the consumer gets a bit of protection there too.

Then there was the interference of the Premier in this business of the five maverick milk producers who don't want to play the game, and they got out of it when everybody else did. By the way, the overproduction levies, while we're out of it, have cost the dairy producers $1.5 million. So what will happen now? And that's why I'm interested in the status of it.

I'd like to know whether these people were friends of the Premier. Did he operate on behalf of the five dissidents because they happen to be friends? Would the dissidents be helped if we had a larger quota? That's another question I have. If they are not in it, why should a larger quota be divided among them? They were offered the opportunity to get back on three occasions, after two court cases and over $200,000 by the milk board. I don't know who bankrolled the dissidents, but after that we had Shelford. Shelford came back and said that this is going to cost us millions.

We are concerned, and there are a number of questions that I want to ask you. How would the dissidents be helped if we had a larger MSQ? Would they get it? Why not all those people on the waiting-list — some 500 names? They sold their stuff out for over a million dollars. Would they be allowed back in, or would they have to buy their way back in like everybody else? Would it be divided among the legitimate producers who belong and have played the game all along? Or would it go to the dissidents — that's what I'd like to know — and in what way?

I'd like to know who ordered the milk board to refund and return the overproduction levies from those dissidents, because they were clearly over on December 15, 1987. Refund the majority of the levies for the period of October 26 to December 15. that's when they were shipping illegally; they may still be shipping illegally. As a matter of fact, the milk board has even hired a detective to see what has happened to them.

The Minister of Agriculture said he accepts the Shelford report. I'd like to know whether the Premier does as well, because in view of his attitude towards traditional marketing boards.... I don't think you can say that this is a partisan issue. I don't think you can say it's a philosophical issue, unless that side doesn't accept marketing boards and this side does. I know a lot of people on marketing boards, and they are not members of my party. I wish they were, and maybe they will be; I don't know. I've had more interest in our particular party and its agricultural policy than I've ever seen before, but I think they’re driven to it.

The only people who are making a living in this business now besides the people who have the Canadian banana known as the raspberry and the blueberries.... They're the only ones, other than the odd other one — perhaps greenhouses do to some extent. I don't know that industry well, but from the figures I have, the people who are making a living in the business are into supply management boards, and the others aren't. The cattlemen wouldn't touch supply management boards with a ten-foot pole. Last year the farm income assurance paid them $17 million. They were the winners.

If we had more time, I think it's important to go through this — not to score political points, although neither of us object to doing that. That's part of the game; we all know that. But I wish we had more time to go into this, because these are

[ Page 5494 ]

actions on the part of the Premier, so they relate to his attitudes, ideas and to his estimates.

Let me just close by saying this: the egg people don't want to get out of a national plan. The turkey people didn't, right from the start; you couldn't get their agreement. The chicken people now have 92 percent of sales. In other words, they're 92 percent closer to self-sufficiency for British Columbia.

Here's the latest letter I got on June 7 from the dairymen's association, and I will read it in part: "B.C. producers support continued participation in the national plan. We feel that negotiations should continue" — I assume they are — "within the parameters of the national plan, and that B.C.'s withdrawal would have a long-term and a significant negative impact on the dairy industry." The dairy industry itself is saying: "Sure, we'd like more quota, but my God, don't drive us over a cliff to get it."

[1:00]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will try to answer the questions very quickly. Sure, they're friends. I guess they're all friends. I have lots of friends in the agricultural community. I don't know a lot about these five people, but sure, they're friends. They're not enemies; they're friends. They have a problem; I can't help them with their problem.

The Shelford report pointed out the difficulties as they existed and why he made the recommendations. We're dealing with that, as I understand it, or at least the ministry and the milk board are. I've never told the milk board anything. I've not had any discussions with them about this or other matters.

With respect to MSQ, we are continuing to negotiate for more MSQ and hopefully those negotiations will be successful. If not, we may have to opt out of the national marketing scheme, because to continue on with 3.8 percent when in fact the ice cream that we eat is made from Ontario powdered milk and the butter that we see on our table, even when wrapped in a B.C. wrapper, comes from Ontario, is just not a good enough situation. So we will have to deal with that later.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to canvass with the Premier some of the matters pertaining to the initiatives for strengthening the family.

I would like to say at the outset that I have viewed with considerable distaste the process whereby the initiatives for strengthening the family came about. The gist of my argument goes something like this. This session of the Legislature has been arguing towards consolidating funds in terms of its accounting procedures, yet at the very time that that philosophy is being espoused, we have a situation developing where, after the provincial budget has come out, we are able to see in that budget the thoughts and the plans of the government, having presumably considered the needs for the forthcoming year.

When we haven't even had an opportunity in this House to discuss this budget, we find this ancillary program being put forward for some reason when the timing is absolutely inappropriate, where it questions the Premier's trust of his own ministries and indicates that he lacks trust in the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and in the Ministry of Health.

Here we have two initiatives involving these ministries, and the Premier, at a press conference flanked by these two ministers, announces that there is going to be this initiative set up and that it is going to be coming out of a special separate fund.

Mr. Premier, I can see you there, having an enjoyable conversation with your Minister of Social Services and Housing, but frankly, that process is an affront not only to those ministries but to the people who work within those ministries and seek with very limited resources to deliver....

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's been a long morning and when I get into full flight, it takes me a little while to read a message.

I would like to move at this time that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Before making the adjournment motion, let me ask leave for the Special Committee on Electoral Boundaries to sit at 3:00 p.m. today to discuss the business of organization.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:06 p.m.