[ Page 6207 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Environmental Protection Act (Bill M209). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 6207

Ministerial Statements

Drift-net fishing. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm 6208

Mr. G. Hanson

University Endowment Lands. Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 6208

Mr. Williams

Oral Questions

National sales tax. Mr. Harcourt –– 6209

SUCCESS program. Mr. Barnes –– 6210

Unemployment insurance. Mr. Clark –– 6210

Native education, Mr. G. Hanson 6211

University Endowment Land Park Act (Bill 16). Second reading

On the amendment

Mrs. McCarthy –– 6211

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 6215

Mr. Guno –– 6217

Hon. Mr. Michael –– 6217

On the main motion

Mr. Harcourt –– 6218

Mr. Bruce –– 6219

Mr. Gabelmann –– 6220

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 6221

Mr. Rabbitt –– 6224

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 6225

Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 6226

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Government Management Services estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Michael)

On vote 31: minister's office –– 6227

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Clark

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a very special guest to Victoria and the parliament buildings. On the floor with us today is the Hon. Michel Gratton, the Minister of Tourism of the province of Quebec. He is in British Columbia with his chief of staff, Jean-Bernard Villemaire, who is also in the precincts. They are attending, with 1,200 tourism trade people from across Canada and around the world, Rendezvous Canada at the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. It's a very successful fair, and we are very pleased to have the Hon. Michel Gratton with us today. Would the House make him especially welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: All of us have very capable staff in our constituency offices, and I am sure they are often very busy, particularly at this time of year. My office gets extra busy from time to time because we receive calls not only from the constituency but from throughout the province. Both the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) and I, who share the office, are particularly pleased to have such wonderful staff as Carol Rogier and Lauretta DeVries. They are with us today, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: It's always a pleasure for members of this House to welcome former MLAs to the floor of the chamber; today it's my particular pleasure to welcome Dennis Cocke. Dennis was Health minister from '72 to '75, and that position has a reputation that has gone with him ever since he first graced the office in 1972. Dennis calls it as it is, and I know we on this side of the House have very much enjoyed having him with us today. I'd ask all members to join in welcoming him again to the floor of this chamber.

HON. MR. VANT: Today, Mr. Speaker, a young lady is sitting in your gallery. She used to work for the great Cariboo radio network in the great constituency of Cariboo. This young lady is more secretive than some members of this House in divulging information to the press. I don't know how old she is, but today is her birthday. Would members on both sides of the House join me in saluting Margot Sinclair on her birthday.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise on behalf of the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and myself to introduce 23 grade 11 and 12 students visiting British Columbia on an exchange program with the North Delta Secondary School. They are from St. Hyacinthe, Quebec. I would like to say that my two oldest daughters had the opportunity to exchange to the same high school. I would like this assembly to please make them welcome to beautiful British Columbia.

HON. MR. DUECK: I would also like to rise in this House and welcome my predecessor's predecessor's predecessor — the Health minister who was in this House doing the same job I'm doing. I have had occasion to meet him many times at different functions, and I respect Dennis Cocke. He has also done a terrific job at the Royal Columbian Hospital Foundation, and I welcome him here in the House today.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, today is a very special day for me because seated in the members' gallery with my wife Louise is our eldest grandson, Brent Purcell. Brent is studying at the University of Victoria and today is his twenty-first birthday. I wonder if members would make him welcome.

MRS. GRAN: Seated in the members' gallery today are two young women who grew up together in Langley. They're two young women who are very special to me. One is my assistant here in Victoria, Tracey Roper, and the other is my daughter Corinne. Would the House please welcome them.

MRS. McCARTHY: I would like the House to welcome a former member of the Vancouver city council who is with us today. It's an important day for her to be here because she was one of the great proponents of the University Endowment Lands park — former Ald. Helen Boyce.

Introduction of Bills

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled Environmental Protection Act.

MR. CASHORE: The Environmental Protection Act requires that all major projects, both public and private, undergo an environmental review process as set forth in part 3. These include: fish-farms and other aquaculture projects, dams, dredging projects, river diversions, wharves, major public and forest roads, railways, airports, oil and gas pipelines, power stations and major powerlines, pulp mills, oil refineries, ferro-alloy plants, aluminium smelters and other industries, large livestock operations, mines, aerial pesticide spraying, solid waste incinerators, hazardous waste facilities and all other major industrial, commercial or residential projects.

No major development shall be permitted to proceed until it has undergone a public environmental review process and has met environmental protection standards. This process will ensure that all methods of mitigating negative impacts on the environment are identified and put into place prior to development taking place.

All public costs and infrastructure requirements necessary to protect the environment, such as sewage and solid waste disposal, will be accounted for before development is allowed to proceed. This will ensure that the proponent of the project, rather than the public, pays the true environmental costs.

[2:15]

[ Page 6208 ]

The environmental assessment process will be an open one, with full participation of the public and the affected communities. Intervener funding will be provided where necessary, to provide fair and meaningful participation in the review process.

Bill M209 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Ministerial Statements

DRIFT-NET FISHING

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The province of British Columbia is deeply concerned and troubled with the desecration of marine wildlife by drift-net fishermen in international waters off the west coast. Drift-net fleets from Japan, Korea and Taiwan, under the guise of fishing for squid, release thousands of miles of netting and set up an impenetrable wall to capture salmon bound for North America. It is conservatively estimated that more than 1,000 vessels in the North Pacific are drift-net fishing. Each boat has 30 miles of netting. Together they could drop enough netting to circumnavigate the world and then some Besides catching squid and salmon, these nets scoop up tens of thousands of dolphins, unknown numbers of whales, immature salmon and tuna, and endangered species of marine life.

Also of concern is the unacceptable practice of letting hundreds of miles of lost netting continue to drift in the North Pacific, catching and entangling marine mammals and sea birds. I am sure all British Columbians share the view that this irresponsible practice is both destructive and wasteful, and that it must not be allowed to continue.

There is something wrong when we as a society allow others to plunder our marine and wildlife without restraint. The B.C. government will not tolerate this attack on our natural environment. The time for action is now. The federal government must take a more aggressive approach through diplomatic channels in an effort to resolve this most urgent and pressing matter. I believe it is urgent, and I am pleased to say that we have contacted the federal government. We are continuing to pursue this through the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and we'll be in touch with the federal minister responsible. I've already written the Prime Minister, and we intend to pursue this very aggressively.

MR. G. HANSON: We're pleased to hear the statement on the high-seas drift-net fishery from the Premier. I would just like to remind him that we raised this issue on the floor of this House over two years ago. We asked that action be taken to stop an ecological disaster. It's strip-mining of the ocean. We called it the curtain of death, which it really is. Thirty thousand miles of monofilament line is laid every evening and gathered up every morning. Sometimes, as the Premier suggested, pieces break away; they ghost-fish and drop to the bottom of the ocean. When the fish decomposes, they surface, and those nets fish again until all life is gone in the North Pacific.

Mr. Speaker, we applaud the action of the government. We're wondering about the two years' delay and the interception of the salmon from British Columbia, Alaska and Washington State. Perhaps the links that you've been mentioning regarding the Alaskan and Washington officials.... Perhaps we could discuss with the Korean, Taiwanese, South Korean and Japanese officials the ecological disaster that's taking place there. It's a nightmare of conservation. It should have been done earlier, but thank God it's being done now.

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LANDS

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, the eyes of this province have truly focused on the proceedings in this chamber in the last 24 hours. Last night and indeed this morning, I have received a number of phone calls from residents of Point Grey and other areas of this province, from people concerned over the debate on Bill 16. People are concerned that once again there might be a delay in having the UEL made into a park for all British Columbians in perpetuity.

I'd like to assure the citizens of this province, through this House, that this government is determined....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The opposition House Leader rises on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: Well, it does concern me a little bit, because statements of government policy are the rule in ministerial statements. A ministerial statement is not designed — according to the great parliamentary expert, author George MacMinn — for the purpose of arguing a particular case or putting forward a particular position.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: We're in the bill; we can talk about that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, to both yourself and my learned colleague, the minister is iterating this government's policy towards parks.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank both the opposition House Leader and the government House Leader for their points. But I would suggest to the opposition House Leader that until we hear the minister's statement, we don't know if he is making a policy statement. You must raise your point of order then.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to allay the fears of those citizens who have called me over the last 24 hours. I trust that by making this ministerial statement we will allay the unnecessary fears that this park is in jeopardy. This government is com-

[ Page 6209 ]

mitted to this proposal and will reject any attempts to delay or defeat the bill passing through this House and creating this park in perpetuity.

MR. SPEAKER: The opposition House Leader. Are you responding to the minister?

MR. ROSE: No, it's on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We'll have someone else respond to the minister.

I reiterate: such a statement arguing the case when the bill is before us is a blatant misuse of a ministerial statement.

MR. WILLIAMS: Once again we have a desperate government that wants to play politics with every issue. Let's get it clear: 1,100 acres was established as a park in 1975, and all of the foot-dragging ever since has taken place by that administration over there.

We have a leader, we have a party, that has fought for social justice through wartime. We have fought bigotry in the past, and we fight bigotry now as we hear it in this chamber — what we've heard in the last couple of days. We have a leader and a party that is insisting we begin to negotiate a fundamental injustice in this country and in this province in terms of settling native land claims. But more than that, we are a party that believes in justice for all — in the lower mainland and the rest of British Columbia. We think that in a rich land like ours we can have justice both for natives and for the people who reside in the lower mainland, in the form of the Endowment Lands park.

Your kind of politics reaps the whirlwind. It also reaps the results in the by-election and last general election in Point Grey. You will not fool the citizens of Point Grey, you will not fool the citizens of greater Vancouver and you will not fool the citizens of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY: I'd like to recognize in the gallery, once again, Mrs. Iva Mann. If any single person has done the most to preserve the Endowment Lands as a park, it's Mrs. Iva Mann. She reminded me that when the former Social Credit government was about to hand those lands over to the university, Iva Mann stood between that and the park.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PERRY: I'm acknowledging for the record, Mr. Speaker, the contribution of that one woman, and I think it's appropriate that the House acknowledge it again today.

Oral Questions

NATIONAL SALES TAX

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, who last week stated he did not have sufficient information to say yes or no to the proposed national sales tax. Yet two of his colleagues have stated that the tax will have a negative impact, at least in the two areas of tourism and health care. Is the Finance minister now prepared to tell Michael Wilson that B.C. does not want this new national sales tax?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm delighted that the hon. member opposite reads press clippings from our side of the House — that's a useful exercise and a positive sign.

The fact that members on our side are concerned about the national sales tax is, of course, extremely valid. The points made by those hon. members are, I think, accurate and obviously a cause for concern. I similarly have expressed concerns about the national sales tax proposal. For the benefit of the member, I might advise him that "national sales tax" in the jargon of the trade refers to a merging of both federal and provincial sales taxes. If the hon. member is referring only to the federal sales tax portion of the national sales tax program, then he should properly describe it as the federal sales tax.

Because I am uncertain about the hon. member's degree of knowledge on the subject, I am not quite sure how to address the question. In any event, it might be useful to tell the House a little more about the national sales tax proposal.

Many of our colleagues across the country are expressing concerns similar to ours. The federal sales tax proposal alone will have the effect of increasing consumer prices in this country, exacerbating the inflationary spiral and again putting the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. John Crow, in the position of raising interest rates in an attempt to contain inflationary growth.

We all know in this House that that would inevitably lead to wage-inflationary prices, and therefore this government has made the federal Minister of Finance aware of those concerns. As a consequence of communicating to the Minister of Finance our concerns on a variety of fronts — not only the tax shift but also the inflationary spiral and the possible inequities that might arise when you apply this national program across provincial boundaries — he is at the moment discussing the matter again with his colleagues. It's quite possible, in the fullness of time and as a consequence of these discussions and our own expressions of concern, that the federal government might devise some amendments to the proposal which might be more acceptable to all Canadians. It's a sincere desire of all of us on this side of the House to see that eventuality occur.

[2:30]

[ Page 6210 ]

MR. HARCOURT: The Minister of Finance makes Paul Martin sound almost mute. He is the only man who can say maybe in a thousand words. His colleagues in Alberta and Nova Scotia could say no to the national sales tax; I don't understand the minister's fence-sitting.

I have a new question for him. I asked the minister this last week, and I hope he can answer it this week. Should the Mulroney government raise personal taxes in its upcoming budget, would he lower provincial income tax rates to ensure that British Columbians will not pay higher provincial income tax?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That's an extremely hypothetical question. Once again it explains the difficulty that members on this side of the House — who, by virtue of their responsibilities of office, have some knowledge and appreciation of the complexities of the matter we address — have with the simplistic questions expressed by those who might not be privy to some of the more intimate, difficult and convoluted aspects of the proposal.

The fact of the matter is that the national sales tax proposal is very directly linked, in the minds of the federal administrators, to the changes in the income tax structure. Indeed, in the remarks made by the Minister of Finance for the federal government, not only to me but publicly, he quite clearly linked the two. So you can't separate them — at least in his mind. If it is the intention of the federal government to somehow continue that rather confusing connection, then obviously there are a variety of reactions possible for all of us in the country.

I can only reiterate that it is my understanding that the federal Minister of Finance is revisiting all aspects of this question of restructuring the taxation system of our country. Part of that will be a federal sales tax, part of it might be a national sales tax, and part of it will possibly be a re-examination of personal and corporate income tax. That will take some time. Matters are unfolding, and I will be very pleased to inform the hon. member and other members of this House as those discussions unfold.

MR. HARCOURT: I can understand now why the Minister of Finance placed eleventh out of 12 in the leadership race of his party. He is not capable of giving a simple yes or no answer.

Mr. Minister, now that you have had time to consider the matter in the fullness of time, will you assure this House that there will be no net provincial tax increases for British Columbians as a result of the federal budget? Yes or no. Try it for once in your life.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am delighted to once again stand in this House and tell the members opposite, the members on this side of the House and the entire world that our personal income tax is the second-lowest in Canada, and it will stay there.

SUCCESS PROGRAM

MR. BARNES: I have a question for the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Mr. Minister, we on this side of the House are very disappointed that your ministry turned down an application for funding from the Chinese community's SUCCESS program for youngsters. These youngsters are vulnerable to recruitment by youth gangs. As a result of the turndown of the application, these youngsters will of course not receive the program and will be vulnerable. Can the minister tell the House which ministry, if not his, is responsible for providing funding for a program such as the one that he turned down?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We did examine the request for funding very seriously, and determined that under the jurisdiction of my ministry there was no program in which it fit. Further examination determined that it fell under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith). I would be happy to take your question as notice on behalf of the Attorney-General, because it really falls under his jurisdiction.

MR. BARNES: I thank the minister for taking the question on notice. I hope he means that he will ensure that a solution is found to the problem.

He should keep in mind that the request was made last September. He should further keep in mind that an application was also made to the Attorney-General prior to September last year, so it's been a long time already. In the meantime, these youngsters are still vulnerable, they are being recruited, and the violence that is being perpetrated upon the community in the Chinese area is well known.

Does the minister not feel that the $50,000 that was requested under this application is a small price to pay to ensure that the consequences of neglect are not a problem for this community?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Once again, the main part of the question I will take as notice for the Attorney-General. But to elaborate for a moment, yes, I know that $50,000 does not seem like a large amount of money, but sometimes it's very difficult to find in one's budget — not always, but sometimes.

MR. BARNES: You just can't find the money.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I remind the member that I waited while he asked his question. Surely he can wait for a moment while he gets my answer.

We get requests on a daily and weekly basis for $50,000 here, $75,000 there, $100,000 here. It doesn't sound like a lot of money, and admittedly, taken by itself it's not a lot of money. Yes, I realize the seriousness of the problem in this province, and particularly in downtown Vancouver, but it is a matter that rests primarily with the Attorney-General. I have taken the question as notice for him, and I'm sure he will bring an answer back to this House in due course.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

MR. CLARK: Last week the minister announced that the proposed changes to the federal UI system "will have a significant effect on the number of

[ Page 6211 ]

people applying for provincial income assistance." Has the minister therefore expressed concern about the changes to the UI system to the federal government?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, we have examined their changes to UI very carefully. It's impossible for us to put a dollar amount on how it will affect the province, but there's no question that it will affect those on income assistance. We have held off speaking to the federal government until after the budget comes down, which I believe is on April 27, because we hear that there may be certain things happening in the budget, but we're not sure. We thought that rather than reacting ahead of that, we would wait until the other shoe drops, as it were, until the budget comes down. At that time we will probably be entering into discussions with the federal government to determine just how the changes in UI will affect this government and our budget.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. Last week in the House, in answer to a question on this very point from the Leader of the Opposition, he rejected the arguments made by the Minister of Social Services and Housing and the Leader of the Opposition by saying, when you read through all the obfuscation: "On the basis of the information available to us, it would appear that British Columbia will...be a beneficiary of this program." I have a simple question to the minister: who's right, the Minister of Social Services and Housing or the Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's inconceivable to me that any minister of the Crown can be incorrect. Obviously we're both right.

NATIVE EDUCATION

MR. G. HANSON: Today is the national day of concern for native education, and I want to direct a question to the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs. Last week I asked him if he had registered the concern that the native students of British Columbia and Canada have about curriculum. They are concerned that only 20 percent of their students graduate. Has the minister registered his concern with Hon. Mr. Cadieux, the minister?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Indeed, since the member raised the question last week, I've had my staff do some inquiries. I understand that to date there are no native students in British Columbia who have been affected by this program. I also am advised that, in fact, the minimum allowance for a single student would be increased by this program from $4,400 a year to $5,400 a year. The information we have is that approximately 95 percent of the students in this program would benefit by the changes.

It would be naive to think that there are people on a hunger strike for no reason. Obviously there are students in Canada who are being adversely affected by this policy. Certainly that is a concern. This ministry and this government are anxious to see that native students have access to education. I have discussed these concerns with the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen), and he is contacting his counterpart in Ottawa to discuss these changes.

Our information to date is that there are no native students in British Columbia who have been adversely affected by these changes. Indeed, I have still to be contacted by any student from British Columbia or anywhere in Canada who has been affected by these changes.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 16.

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LAND PARK ACT
(continued)

MRS. McCARTHY: This amendment that we are addressing in the House today pertains to an act which allows the University Endowment Lands to be transferred to the Greater Vancouver Regional District for the purposes of creating in perpetuity the largest urban park in the world for the residents of and visitors to our province. It recognizes the outstanding environmental values offered by land within the park for both this generation and those that will follow it.

Yesterday and today in this House we have had visitors in the gallery who have devoted part of their lives to ensuring that this land called the University Endowment Lands remains parkland. Iva Mann, who I am pleased to see is in the gallery again today, and whose efforts have been recognized on both sides of this House, has devoted a great part of her life to the preservation of the UEL for parkland.

I did mention former alderman and former park commissioner Helen Boyce, who is in the gallery today. I don't think that any discussion on these lands and the fight for these lands for parks should ever be done without the mention of a former park commissioner, Bowie Keefer, and he too recognized the need.

I can remember various parks commissioners who took up the cause: my colleague the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), a former parks commissioner, and the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) who is not in the House today, but is also a former parks commissioner. Organizations such as the Vancouver parks board and the Save Our Parkland Association have waited 30 years for Bill 16.

Dr. Frank Turnbull, who could be considered one of the main proponents, has waited 30 years for the University Endowment Land Park Act. The basis for this discussion on the amendment now before this House refers to.... Let me quote from the preamble to the amendment by the opposition: "Because of a total lack of consultation, with no reference to the Musqueam people at all...."

[2:45]

[ Page 6212 ]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the lack of consultation is a specious argument, firstly because there is evidence of consultation by this government and former governments, and secondly, because the opposition's interest in the consultative process was totally lacking when they had an opportunity to act on these lands when they were government.

Let me first quote from the 1977 report to the Minister of Environment, the Hon. Jim Nielsen, by the UEL study team. The report is in two parts, and I will quote. The first part is a summary of findings, evaluations, conclusions and recommendations. The second part in the appendices is a compilation of seven major working papers that form the background to the work. This report was submitted by Byron Olson, the planning team coordinator.

The opposition, when they sent out for things to the library.... I am so glad that the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) has found the wonderful services of our library, which is probably the best legislative library in this nation. I wish you had sent out for this one though, Mr. Member, because on page 2 in recounting the history, it says: "In 1976 the Greater Vancouver Regional District recommended a large regional park be created in the UEL."

It goes on to say on that same page: "An integral part of the study is the community consultation process and the consensus approach. An intensive program of community meetings, interviews and forums were held in attempts to have all concerned individuals, groups, and representatives of institutions and governments reach consensus upon the major recommendations for a conceptual plan." Consultative process.

Again on page 17 of that report, under the heading of "Consultative Process," they describe in full detail the whole consultative process of this committee. They had discussions with governments, institutions and agencies, and it said: "All governments and agencies which had jurisdiction over present or future interests in the Endowment Lands were contacted, interviewed and encouraged to make their concerns known and to participate in the study."

It goes on to talk about meetings with community groups. From mid-August in 1976, the study says the study team was in contact with more than "150 organizations and individuals representing community groups, environmental interests, businesses, political associations, housing and commercial interests, recreation groups, religious organizations...." and many others.

The original mailing-list numbering approximately 200 grew to over 400 by the end of the study Then we go on to page 28 of the study, and there is specific reference to the Musqueam land claim. There are some five paragraphs here outlining that the Musqueam Indian band's claim to aboriginal ownership of the UEL was presented to the team's attention.

It does say on page 28: "The question of the relationship of this land claim to the study process and any decisions on the future use of the UEL was discussed at each of the public forums..." not only in their presentation and representation, but made specific reference to the band itself. That's consultation.

Later on in the study, they filed some papers which gave correspondence between the Musqueam band and the then Minister of Labour who was responsible for Indian affairs at that time, the Hon. Allan Williams. There is a very interesting quote in that letter, dated July 14, 1976, by the Musqueam band: "We know that we cannot expect any general land freeze to be imposed by the provincial government over our traditional lands."

The opposition wishes to continue this charade of no consultation. A simple request to the library would show them there was consultation. There are members sitting in this House today who don't have to go to the library; they know from their memories that there was plenty of consultation in the community. The NDP criticize and talk consultation. Where were they in 1973? Where were they when they had the opportunity to use the consultative process? Where were they when the UEL was discussed in public by communities? What was their answer? "Bring in the bulldozers."

I'm going to quote a few people here. Art Phillips, who was mayor of the city of Vancouver, on December 2, 1975, criticized the government for putting forward a housing development that would create a traffic hazard and impose traffic costs of monumental proportions in Vancouver. Phillips criticized Williams, the minister of the time and now the first member for Vancouver East, and said he believed there should have been more consultation between the provincial government, Endowment Lands officials, the city and Greater Vancouver Regional District officials on the future of the land. Mayor Art Phillips never had a consultation.

Then I recall Ald. George McLean of Burnaby, who at the time was associated with the Lower Mainland Parks Advisory Association. Let me read to you from the Vancouver Sun of March 15, 1974: "Aid. George McLean of Burnaby said it would be sheer folly to use the lands for low-cost housing, as the provincial government apparently intends to do. To use the 1,700 acres on the Endowment Lands for housing would not make sense, he said. They should retain the land and not sell it down the river in the name of low-cost housing." Alderman McLean never had a consultation.

An interesting mayor from the community of Surrey is quoted in the same article. "Surrey Mayor Bill Vander Zalm said: "There's plenty of land for housing yet. The statement that there's a shortage of land is a total fallacy.'" Our Premier wanted it for park then, and he wants it for park today. When the mayor of Surrey was quoted in this article, he was saying that because he'd never had a consultation either.

The NDP government of the day failed to consult residents of the UBC Endowment Lands. Let me quote from the Province of July 14, 1973: "Allan Kelly, chairman of a residents' group, chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, heads the University Endowment Lands ratepayers' committee."

[ Page 6213 ]

Allan Kelly is no longer with us on this earth, but he gave a tremendous amount to the preservation of the Endowment Lands and he should be remembered. Allan Kelly never had a consultation. He was "commenting on an announcement Thursday" — and I'm quoting from the Province report — "by minister without portfolio Lorne Nicolson that 25 acres of Crown land in the Vancouver area, including the Endowment Lands, will be used to provide up to 18,000 housing units. Resources minister Bob Williams..."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who?

MRS. McCARTHY: Come on, you guys! Let me get this out.

"...had promised in March that a design team would be appointed to study potential uses of the 1,700-acre UBC Endowment Lands. None has been appointed. Campus opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the lands for park or a nature study rather than housing or commercial development, according to a report released by UBC president Walter Gage. The report says 72 percent of ideas submitted favour leaving the lands in some sort of natural state. A committee struck by Dr. Gage last year received 79 submissions from students, faculty and environmental groups."

I'm glad the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) is so pleased about that, because he will know that "in the opinion of the eight committee members, the overriding desire for no development also is felt by a majority of the university community of almost 30,000."

By the time the report was presented to the people of British Columbia through the press.... It was March 29, 1973, when the development of the University of B.C. Endowment Lands was announced by government resources minister Bob Williams.

"He told the Legislature, during the debate on the estimates for administration of the lands, there is no question that more of the choice lands will be put to use. 'The university has probably suffered from having too much land,' he said. Williams told the House, which is sitting in Committee of Supply, that the residential land is so underdeveloped that water and sewer services installed for it are actually being wasted. 'There is no question that the land will be put to use,' he said. He said he will have a design team look over the development prospects this spring and make recommendations."

That was March 29, 1973. In July 1973....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. McCARTHY: The provincial government is quoted on July 13, 1973. Their new land lease program was announced: "'It should provide the impetus for construction of a minimum of 18,000 new housing units in the greater Vancouver area,' says minister without portfolio Lorne Nicolson." Then he goes on to say: "The area in question includes 1,700 acres of University Endowment Lands, 200 acres...on Burnaby Mountain, and part of the 650 acres on the Blair Rifle Range in North Vancouver."

[3:00]

Add to that a quote from March 1, 1974. Ald. Mike Harcourt is quoted in the Vancouver Sun of that day: "Ald. Mike Harcourt" — now the Leader of the Opposition....

MR. BRUCE: The socialist leader?

MRS. McCARTHY: We're evenhanded over here.

"'The city has enough land to take care of housing needs for the next 20 or 30 years,' Ald. Mike Harcourt said today." Further on in the article he says: "'Large tracts are still available in the False Creek-Adanac-Charles area, as well as Champlain Heights,' he noted. 'Add to this the possibility of placing some housing on the University Endowment Lands or part of the Jericho property, still owned by the federal government, near the recently acquired defence lands, and the problem is not that serious,' Harcourt said."

Later that year, it was interesting to note that on October 13, 1974, "Ald. Michael Harcourt wants the city to ask for an immediate meeting with the provincial government" — we know who was government at that time; it was an NDP government — "to make publicly owned lands.... Those that he had identified included the University Endowment Lands — available for housing."

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats — the member for Vancouver East, the current member for Vancouver-Point Grey, the members of the New Democratic Party on Vancouver council — always want it both ways. Let's talk about the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey's (Mr. Perry's) remarks to this House, and about his remarks during the recently fought by-election. Let me tell you what that member said during the by-election, He said he was 100 percent.... Remember, Mr. Speaker, not 99 percent, not 99.1 percent and not 98 percent; that second member for Vancouver-Point Grey said he was 100 percent in favour of park dedication for the University Endowment Lands. But that comment "did not mean that you could overlook some other claim" — the claim by the local Musqueams. He said: "100 percent, but...." He wanted it both ways.

Now 100 percent means 100 percent, Mr. Speaker. It can't be watered down. It doesn't mean "100 percent but"; it means 100 percent unequivocally. I'm truly surprised that this didn't get greater circulation during the campaign. Really, what that "100 percent but" said....

Interjections.

MRS. McCARTHY: At least that member is true to form. It's just that he seems to have said it rather quietly, during a campaign. I don't think the voters of Vancouver-Point Grey or the people of Vancouver heard him say that, and they sure didn't get a chance to read the fine print.

Mr. "100 Percent But." I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker: the people of Vancouver-Point Grey will know the next time they go to the polls.

[ Page 6214 ]

The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) told us yesterday in the House that she is only here because she defeated someone who wasn't in favour of preserving the UEL for a park. She wants it both ways too, as those on the other side of the House always do. When she was on council in the city of Vancouver, I'm sure she supported her teammate, the then alderman, the now Leader of the Opposition, the one who wanted massive housing there. But she wants us to believe now that she's sitting in this House because of her long commitment to preserve 100 percent of that land for park for all people for all time. She's another one who wants it both ways.

By the way, the Vancouver Sun reported in March 1974 on.... The headline is: "Warfare Goes on Over Endowment Lands." There they were, all of the New Democrats, out in full force. The sign in the photo read: "People Need Houses." The story says that a meeting sponsored by the Dunbar-West Point Grey Citizens' Association pitted housing supporters against ecological proponents. I wonder where the alderman, the now member for Vancouver-Point Grey, was that night. Was she supporting her colleague on council who wanted housing, or was she with those who wanted preservation?

MR. BLENCOE: Where were you?

MRS. McCARTHY: I'm going to tell you where I was. Where I've always been on this subject and where, thankfully, this party has always been on this subject: for preserving the land for park.

It tells in this story who really wanted preservation, and I think that's important to know. It says right there in the story....

Interjections.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to note in this debate that the MLA for Vancouver-Point Grey, Dr. Pat McGeer, spoke in favour of preservation at that meeting. He was challenged by members of the audience who wanted housing, but he supported preservation. So let's be correct about history. Let's not try to rewrite history in this House to suit the political whim of the day of the New Democratic Party.

I recall quite well Patrick McGeer's desire for something for long-term growth. Sure, he had visions of supporting high-technology research and making sure that at some stage in the future some land would be available for a research park; he wanted a very few acres. I've got to tell you in this House today that it's a darned good thing that somebody in this province had the vision of a Dr. Pat McGeer when it came to technology for this province.

Interjection.

MRS. McCARTHY: You can't have it both ways.

Let's look at the Vancouver council of the New Democrats. It all took place at a meeting that the Vancouver Sun said was attended by people who supported preservation. They were there because the subject of the controversy had come about since the provincial government indicated it would set at least some part aside for housing. Some people at that meeting actually identified themselves as "members of the Vancouver area council of the NDP." Maybe they are the real control of the NDP.

What did they say? I quote the Vancouver Sun: "They supported the party's position on building housing to accommodate 30,000 persons on part of the lands." That's what the Vancouver area council members of the NDP had to say. "All available lands should be used to build housing on to alleviate the immediate situation." That's what they said. What terrific vision, what terrific foresight, what ecological consideration, what environmental concern, what a fight for preserving these lands for park, what consultation, and what a concern for aboriginal title! Where was your concern then? Where was your acknowledgment of land claims then?

I am going to vote against this amendment. I am going to vote for the preservation of the University Endowment Lands for the use of people for all time — for all of the people who will visit, for all of the people in the lower mainland and for all of the people of British Columbia. I will be voting against this amendment, because that is the promise that has been given to the people of British Columbia. It is a very fair and good promise.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Municipal Affairs seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon are three very active people in our province. They are very much involved with the recreation and sports activities carried on throughout the province. For a good number of years one of them has also been very much involved in working towards the bill that we are dealing with today. I'm sure that she is very interested in the debate that's taking place, I would ask the House to please issue a very warm welcome to former alderman and park commissioner May Brown, to Bob Vaughan and to Bill Webster.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey seeks leave to make an introduction also.

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY: I just spied in the gallery and would like to introduce to the House Dr. Bert Brink, retired professor of plant science at the University of British Columbia, who is one of my mentors in the conservation movement, someone who I think knows more about the geography and the ecology of British Columbia than virtually any living person. He also had the distinction of being one of the first land commissioners in B.C. He was relieved of his responsibility by the successors to the NDP government.

[ Page 6215 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The opposition House Leader seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: I would just like to add my voice to that of my colleague in welcoming Bert Brink. He's an old professor of mine at UBC — much earlier than my hon. colleague. If he was my professor, you can see that he has been around a little while. He has made a great contribution to British Columbia, and I would like to add my welcome to those already expressed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition rises on a point of order?

MR. HARCOURT: I too would like — in terms of the introductions — to pay tribute to councillors May Brown and Helen Boyce. I know the number of years that they worked to expand the regional park system throughout greater Vancouver. I think Alderman Brown was the chairperson of the GVRD parks committee for many years; she has the honour of adding a number of other very fine parks throughout the region to the regional park system. Of course, Alderman Boyce was also a park commissioner and school trustee, and the only person in Vancouver history to be all three. Welcome to the both of you.

As we talk about this park, Mr. Speaker, the real tribute is not to the government but to the citizens. I have a man here who has led this for many years. We would like you to pass on our regards of this House to your fellow citizens who have worked with you for so many years.

[3:15]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Getting back to the amendment.... This is the first time, save perhaps for one other person, that I have ever heard introductions filibustered.

The transfer of the Endowment Lands to the Greater Vancouver Regional District will proceed on April 23 as originally scheduled. We feel obliged in this House to give assurances, following many inquiries provoked by the opposition's attempts in the Legislature to delay or stop the process of transferring this park. The opposition has caused considerable distress for the supporters of the Endowment Lands' being turned into a park, who felt that their dreams had finally come true and were to see it quashed by an uncaring opposition.

I want to go on record as saying that the transfer ceremony is scheduled for Sunday, April 23, at 1 p.m. All British Columbians, from all sides of this House and all backgrounds, are invited to attend this historic celebration on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

That stands, Mr. Speaker, and we will not change it. We will not crush the hopes and dreams of those who have worked so hard to get to this point. I want to assure this House and the people of British Columbia of that. I also want to welcome Iva Mann, Dr. Brink, Mr. Henry Hersog, and Helen Boyce. These people, I am sure, are here today to support the transfer of this park on the 23rd of this month at 1 p.m., and that is why they are here lending their support to this House.

The NDP are caving in on this, their hoist motion. I want to tell you something, Mr. Speaker: the only thing that they are hoisted on is their own petard at this point in time. There is no question about it. We have been deluged with calls....

MR. PERRY: Do you know what a petard is?

HON. MR. VEITCH: You'll find out my friend. You'll find out next time around when you go and tell the people of Point Grey what you've said in this House. They'll understand you. You can't fool those people even half the time, hon. member,

We have been deluged with calls. The telephone of my hon. colleague the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks) has been ringing off the hook. They are afraid that this irresponsible opposition is going to stop them from getting this park. We've got the courage of our convictions on this side of the House. That is not going to happen; it's going to go ahead.

We want you to join the opening celebration of the regional park in the Endowment Lands, and to celebrate with other British Columbians, many of whom have been waiting for 30 years to have this historic occasion occur. It is going to happen in British Columbia on April 23.

Sometimes we think that what we say in this House is not important. We think that we can raise a simple hoist motion and it won't really matter all that much as long as we are playing politics and the politics meet the order of the day. But there are two things in here: principle and precedent. It is important to remember the precedent underlying this hoist motion.

The hoist motion in effect serves to throw into question all land deals throughout the province of British Columbia. That is the precedent we are looking at today. It goes far beyond the NDP playing politics with an issue that, as they found out last night, they have lost on; and now they want to back out of it again. It throws into question the right to own property. Because with this proposed amendment, parties involved in land deals would not know if there is a third party lurking behind the scenes. That is the kind of amendment that this group, which does not believe in the ownership of personal property, wants to foist upon the people of British Columbia.

But it is not surprising, since the opposition has been opposed to property rights all along. I remember on the Jack Webster program when the then Minister of Agriculture, later on the Minister of Finance, Dave Stupich, the member for Nanaimo, said that he believed perhaps that the people might be able to own their own home and the property under it, but beyond that, they didn't believe in property rights. They don't believe in property rights today. They may give lip-service to it, but by the simple expe-

[ Page 6216 ]

dience of bringing forth this particular amendment, they would throw a question upon each and every transfer, whether it be public or private or governmental, in all of the province. That is a bad thing for the opposition to do.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VEITCH: They can't take the heat. You can always hear the member for Nanaimo going on and on. You don't have to scratch them too hard to find that these new entrepreneurs are really socialists. This amendment proves that conclusively.

This is a park for all British Columbians, regardless of their background or their racial origin. Each and every British Columbian has the right to enjoy this park and to enjoy it in perpetuity. That's what it's all about.

Once again — it is so typical — the opposition, under its current leader, is playing both sides against the middle, and he wonders why he gets caught. He talks about sitting on the fence. I am glad that we at least have a physician in this House in case he hurts himself.

My, how they change their tune when they're out of office. I was looking back at some of the statements made in the House by the then Lands minister, who is now the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). He said:

"There is no question but that the land should be put to use. The land, as close as it is to the city and the services of the city — the water utility, the sewage utilities, and so on...in effect, is partly wasted because they're not put to use on the Endowment Lands...look at the potential and prepare recommendations for the government with respect to the full use of the Endowment Lands so they don't lie there as a waste, as they've done for so many decades.

"It is a unique potential among larger cities in Canada. We intend to seize that potential and make the best use of the opportunity that we have in our hands, so we are going to need outsiders to help us in determining the future use of the park."

Interesting.

In July 1973, the minister without portfolio, Lorne Nicolson — and the minister at that time responsible for housing in the province — proposed developing the Endowment Lands for cheap housing units that would be sold on leased lots that would be rented out for 30 to 60 years. In addition to single-family dwellings, Nicolson wanted to build row-housing, condominiums and cooperatives on the Endowment Lands. As my colleague the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) pointed out, Allan Kelly, then chairman of the GVRD, expressed his outrage at the lack of consultation by the government of the day.

Members of the opposition can't have it both ways. They don't seem to understand that. They can't come out and make a statement saying they are effectively against the transfer of property in British Columbia and then back off because they know they have been beaten. The people of British Columbia are going to take this to heart and they are going to understand that what they've been saying in the last little while about markets and about believing in the creation of wealth and all these things is simply a pile of nonsense.

On one hand, I noted here in the House yesterday, and even earlier on today, that they lavished praise on those who have for so many years worked to preserve the University Endowment Lands. They lavish praise on them. Yet in the same breath the opposition wants to prevent those same people from realizing their dreams. They can't have it both ways.

By seeking to delay this legislation — and I think they found out they were wrong — the opposition is preventing these lands from being preserved for the enjoyment of all British Columbians in perpetuity. That's the bottom line. That's what this government is all about, as far as this park is concerned.

Let the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harcourt) tell the Iva Manns of this world that we should delay this legislation. Let him debate with those individuals who, by the hundreds, have been calling our offices. I'll tell you they're going to debate. They're going to debate with those two members from Vancouver-Point Grey next time at the ballot box, and they're going to throw them out of office. One-term wonders.

This amendment has been nothing more than crass politics. The opposition is taking a significant and historic position and turning it into a political issue. They thought for their own purposes and that's all, and that's wrong.

MR. LOVICK: But you're telling us there's no politics to be gained by it.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Oh, we have a wind from Nanaimo. The wind is permeating this place from Nanaimo.

The NDP's amendment would open a Pandora's box in their quest to be all things to all people, to straddle both sides of the fence, to have both feet firmly planted in the air at all times. The opposition is once again proposing an amendment without even considering the long-term impact of it. It's so typical of the opposition. They are seeking, as they always do, to divide and conquer if they possibly can. They seek short-term political gains for long-term provincial pain. That's where they're coming from.

The NDP is trying to compromise the wishes of British Columbians. The parks group from the GVRD did a survey on this particular issue, and the overwhelming response was that the majority of British Columbians want this to be turned into a park. They want it transferred into a park in perpetuity, and they want it now. The NDP wishes to compromise the hopes and desires of British Columbia. They are questioning, as they have all along — as shown back in 1973 and 1975 during those 1,200 dark days and nights — the very existence of these lands as a park. I suggest they may have other uses in mind for these particular lands should, heaven forbid, they ever get into office. That's the problem we see.

As a government we are firmly committed to having these lands dedicated as a park. It will hap-

[ Page 6217 ]

pen, in spite of the opposition, on the 23rd of this month at one o'clock. I'm not so sure that holds true for the opposition. We have an opportunity for the opposition to do its mea culpa in public, right here in front of this House, in front of all British Columbians, and to demonstrate its commitment once and for all to the creation of this park space in British Columbia by voting against their own amendment — if they have the courage to do it.

I don't want to see the opposition miss the boat again, as they have so many times. They don't realize that one important scientific fact about a boat is that you can't sink half of one. They'd like to sink the government somehow or other on this issue with respect to the park, but they want to leave some of their own desires afloat. You can't have it both ways: you all stay up or you all go down on this issue, and the opposition does not seem to realize this.

[3:30]

By politicizing this issue, the opposition has once again shown that it is completely and absolutely out of touch with the people of British Columbia. This legislation is designed solely to transfer these lands from the Crown to the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which will lead to the creation of a magnificent park, one of the largest urban parks in the whole world, a park to be enjoyed in perpetuity by our children and our children's children and all those people who will live in British Columbia for decades to come.

There is no hidden agenda. There are no ulterior motives on behalf of the government. Rather, it's good government with a desire to serve the people and that's why we're going to vote against this amendment. I wish the opposition would as well.

MR. GUNO: It is a privilege for me to stand up and take part in this debate. I rise in complete support of the hoist motion.

Listening to the last few speakers, I guess it would be amusing were it not for the fact that much of what they've said has very serious implications for the Musqueam people. I agree with my colleagues that no one wants the preservation of that land in the University Endowment Lands more than does this side of the House.

I think it's very simple: what's delaying the passage of this bill is the government's obstinacy. It's their obstinacy in dealing with a very simple matter, which is to recognize that the Musqueam people have a legitimate interest. In some ways this is a historic debate. Ironically enough, we are talking about — some of us indirectly, some of us directly — an important business that I don't think this government or this party can ignore. I think the Premier himself has acknowledged, in many of his public utterances, the enormity of this challenge. We have an opportunity here today to deal with it in a very simple but fair way by considering a provision in this bill that would be without prejudice to the claims of the Musqueam people.

We talk about the preservation of the area. I have a statement here made by the Musqueam people today. I think it is appropriate that I read it into the record, because I think it will allay the fears of many people about the intentions of the Musqueam people with regard to that area. The Musqueam statement regarding Bill 16:

"...that if anybody had bothered to ask Musqueam, it would have been found that it was in Musqueam's best interests to keep the area in its natural preserved state, and the general public should have no fear that the land claim would represent a threat to their desire to have the lands preserved as they are. The extent that there is a threat comes from the obstinate persistence of the government in its refusal to negotiate a comprehensive settlement with the Musqueam band."

That was signed by Delbert Guerin, who is the former chief and now a member of the Musqueam band council.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the last speaker talked about crass politics. I think it is crass politics for this government to try to pit the interests of people who are trying to establish this park against the legitimate interests of the Musqueam people. That is crass politics.

I think it's sad to hear members across there yelling about this kind of political intrigue. I think that taints the whole process of setting up this park by refusing or ignoring the legitimate interests of the Musqueam people.

I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. The solution is simple. If this government is serious and fair, then let's contemplate an amendment that is going to recognize the legitimate interests of the Musqueam people.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I wonder if I may have permission of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We were visited a short while ago by some citizens from the Saanich Peninsula extended care hospital, who were introduced to the Legislature by Ms. J. Morton. My col league the second member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Huberts) and I had a chance to meet them in the rotunda. The individuals present were: Mr. Norbert Ebert, Mrs. Florence Pretty, Mrs. Anna Sterling, Mrs. Evelyn Sturgeon, Mr. Archie Kerr and Mrs. Rhoda McAndrew. I know that all members like to greet constituents, and I would like the House to join us in welcoming the senior citizens to view our proceedings.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I take pleasure in entering this debate and opposing the hoist motion. I have listened to debates in caucus. I have read articles over the years. I've paid very close attention to this issue since being in politics. Being from the interior, until I arrived at the Legislative Assembly, I was not that familiar with the controversy surrounding the park, but I certainly have taken a great deal of interest in the issue since entering the political arena.

[ Page 6218 ]

I find it interesting to look over the history of the development of this great park that's going to be announced this coming weekend and made official by all the representatives from government and people who will be attending the gathering. I'm sure that we will see hundreds, if not thousands, of people rejoicing at this tremendous development — the official naming — of this park.

My understanding is that the park will be the largest urban park anywhere in North America — if not the world. When we look around at the tremendous developments and the tremendous participation by the public in Stanley Park, we see the great demand and the great need for expanding this and for having further development in the regional park in the Endowment Lands. I'm sure that if we defeat this delaying tactic of the members opposite.... This hoist motion which they are so good at bringing about, always trying to obstruct.... They seem to be against everything and anything that this government has ever proposed.

We can go back in history and examine northeast coal. We can talk about the great Expo 86. The Leader of the Opposition stood against that as the mayor of the city of Vancouver. We think back over the years to the opening up of the north country, and that political party opposite was against that. It does not surprise me to see the performance that we're witnessing both today and yesterday in this Legislative Assembly. I'm sure that as a result of the ads currently running inviting the province of British Columbia and anyone within hearing distance to join the opening celebration of the regional park in the Endowment Lands on April 22 and 23, we will see the members opposite once and for all convinced that this government has led the way in the development and bringing about of this great park.

I am absolutely amazed, looking at the record and seeing some of the items read into it by members opposite on the development of the University Endowment Lands. The quote that certainly leads all has to do with the one attributed — in Hansard, on March 29, 1973 — to the current first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams): "It's my intent to have a design team commence work this spring and look at the potential and prepare recommendations for the government with respect to the full use of the Endowment Lands so they don't lie there and waste as they've done for so many decades."

I am amazed to listen to the arguments being put forward by the members opposite and to check back on what's in the record of Hansard on this particular question. Indeed, reflecting on what members earlier mentioned about the previous Minister of Housing, Mr. Nicolson, he wanted to build low-cost housing, condominiums and cooperatives on the Endowment Lands. That's not hearsay evidence but is in the records as to the feelings of the opposition on this very important question.

But I repeat: the delay tactics don't surprise me They've been against everything. They were against the B.C. Rail expansion. They were against the Columbia River Treaty; now they're wondering what they're going to do with all this money when it comes to British Columbia in another six or eight years. They were against the privatization initiatives. They've been against all innovative, progressive policies brought about by the Social Credit government since 1952, so it doesn't surprise me to see the hoist motion being put forward here in the Legislative Assembly. But I'm confident that the members on this side of the House will stand united and vote down this hoist motion in this Assembly later today.

[3:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 36

On the main motion.

MR. HARCOURT: The New Democrats on this side of the House and many citizens in Vancouver, in particular the Musqueam people, are disappointed that the government didn't take the opportunity we gave them. On the hoist motion we gave them an opportunity to take six seconds to do the right thing for the Musqueam people. You blew it. We gave you an opportunity to ensure that the rights of the Musqueam people were not alienated before you transferred the University Endowment Lands, and you blew it.

I enjoyed listening to the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) talking about the past. She did that because she doesn't have a future. As a matter of fact, if she'd gone back into the past she would have seen that there were hundreds of acres of UEL that were cleared by the Socreds and are now scrub alder. Talk about a scorched-earth policy for the UEL; the Socreds invented it.

They talked about providing housing in the 1970s. Do you know what we were talking about, Mr. Speaker? We were talking about the university pro-

[ Page 6219 ]

viding, with the government's support, housing for students, for staff, for single mothers with children and for the disabled, about housing people on the lands of the university. They didn't do it, and they're still not doing it.

Once again we return to the issue of the park.

MR. RABBITT: Politics, Mike.

MR. HARCOURT: It's not even politics. It's something far more important than politics: justice. I want to tell the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) — who, being in this government, probably hasn't learned very much about justice; he hasn't had much of a chance with the government he belongs to  — that I have spoken with a number of the people who were involved over the last 20 or 30 years in making sure that this was a park. Do you know what? They're ashamed that this Social Credit government has cynically created this issue by turning the Musqueam into their cannon-fodder — and it isn't going to work.

I have spoken to Mr. Bowie Keefer and many others, and they are saddened indeed that this government didn't take six seconds yesterday or today to put in a very simple amendment to protect the legitimate concerns of the aboriginal people. Do you know what the people who fought for this park for 20 and 30 years told me? They said that this government has shamed what they have tried to do, because they wanted this park to be one that the aboriginal and the non-aboriginal people could enjoy in harmony and justice together, not divided. You've done that, as you've done all around this province: you've divided the aboriginal people from the rest of the population. We are not going to be party to that cynical division of British Columbians against each other.

But, Mr. Speaker, we are a forgiving people, those of us who are ordained or not, and we're going to give you another chance to do the right thing. I am prepared to introduce an amendment at the committee stage.

AN HON. MEMBER: Another delay, eh?

MR. HARCOURT: It could be a two-second delay if you'd do the right thing, members. You vote for this, and we could finish the debate today and all enjoy the opening on Sunday, including not just the Iva Manns, the Bowie Keefers and so many others who have worked for this park but the Musqueam too.

The amendment that I will be proposing at that time is very straightforward. It would add the following subsection 3(c). As the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) put it so eloquently the other day: "Watch my lips." We urge you to adopt this, because it will indeed make this a proud day in the Legislature. It will read: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as to prejudice the claim of aboriginal title of the Musqueam Indian Band to the University Endowment Lands."

MR. BRUCE: I'm pleased to be able to join in this debate on Bill 16; I find it interesting. I wonder how the opposition intends to vote at this stage of the debate, once we get to the division. We've had an amendment thrown in, they voted for the amendment to delay the whole aspect of the park, and now we're into the actual main motion. I really wonder how the opposition will vote on this question.

I listen to the Leader of the Opposition, and he talks about justice. Is he actually talking about justice, or is he talking about political expediency? Is he building an issue here on the backs of the Musqueam native people, or is he truly intent on creating a park for the citizens of the province of British Columbia? I wonder.

Actually, I get a little tired of the political expediency that is expressed at that end of the watermelon patch. It goes on and on, when you look at it. Who are they actually attempting to represent? The other day in the debate we had on Bill 17, were they trying to find some tax relief for the people in the lower mainland and the Vancouver area? No, they were against that.

Now we're on to another issue — the UEL. Are they attempting to assist the development of a park for the people of British Columbia? No, they are against that, as well. Yet at the same time, they have the audacity to stand up and say that they are in favour of it but they are not in favour of it. just what are they in favour of?

The Leader of the Opposition stands up and gives us his bafflegab that it is a question of justice. No, my friends, it's not a question of justice at all. It's a question of political expediency. Do they want to see a park? If we go back to just a little while ago to the South Moresby issue, we were able to develop a park there while, in fact, the Haidas were still concerned — and still are concerned — about the issue of land claims. But a park was created.

This group here were all in favour of a park being created at South Moresby. Now when the government seizes the initiative after 30 years and many people and much consultation, and here it is on the floor of the Legislature — an opportunity to develop another major significant park for the people of British Columbia.... This group — the socialists, the true opposition of the people of the province of British Columbia — are again trying to delay and oppose something that would be good for the people of this province.

It's simply a question of political expediency. They talk about consultation all the time. We hear from the socialists about the need for consultation. We know doggone well that this government and this party leads the way in consultation. There have never been so many different committees out in the province, talking to the people and finding out what they would like to see on particular issues, and how they wish to see it developed.

[4:00]

But in 1973, did the socialists go to the people of this province and talk about the UEL? Did they ask them what they wanted to see or hear in this province in regard to those lands? No, my friends, they did not. But do they constantly preach to us about the

[ Page 6220 ]

need for consultation? Yes, they do. But who actually goes to the people and consults with them? It's the Social Credit Party of British Columbia; it's the government of this province that talks to the people.

There has been tremendous consultation on this issue, and all sorts of diverse opinions have been expressed as to what should occur. Now finally we have in the House a bill which will create a good park for all the people. I am sure it will rival, in years to come, what happened with Stanley Park.

Yet we hear great comments from the opposition as to the reasons this should be held up. If one was cynical.... You can read some of the comments that the members of the opposition made about this whole issue, and you can look back In the past at what wasn't done by the opposition, and what they were intending to do with the land when they were government.

They were going to put a housing development on these lands. Is that foresight? Is that the type of party that we want in government in this province, that is so short-sighted...? They had the opportunity in 1973 — the one election in 12 that they won in this province — and what did they want to do with this land? They wanted to make a housing development on it.

By golly, I am sure glad that they've only ever won one election in 12, and I am sure the people of this province will make sure that it always is only one election. It concerns me that they had that opportunity then and they didn't take advantage of it. After great consultation, we have brought this bill to the floor, had great debate and talked to the people throughout the lower mainland about what is to be done. Now they have the audacity to offer a hoist motion and continue to oppose this bill that's before the House.

Why not, for once, come together and say that this is a good thing for the people of British Columbia? They say that they are all for a park. They're all for a park? In 1973 they were talking about a housing development. Now they say that that doesn't matter; it's not to be a housing development, and it should be a park. They have the opportunity to participate with this government — not to make it a political issue, not to use the land claims issue and not to use the Indian people in this way.

They have that opportunity, yet they continue to take the tack of political expediency. It bothers me. I look at the quotes of some of the members in opposition. The member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) said something along this line. I want you to listen to this to try to figure it out for me. "Is the Premier admitting he's a socialist because he is taking land that was originally owned by the Musqueam native band away from them?" Does that mean that socialists take land away from people? If you take land away from people, are you a socialist? Let me read that again, because I want to make sure that I have the right flavour here. The quote is: "Is the Premier admitting he's a socialist because he's taking land that was originally owned by the Musqueam native band away from them?" I suppose that that's what socialists would do. That's what has been presented in times past, that they would take the land away. Oh, you might be able to build a house on it; you might be able to own the house, but you can't own the land. Here these fine people in opposition are saying for all of the people of the province to hear and to understand: "Elect a socialist government and we will take your land away from you." That's what they are saying. Let us not forget.

Justice, my eye! I really wonder. It is something when you continue to hear what they have to say time after time. They're never in favour of something. They're never in favour of those things that have some vision. They're always concentrating on the little negative things that they can find, any way to draw a political confrontation.

The Leader of the Opposition stands in this House and tells us that he is going to offer an amendment at the time of committee so that we can all share together and show that it won't be a political process here, but that we are all going to be together on it. I say to you, members of the opposition: stand up now. Stand up at this second reading and vote in favour of Bill 16. Stand up straight and tall and say, "Yes, we want to see a park," no ands, ifs, ors or buts. "We want a park. We will stand there. We will create this park with the people of the province of British Columbia. We believe in the park. There are no qualifications." Stand up and do that for all of the people of British Columbia, and be proud when you do that, because when the time comes that the division is called on this particular aspect of the motion, I will stand for the people of the province and I know my colleagues will.

We all urge the members of the opposition to stand as well for the people of British Columbia and not to allow this to just simply be for them another device to try to play a political game. The people understand that this is not a political issue, but the opposition has tried to make it a political issue, when in fact it is not. It is an opportunity for us to be able to show the foresight that the people years ago had when they created Stanley Park and that others had in years past when they took tracts of land to make parks. Here we have, on the west coast of the province, a huge tract of land to be set aside for a park for the people of the province today, for the people of Canada for today, and for the people of British Columbia and Canada for tomorrow and for generations to come. Let us all stand together for the people of this province when the division is called. Stand proudly and vote for a park to be created. Vote for Bill 16 and be proud of it. Let's not make a political issue of it. It is too important to us all. Let us stand together. I implore the opposition to put away their small, political, socialist games and stand with us all to create another park, a park for the province of British Columbia and a park for Canada.

MR. GABELMANN: In his most political voice, the member for Cowichan-Malahat appeals to all of us to be non-political in this very political chamber. I didn't know that what we do in this business was

[ Page 6221 ]

non-political. Not only is it very political indeed, but occasionally it is even partisan, even here in this chamber.

On behalf of the opposition caucus, I want to very quickly say a couple of things. Not only on behalf of members of this caucus, many of whom have fought for many years to see the day when the so-called UEL would become a park, but on behalf of many residents of greater Vancouver and in fact this province who have fought for the establishment of a park on the west side of Vancouver.

When politicians or governments attempt to do things, it isn't necessarily always simple. In trying to achieve this noble object, there are a number of impediments. We have been saying for a day or two now in the House that one of these impediments has not been properly dealt with. In making that statement, we have not been saying: "Let's not have a park." Very much on the contrary, we have been saying: "Let's ensure that the land is left in its natural state, the way the Musqueam people want it left, the way the people of Vancouver want it left, and the way it now seems every member of this House would like it to be left — as a park, as this legislation will establish." Our fighting for an important principle, in our minds, does not mean by and of itself that we are necessarily against the other major objective of this legislation: the establishment of a park. We want that park, and we want it done properly.

I want, as the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) has done, to once again remind members of this House what the Musqueam people have said as recently as today. If the House will bear with me, I want to read this into the record again:

"If anybody had bothered to ask Musqueam, it would have been found that it was in Musqueam's best interests to keep the area in its natural, preserved state, and the general public should have no fear that the land claim would represent a threat to their desire to have the lands preserved as they are. The extent that there is a threat comes from the obstinate persistence of the government in its refusal to negotiate a comprehensive settlement with the Musqueam band."

We have made that point through the mechanism of a hoist motion. We will make the point again through the mechanism of an amendment in committee stage. The government has its opportunity to make its decision about whether or not it wants to achieve this noble objective — the establishment of this park — in a fair and honourable way; or it can do it in the way that it has so far chosen. We stand for the rights of the Musqueam people, and we stand for the establishment of this park.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have listened in the House and to my speaker in my office to some of the debate that has gone on here, and I'm somewhat intrigued by the approach that's been taken by the members of the opposition. Unless I miss my guess, a hoist motion has, despite what it says, generally been used as a device to kill a bill. That was their approach to this bill: to try to kill it through the means of a hoist motion, because it generally has that effect. Yet they say they are in favour of the establishment of the park. The other thing that I find very intriguing is that now that the government has moved to create a park, we have had several of their members stand up and say: "Oh, goody. That was our idea first." It's always: "It was our idea first." Well, you were in power for three years. Why didn't you do it, if it was your idea?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Then we have this statement that they're all in favour of a park, that they're all in favour of having it preserved in its natural state. I would like to refer directly to the bill, which may be uncommon in this debate. I thought section 3 said that this grant "shall be subject to the conditions that (a) the land and improvements transferred by the grant shall be used only for park purposes and for other uses necessarily incidental to their use for park purposes...."

[4:15]

Section 4 goes on to say that the park, when established as an ecological reserve, remains subject to the Ecological Reserve Act and the regulations under that act. That is the highest form of protection for leaving it in its natural state. The member for Atlin said in all sincerity that the Musqueam said as recently as today that they want it preserved in its natural state. It would seem to me that this act assures that.

You would think they'd support this legislation, and so would the members opposite, so that  — heaven forbid — should the NDP, the non-democratic party in this province, ever get to be government, they could not revert to what they wanted to do when they were government before. And it has been clearly established by other members in this House that they wanted to develop housing on that land. This act, if passed today — hopefully supported by the opposition — would ensure that if they ever did get elected, they couldn't revert to what they do in practice as opposed to what they say in theory.

Everybody supports the park. When I was lands, parks and housing minister, we did a lot of work on it. We made a fair amount of progress but didn't conclude the process. I'm delighted that this process is now being concluded. I guess I was there too, as well as the NDP, in saying we wanted that as a park. All I can see is that the opposition, for political expediency, has used this act to try to enter a precedent caveat against any land transfers in this province. If it flies now in the face of everybody in favour of a park but subject to the approval of the band, which says this is what they really want, then what are we talking about? What is it they want? They want a caveat in this section against any land transfer in future.

If it goes in in this case, where there is total agreement for the use of the land, what would happen in any other situation? There are a lot of land claims in this province. Much of the province is covered by land claims. Unless my recollection is somewhat hazy, it seems to me that Vancouver, on their 100th anniversary, was going to go ahead and declare Stanley Park.... That had to be put on hold because of a land claim that wasn't settled.

[ Page 6222 ]

If the Musqueam people are interested in preserving this in its natural state, are they then trying to exact a price from the taxpayers of this province in order to do that? If they are not.... There's been a lot of talk about compensation. Compensation at what rate? At today's rate, the increased value of the land, the 1870 rates, or the 1900 rates? I'm not sure.

Let's take a look at what much of the debate has been about from the opposition to bring it to the attention of the people of this province. They say they are here to represent all of the people of this province; justice for all and that sort of thing. Somehow or other they're the only ones who represent the people of this province. When I say, "all of the people of this province," we have to keep that in mind. A lot of progress has been made in many ways in involving the native peoples: education, post-secondary education. We want them to be equal citizens in this province, and every effort is being made to do that.

Let's look at the NDP position on behalf of all people in this province. The first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) said that this amendment, which can occur, which will not prejudice either side...a caveat saying that unless we get approval from the native people, no land transfer can take place in this province in future. If it applies to this one, where everybody is in favour of it, then why wouldn't it where there are arguments about the use of land?

The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) has had some interesting discussions in this debate and of course is fully knowledgeable about everything that went on in the past. Not only that, he is clairvoyant about the future. He said the government has more on its agenda than meets the eye. The government has said it wants to create a park, but what does that member say? In previous debate, that member said the debate in this House has to be highly dignified. Let's see what he practises, as compared to what he professes, as a professional — and an only professional, I might say, because other people don't qualify.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know. His idea of a dignified debate is statements like: "in the arrogant pursuit of an ignorant policy by the present government." He doesn't agree; therefore it is ignorant. The arrogance of the omnipotent professional. They think it's a disgrace to our democratic system and warrants being labelled as such.

I know the member made an apology and said: "I maintain my position that the group is corrupt and dishonest, but it doesn't apply to its members," which is a rather interesting observation. The member maintained that he is not withdrawing that the group is corrupt and dishonest, but he doesn't want any members of the group to think that it applies to them. But we will leave that for another time.

The Leader of the Opposition, the hit-and-run specialist — mostly run, mostly absent, but he shows up periodically — says in his statement, and I quote from the Blues: "This bill tries to inflame and divide natives from non-natives. We don't stand for that." Yet by their very actions in this hoist motion and this debate, they are promoting this, trying to generate it into a fight between natives and non-natives, when they all agree that everybody wants to have this as a park.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) makes the statement that.... First of all he represents the ethnic community; I thought he represented all of his constituents. Anyway, his statement — and I guess he is reflecting NDP policy - was: "...the Musqueam band has a legitimate and appropriate right...to the lands in question." Translate that across this province and does that mean that because the natives were here first, they in fact have a legitimate right and claim to all of the province? That is what concerns this government, that in order to accept this amendment, in order to negotiate, it's always predicated on the notion that we first must accept aboriginal title to this land. Yes, it is. Every time we say we'll negotiate, it starts from the pretense that we must acknowledge aboriginal title. The minute we acknowledge aboriginal title we are saying in effect that any part of this province has to be compensated for because it is now used other than by the native people.

The rights of the native people in many places have been assured. For instance, in my own constituency, in Fort Nelson, the rights were established and negotiated by this government. There were the gas subsurface rights; they had a valid claim that they had not been expunged when the land was turned over. Those rights are now getting those people 50 percent of all the money that comes from the gas and oil under the reserve lands — even though they didn't initially. That was a lot of money. That has been acknowledged in Sechelt and other areas.

But the NDP is repeatedly making the point. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew goes on again reflecting "Non-Democratic" policy. The government must "recognize that when there is a higher claim to a piece of land, that claim ought to be respected." I guess he is referring to this section but does not seem to understand — and as a legal person, he should understand. Establish that principle in this park situation — that is exactly what some people want so that the principle will then apply to all the other lands. Not all the other lands — yes, the people have said on a number of occasions, informally, that they have no interest in any private land. I don't know whether this was because it was owned by the government, but I think there is a case in Kamloops where there was a private land transfer attempted, and an original title claim was maGray, Betsyde against it. Try to prevent that. I guess we have to keep that in mind when it's happening.

What about all the Crown land in this province which is traversed by highways and pipelines? If it is subject to the native land claims because it is Crown land and not titled to an individual, does that mean we are leaving the population of this province open in the future to tolls being exacted for all the pipelines crossing those lands, which serve the people of

[ Page 6223 ]

this province, and for all the highways and that sort of thing? Those are some of the possibilities.

So it is not just obstinacy on the part of this government to say that we cannot recognize aboriginal title until it is defined and specified on a particular area. It's too broad. It means that the whole province, in effect, would be subject to having to be paid for again and again. There is no guarantee that it doesn't apply to individually titled lands. If that guarantee were made, I think it would help.

The member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) makes the statement: "We are in favour of a park, but we are in favour of adequate compensation for the original owners before it was made a park." He is again establishing the NDP principle that aboriginal title exists to any part of this province, and that compensation must be paid for everything that we've done in the past, as well as everything that might be considered in the future.

I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that if that caveat is accepted, that's what we are entering into, and that is not adequately or properly representing all of the people of this province. I think we can be fair, but I think the fairness has to come. If there are going to be claims, they have to be specified. I have seen maps that cover more than this province in land claims.

MR. MILLER: How about the tree-farm licences?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: They don't cover all of the province, just the forest parts.

Let's take a look at the statement of the member for Alberni that all we need to do is put in this amendment. This is what he says this amendment will mean: "...negotiate with the native community — the rightful owners of the land." If that principle is accepted, then in effect we have to negotiate for any land in this province. If that caveat is placed on this transfer, would it not be applied to every land transfer between the government and any other group, or between any two individuals?

The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey has made it clear — presumably, since he was applauded and supported — that nobody in this province in future should own land, and that it should be leased. He stated that quite clearly in the debate. It should be leased, and Crown land should not be sold.

[4:30]

In the short time the NDP was in power, they tried to apply that principle in Fort Nelson, and a subdivision was created there. They said: "Please come and build your houses on this land that we will lease to you." It was a subdivision for 50 or 70 or 100 houses with that many lots. They said: "You may not own the land, but you're welcome to build your house on it." I think that about three good NDP supporters took the option.

The rest of the land sat vacant until the election of a proper and responsible government in this province, who turned around and said: "We cannot really expect people to invest and build a house on a piece of land owned by the government." The people have this hang-up that they would like to own the foundation which sits on the land, as well as the house that they put on it. Once the government changed those rules, that subdivision filled up very quickly. Guess what the three loyal NDPers did who had leased the land. They immediately converted it to purchase; they didn't leave the thing in the lease arrangement. So that is what the member is saying.

I know there are lease arrangements for some industrial operations and that sort of thing, but I don't think people anywhere in this province would accept the concept of: "We'll lease the land, and we'll build our house on it. We'll invest our money in it. Should we ever sell it, or the government changes and the NDP says: 'We want it for a higher purpose, therefore please move your shack off, because we want the land back....'"

MR. MILLER: Hey, the bank owns mine.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes. Well, that was another little technical complication. The banks had a little hang-up about loaning money to somebody building a house on property that they didn't own, so that created another problem.

The Leader of the Opposition, when he was an alderman in Vancouver, wanted to build housing on the land; now he wants it as a park. When we wanted to build Expo, he was against it. Then when Expo turned out to be a success, he said: "I was always in favour of it. I thought of it first." You know, it's the standard approach. This is a very interesting exercise in political expediency, but it is typical of the NDP to zero in on one issue without considering the ramifications. I know they want the native vote, but at what price to all the other people that they technically represent?

I think that fair dealings can be made with the native people in this province, and that a lot can be done. But I don't think we can serve all of the people in this province by acknowledging aboriginal title, with all of the implications, unless that is narrowed down to what people mean by aboriginal title. Where that has been done it has been dealt with. Where that claim has been narrowed down to the specific claim that people want, the specific request the native people want, every effort has been made by this government to deal with that. But we cannot deal with a broad principle — whatever name the opposition gives to it — that could mean that all of the things that exist on the surface of the land in this province have to be, first of all, vetted through the native people of this province.

The member for Courtenay mentioned the South Moresby situation. That land, after quite a bit of negotiation — and it could have been done in other ways as well. I was involved in it and had several serious negotiations with the Haida people. I found out afterwards that in all the press reports they said this government had never talked to them about the Moresby situation. I had meetings here and there, on several occasions, and a lot of things could have been accomplished. Nevertheless, it is now history, and that land was turned over, by arrangement, to the

[ Page 6224 ]

federal government to create a park. What has happened now? It has been declared a separate nation, with passports and entrance fees required. Is that what we're facing in the Endowment Lands if we acknowledge all the arguments the opposition are making? Is that what the people of this province should be supporting?

I think we can be fair and equitable to the native people in this province in many ways, but I think some of the claims have to be far more specific before they can be seriously considered. Otherwise we abrogate our responsibilities to all the people in this province who have increased the value of this province, who have created a lot of development, who have, in good faith, established themselves in this province and invested a lot of their time, money and life in making it a place where they want to live. I know many pioneers in my own constituency settled there when nobody else was there, including natives. There were natives there before but scattered throughout the region. Some of these people came in, got along well with the natives and established a homestead and a farm. Are they not original owners, in some sense, as well? So do they now have to pay for their farm again should aboriginal title be recognized?

I know it is fashionable, as I think the one member said.... Oh yes, the super-conductor from Point Grey made the point.... Talk about trying to make an issue out of this that didn't exist. A bill to make a park, and that member stands up and says we don't want...anything to the "many other ethnic groups who did not have the virtue of being born with a white skin." This has nothing to do with that, despite that member's attempt to drag it to that level.

So, Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. I think we've heard adequate arguments that everybody supports it, but the Leader of the Opposition says, "We're going to attach strings to it so that it cannot be created into a park without setting a precedent for a caveat against any possible land transfers in this province in the future."

I very much support this bill, and I would hope all members of this House will.

MR. RABBITT: I rise and support the University Endowment Land Park Act. Many of you may wonder why an individual from the interior would want to get up and speak on an issue which is so important to the lower mainland. Really, I guess, there are a few things I'd like to share.

I was listening to the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy), a member who has been in politics for a couple of decades and thoroughly understood the history and the present status. I was very taken up by those remarks because she put things in perspective. She put the present opposition in perspective. She identified many of the salient points and brought the arguments around so we can understand why the opposition is taking the stand they are today.

When the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks) rose in the House, he outlined very clearly why the government and his ministry were so supportive of transferring this land to the GVRD as a park: "This land is being transferred to enable the creation of a new greater Vancouver regional park which will be for the use and enjoyment of all British Columbians." He added that this "...will be the largest urban park in Canada, and one of the largest in the world." He also pointed out that presently there is a shortage of regional parkland on the Burrard peninsula.

This land is being transferred to a local government: the GVRD. I ask the members of the opposition: are all those members of the GVRD, as well as this government, wrong? Are you saying that the representatives of all those local governments throughout the lower mainland are wrong in accepting this transfer of land as park in perpetuity for all British Columbians, for all Canadians, regardless of race, colour or creed? Tell me.

I think we've lost sight of the real issue here, because it's become politically expedient for the opposition to make this a native land issue. When we look at native land issues — and we do have them in this province — what does the law say? What did the treaty say? It said that any claims of Indians to compensation for lands required for purposes of settlement shall be disposed of by the Canadian government.

I can tell you that when the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) said: "We fight for an important principle...." Well, damn it, we fight for an important principle too. We do not ride on the backs of the poor or the natives. This government brings forward legislation, regulations and policies that help those groups. The inference is there that this is an uncaring government; I think this government is the most caring government we've had in decades.

Yesterday, while the hoist motion was being discussed, I was looking at the Blues and reviewing what some of the speakers had been saying. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) said: "Why aren't we getting people into this discussion from the other side of the House?" Today I look around and wonder what's wrong. These people put a hoist forward, and they're sitting on.... What did the member from Burnaby, the minister, call it? I forget the spelling, so I won't use it.

The NDP want us to believe that they're the friends of the native community, but I challenge that. The NDP has argued throughout this debate.... The basis of their argument was in favour of the hoist; they are now speaking against this motion because of land claims.

[4:45]

They were talking about "the larger issue." They were talking about "the track record of this government." Well, I think the track record of this government is good. Since 1986 the Premier has identified the native issue and set a task force to address the problems of the native issue. Yesterday the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) viciously attacked the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith), as well as the Premier. I wondered at the time whether this vicious attack was another effort by the opposi-

[ Page 6225 ]

tion to try to gain some ink in the local media. Those weren't arguments. Needless to say, they didn't substantiate the hoist. That's why we could not support it.

Let's cast back for a few moments to 1972-75. We heard the member for Prince Rupert talk about casting back. Let's talk about those dark days of '72 to '75. Let's talk about the promises that were made and never fulfilled. Let's talk about the promises that were made in Yale-Lillooet by the NDP of the day before 1972. Let's talk about the promises that the NDP member for Yale-Lillooet made.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition, who has just joined us, to listen up. He will enjoy this. I won't deliver your name-tag today, because you've been in twice.

Let me share a little story that happened in Yale Lillooet. In the '70 to '71 era, prior to that election that brought the dark days in, the local MLA, who was a member of the NDP, promised local native bands that when they became government they would get fair and just compensation for the road right-of-way that the bad government of the day was trying to establish through an Indian reserve. Let me tell you the real story.

When the '72 election came forward and the NDP were elected to government, they had to come clean. What did they do? They expropriated the land, the same thing the previous government had started. There was no pie in the sky for the native community They rode on the backs of the native community in order to obtain votes. From my experience, they sold the native community in my riding down the tube.

I think it's very unfair when the opposition creates expectations through false and hollow promises to minority groups such as the natives. The member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) isn't the only one in this House who has native blood in his ancestry. I'm proud to say that it runs in my family as well. I want to see fair treatment for those natives. I want to see fair treatment because my grandchild, who was born yesterday, is a status native.

You see, members of the opposition, you people don't own all the land. The people of British Columbia own that land and they share it, whether they are white or whether they are native.

Vancouver deserves a park. There have been people fighting for 30 years for the establishment of that park. I was prepared to stand and speak against the hoist because it was just a deliberate move by the opposition to stall. The sooner we make it a park, the sooner we can start developing that park for all the people of greater Vancouver, of British Columbia and of Canada, regardless of whether they're native or non-native.

Land rights and claims are an issue which this government and this Premier is addressing and will continue to address and will continue to work towards finding an answer. Why do we want to see this caveat put on? We don't. The precedent — and the Leader of the Opposition should know this because he is a member of the legal fraternity — that would be set would be totally unwieldy. If there is a claim here, the claim is not against land. The claim will be for compensation. This government, I know, will recognize any claim of compensation that is handed down by the courts.

The NDP has been coming forward with what I call a blank-cheque philosophy. I'd like to tell the natives of this community that it's a rubber cheque.

I'd like to conclude by arguing that this park is good. The establishment of this act is good. The use of that park will be for all Canadians for many years to come. It's there, and it will be used well, and I certainly support this act, Bill 16. I ask that all the members of this House unanimously support what is good Social Credit legislation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I want to be very brief as well, but I do want to make some comments because I've been sitting here — like many, I'm sure — for the last several days, and I feel as though it is 1974 revisited. I can recall March of 1974 when, as was stated by the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy), the NDP socialist government of the day wanted to take a large part of that land and develop it for housing. I fear that somehow the NDP, although in opposition, are attempting to push for a like situation today.

We've heard it said time and time again that the Leader of the Opposition particularly really can't make up his mind where he is on a situation and likes to be on both sides of a particular circumstance, regardless of what it is.

I've heard some mention in the last couple of days about "some housing; some park." Then again, the member from Esquimalt said only yesterday: "some title." It used to be some park and some housing; now it's some title for the Musqueam people. If I were the Musqueam people, I wouldn't trust the NDP on a promise which indicates that the NDP is attempting to get them something that they feel they're entitled to, but it's qualified as it was by the member from Esquimalt when he said they're deserving of "some title." This is good legislation. We are providing a park in perpetuity for all of the people of the province, not just the people of Point Grey or Vancouver.

We hear the argument from the other side that they are somehow opposed to this. They would like to delay it, as suggested in their amendment, in order that some other things might be done in the interim. I guess it's much along the lines of what might have been said back in '73 and '74, when at the end of it all they wanted "some housing" and "some park." To hear those suggestions is rather frightening. To hear them talk as they did yesterday about a caveat that would provide for a park, but that might be changed if some decision were to come down later, is frightening, not only to the people in the area of Point Grey or those who fought hard and long for the park, but it must be frightening to all British Columbians.

If a caveat should apply in this particular circumstance when an agreement is being entered into between two levels of government, then it follows, I suggest, that the NDP would want similar caveats in

[ Page 6226 ]

all other agreements, whether between individuals or corporations. According to the NDP, whenever an area might be subject to land claims, there ought to be some caveat. If the NDP were able to somehow convince this Legislature that all agreements, whether between governments, corporations or individuals, should have that caveat when subject to an area of land claims, then no one could really, with some peace of mind, enter into an agreement to sell their home, land or business, or enter into an agreement with someone else on a piece of land covered by land claim.

All of this would create a great deal of fear throughout the whole of the province. It would destroy confidence and eliminate the tremendous prosperity we are now enjoying because people are looking to British Columbia to invest. What I'm hearing from the NDP in opposition to this bill is that they would like to see this sort of caveat. Given that caveat, perhaps they might consider supporting it. I'm afraid that this caveat, whether in an agreement between the province and the regional district or between two corporations or two individuals, would be the most frightening thing that could happen to the future of this province — and not just in a partisan way. I realize that we have a free enterprise government on one side of this House and a socialist opposition on the other, but we should all fight in a non-partisan way this attitude and this move to see that as part of the bill. I understand that when we come to the individual sections, the Leader of the Opposition might again try to provide somehow for a change that would see that come into effect. Mr. Leader of the Opposition and members of the socialist NDP, I warn you that this type of action, this threat, can really harm the future of our province and really frighten people, regardless of where they live.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Justice will be done, and there is a means to get justice. It's available to all of us, including our native people; it's available to them. There is a system for justice, but it's not justice to try and have these caveats as part of every agreement between levels of government, people or corporations in this province. For people who have long held their land or their home to see the potential for such caveats if their area is subject to a land claim is not justice. The whole province is covered by land claims. As a matter of fact, 125 percent of the province is covered by land claims, because some claims overlap. Given that, I think it's very frightening for a lot of people to see the socialists take this approach simply, I would suggest, to make Brownie points with a particular group and to risk a lot more — the future of this province.

[5:00]

We as a government made a commitment to have this park established in greater Vancouver to serve the whole province, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District will administer this large urban park for all of the people. It will be a wonderful park. It will not only be useful for park purposes, but I would suggest that if we leave much or all of it in its natural state, it will be an assist to the whole environment of greater Vancouver.

I would ask the NDP to please change their minds and not attempt to delay the establishment of this park; to support the establishment of the largest urban park for all of the people; and to get onside with this side of the House and show the people that this park will be British Columbia's pride and joy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I advise all hon. members that, pursuant to standing order 42, the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I am very pleased that the amendment to hoist this bill for six months was defeated earlier this afternoon. I say that because that amendment would not only have delayed this bill for six months, but in all reality it may have delayed this park long into the future.

This is not a government of delay. This government was elected to take action; we have promised action. The people of the Greater Vancouver Regional District want action, and they want it now, on the University Endowment Lands. They have asked for a regional park since 1966, and all the studies since then have reinforced the need for the park. The time to declare the UEL as a park for all British Columbians in perpetuity is now. The time to pass second reading is now. I move second reading.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 52

NAYS — 2

Bill 16, University Endowment Land Park Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later in the day.

[ Page 6227 ]

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES

On vote 31: minister's office, $259,265 (continued).

MR. LOVICK: There has been a long absence between various segments of these debates concerning the Government Management Services estimates.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Happily, yes, I do have a good memory. I have paid close attention to what has gone on and therefore can pick up precisely at the point we left off.

Without further ado, I will ask the minister if he has any more detailed information to give me in answer to my last question: namely, what the plans are concerning the privatization of audiological services He has promised on a number of occasions that he would be very quick to provide us with information in response to any questions we posed. Indeed, he takes some pride in doing that consistently. Here is an opportunity, Mr. Minister. Do you have anything further to tell us about this proposed privatization of audiological services in B.C.?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: No.

MR. LOVICK: It is nice to see that the minister has learned the power of succinct expression. It's certainly not characteristic.

I note that the support staff have now arrived. I had the pleasure, of course, of working at a seminar held a few days ago with one of those persons, Peter Clark from the privatization group. Happily he is here, because my questions are going to be directed primarily to those areas.

To start with, I simply want to ask the minister to tell us specifically about the privatization group and the activities of that group. I asked last time, as you'll recall, Mr. Minister, for some description of just what the Government Management Services entity was doing. I got all kinds of detailed answers about the activities of the various Crown corporations and all those worthy activities that are going on. The answers were indeed complete.

The question I am still searching for an answer to has to do entirely with the activity of the privatization group. What I want to ask the minister to start with is what that group is doing right now. What are its activities? How many people are involved? How often do they meet? What does it cost? Those kinds of things. I'll give you an opportunity, Mr. Minister, for a nice short, discreet answer to that question.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The privatization group consists of some eight or nine people. They analyze privatization initiatives. Initiatives arise in several ways. Suggestions come in, mainly from employee groups, referred to us by respective ministries which embrace the various employee groups. We receive suggestions and initiatives from the private sector. We receive suggestions from my colleagues and Crown corporations, At every meeting we attempt to interview and receive suggestions and overviews of potential or possible initiatives from either ministries or Crown corporations. We revolve; we have a continuing, ongoing agenda. The committee keeps very busy, and the composition of the privatization group, naturally, is mainly analysts qualified to work within — and with — the respective industries in making recommendations to the privatization committee, which in turn takes their decisions to cabinet for final approval.

[5:15]

MR. LOVICK: We're getting closer.

Mr. Minister, do I understand correctly that you informed the House the last time we had our discussions that the shift of the privatization working group has moved somewhat away from privatization per se and rather to the whole area of restructuring? I think your reference was that the terms of reference had expanded somewhat. Is that the case, that qua privatization is no longer discussed so much, rather we're talking about reorganization and restructuring initiatives?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: For the record, once again, the terms of reference of the privatization committee were somewhat expanded late last summer. We now have the authorization in our interviews and during the analysis of the various initiatives.... If we identify an area of cost-saving to government where the quality of the service would not be in any way impaired and where the delivery of that service would be as good or better than it was before, along with delivering some cost efficiencies, the committee will take to cabinet those recommendations as well as privatization recommendations. In our deliberations we also, naturally, have occasion.... We're not on a full-scale search, but along the way, we oftentimes find areas where restructuring recommendations can also be made to respective ministries or to cabinet, and those are looked at as well. For anything that would come to our attention, we are at complete liberty to make recommendations on efficiencies and restructuring, perhaps one and the same.

The committee is busy; it has a very long list of projects currently being looked at. The members opposite and, indeed, all citizens of the province, I'm convinced, are pleased with the progress to date and will continue to be satisfied with the progress and recommendations of the committee in the future.

MR. LOVICK: I thank the minister for that answer. I now want to turn to what I think is the fundamental question we have to address when we look at this particular vote: namely, the vote description for the privatization and communications activities.

[ Page 6228 ]

You'll recall, Mr. Minister, that the vote description says very clearly: "This subvote provides for the costs of evaluating restructuring initiatives." I would like you to share with this House what those evaluations have consisted of. What have you done by way of evaluation?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I don't know how one would go about responding to a very broadly based question such as that. It is certainly a broad, generalized question. The evaluators evaluate. We have internal staff; we have people working as consultants; we bring in outside people when required. They are continually doing evaluations. There were a tremendous number of people involved in that evaluation in the early stages of the privatization committee. Suffice it to say, the outside people are not being called upon to the degree they were in the early stages, but basic evaluation of proposals is being put forward by literally any citizen in the province, including the employees. To describe to the member specifically the technicalities of evaluation: it is just a very basic common-sense evaluation of proposals and initiatives that require evaluating.

MR. LOVICK: To say that these are broad, general questions, and that evaluation is evaluation is evaluation doesn't quite do, I'm sorry to say. The vote stipulates very clearly that a certain sum of money has been set aside to conduct evaluations of those particular initiatives. Indeed, in fiscal 1988-89 we apparently spent $1 million on that process. We're talking about reducing the sum somewhat to $748,796 in fiscal 1989-90.

The question, though, is: if we are going to spend that kind of money, what are we doing with it? It's not good enough, it seems clear to me, Mr. Minister. I'm sure if you pause to reflect dispassionately on the matter for a moment, you will agree with me that it's not good enough to say: "Well, trust us that evaluations are evaluations are evaluations, and these are broad general categories."

I think we need to be specific. I would like some indication from you — I think this House deserves some indication from you — of what you are doing in the name of evaluating efficiencies. Tell us what you've done. Give us some sense of how this particular group justifies itself. I am sure that your staff would welcome the opportunity to explain the good work it's doing. Give them a chance, Mr. Minister, please.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, the way the process works is that the employees in the various ministries are given notice a reasonable period of time before they are to appear before the committee. Employees compile a report containing certain objectives that they feel are attainable tasks. The staff of the privatization committee would — not in all instances, but certainly in some instances — get involved at that time with the employees who have been so designated in the respective ministries. They would do a joint outline, so that it is set out in the format acceptable to the committee.

Communications take place between employees of my ministry and employees in other ministries of government. As a matter of fact, as the next few months unfold, I would suggest to the member that employees of my ministry will no doubt have been in touch with employees in every single ministry of government, as well as with all Crown corporations.

Thus the evaluation process is ongoing. Some of the recommendations and outlines brought to the committee are rejected. On certain occasions some are accepted; other ones are sometimes held in abeyance. But the analysts are given assignments by the director, and the director is given direction by the committee. It's an ongoing process.

I repeat, I don't have to go into the past to talk about the success stories of privatization, because the member opposite is well aware of the success stories. I believe he looks upon them as having been successful, because I have not heard the member opposite stand up and talk about advocating that they be turned back to the government and taken away from the private sector. I have to draw the conclusion that he supports the government program by and large. There's no question that he has areas of criticism — as we receive now and again — but by and large the program is working very well. The analysts work extremely hard. In the early stages of the privatization initiatives they not only worked hard but they worked very long hours, including working on weekends.

The analysts analyze the recommendations of the various ministries; they work with employees in identifying other proposals; they provide professional service in policies for employees; they do work in the area of specialized consulting. We have the authority to second employees from other ministries for short periods of time to work on special assignments if we are short of the expertise within our own team. This happens on occasion.

I think the team is busy. The total number of privatization initiatives and individual contracts, I would think — I've never counted them up — probably exceeds 100, that we've done up to now. I can safely and confidently say that in the hopper right now, being analyzed and given priority, we easily have another 100 initiatives that our committee is reviewing.

I don't expect to see them all happen in the next week, and I don't expect to see them all happen in the next month. As time unfolds, we will be doing one now, one later, maybe a few next month, and we'll be making the announcements and making sure that that member is informed. I know he has a deep interest in the area of privatization.

MR. LOVICK: Of course, the minister could have also added: "This member is also very well informed." Not only does he have an interest, but he's also well informed about these matters. I thought you might grant me that, but you held back.

[ Page 6229 ]

The minister's answers continue to amaze me, because they are all with reference to future plans and future projects. That's fine, but this vote is talking about evaluating those initiatives. What I'm really asking is if you will give us some indication of what evaluations you have done. It seems that what we are being told in terms of this vote is that the privatization group functions only to evaluate future plans, ideas that people come up with. What I'm concerned about is: what kind of evaluation have you done of those things that have already been privatized? What I want to know — and I'm sure others in this House share this view — is: what kind of value have we got for our money? What kinds of deals have we made? How are we doing on all of these things? As I understand this vote, your group is empowered to conduct evaluations of those initiatives — things we have completed, not just new ones. I want a performance evaluation. Is that not what your privatization working group is also charged with doing? If not, please clarify the point for me, Mr. Minister, because I'm sure a number of us are working on a very false assumption.

[5:30]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Either I'm not a good listener or the member opposite isn't a good communicator in the area of explaining what he's trying to get at. I now hear the well-informed member, the first member for Nanaimo, getting to the point where he's wondering about the evaluation of those initiatives that have already been privatized. If that is indeed the question, the answer is that we analyze and make recommendations to the committee up to the point of privatization, Once the unit is privatized, it then falls to the ministry in the area in which the privatization took place to do a continual monitoring, evaluation and what have you. I cannot comment on what's happened already, Mr. Member. I can only tell you what the records, the indicators and the projections were at the time.

MR. LOVICK: Behold a chasm before us. The chasm is that place where a whole bunch of things got dropped, to disappear from the face of the earth, that don't seem to be the responsibility of any particular ministry. One of the difficulties we have had from the beginning of the privatization initiatives is determining who is responsible for all of those initiatives. You recall, Mr. Minister, that two of your cabinet colleagues have had the job of what we usually and loosely refer to as the minister of privatization.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, one of them is still in cabinet; the other isn't.

What we tried to do was to pose questions on the floor of this chamber on a number of different occasions. We said: "Can somebody tell us what all of this stuff is actually costing? What have these initiatives cost us?" What we are now discovering, because of a reference from the minister that everything will fall into the responsibilities of particular ministries, is that there were some expenditures undertaken, and we don't know who was responsible for them.

Let me give you a case in point, Mr. Minister, What about the vehicle modification shop? Do you recall that? That was a privatization initiative that didn't get completed. The question is: how much did we spend going through the process of trying to privatize that operation? What happened to lead you to the conclusion that that was not worth the candle, that that was a privatization initiative that should not be completed? Who is responsible for answering that question? As servants of the public who want answers about how the public's money is being spent, who can we ask to provide us with those answers? Can you tell me?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The member would perhaps find it interesting that we are estimating in general terms that to this time, we have probably saved government in the neighbourhood of $48 million to $50 million in delivering services for government. The sales value, as I'm sure he is aware, is certainly in the neighbourhood of a billion dollars. He's also aware that we have a substantive amount of money in the privatization fund as a result of these initiatives. The specific figure, as mentioned by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) — and I don't think it has grown to any degree since then — is around $302 million.

The member asks a specific question as to how much an evaluation would have cost for a single project like the vehicle modification shop. I will not be able to answer that, nor can anyone else. We have a bucketful of initiatives in the hopper.

I just finished saying that, without going out and counting them, we probably have 100 initiatives right now in the hopper. I believe we've already done more than 100 individual contracts. We have a team of people, and they're working on more than one a day. We don't go to the trouble — as the legal profession does or professional consultants and actuaries do — to clock in and keep time-cards of how many hours were worked on every single project. We don't work that way.

We know in round figures what we've saved; we can identify what we've spent. We know what the word "payback" means. We think we are acting in the best interests of the citizens of the province of British Columbia. We think we have saved the citizens tens of millions of dollars. We're convinced that we're going to save tens of millions of dollars in the future. We're proud of the program; we'll stand by the program. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I think that the initiatives of privatization have gone a long way. Privatization, government efficiencies, restructuring, the restraint program of many years ago, the early privatization initiatives such as Pacific Coach Lines and things along those lines have certainly gone a long way in providing us with the much-talked-about balanced budget that we have in our province at this time.

Suffice it to say, Mr. Member, that there have been a number of projects referred to the committee. Many

[ Page 6230 ]

of them have been put in the hopper, where a feasibility study has been done. If they prove to be on first brush not a good idea, not feasible, not cost-saving, not providing better service or meeting the criteria of the committee, then they are set aside.

Others are taken through the full committee with a full analysis right from beginning to end. In those instances, there have been a few where we have gone the full gamut and decided against privatization because they were not in the interests of the citizens, did not in any way improve the service or provide any kind of payback. So they were set aside. We've had several illustrations of that.

Along with that were a lot of success stories and a lot of actions. I believe the number of employees affected is some 5,000. Needless to say, the record speaks for itself: a program, all in all, which is working extremely well in British Columbia and, indeed, which this government is proud of.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Minister, can you not yet see why we are struggling on this side of the House? Let me state it as bluntly as I can. You and other spokespersons for this government continue to tell us about how many dollars you estimate you are saving, and you even have the temerity to write an appendix to the budget talking about how you're actually saving money, when it appeared there was a $20 million overrun.

You do all those things, but when we pose the question to you to show us your savings by showing us all your costs of privatization, what do we get by way of an answer in regard to something specific like the vehicle modification unit? We get the minister saying: "I can't answer the question, nor can anyone else."

Think about that, Mr. Minister. How can we be asked to accept your figures and calculations about what privatization is going to do for us economically, when you can't even answer that question, when you can't demonstrate to us that, in fact, we are saving money? You haven't shown us what it's actually costing us. I think that's a very important question, a very important issue and, finally, a very important failing on the part of the privatization program. Until such time as you can demonstrate to us that you have factored in all of your costs, we on this side are going to continue to be skeptical and suspicious about just what we are actually paying for the privatization initiatives.

On the order paper in the last session of the House I had some 12 written questions on notice directed to various ministers, all of whom ostensibly have the responsibility for certain privatization initiatives. There were a dozen questions, all essentially the same question, each of which was directed to a particular privatization initiative — everything from the Langford sign shop to the Kelowna feed- and tissue-testing laboratory.

We never did get any answers to those questions. Moreover, when my colleagues and I in debate one evening in this chamber were talking to the Minister of Energy.... I'm trying to remember the full title of that ministry. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, it eludes me.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. LOVICK: I thank the honourable House Leader opposite for that information. When we asked individual questions about the actual costs of the privatizations within his particular ministry and its responsibilities, what we got were some assurances, Mr. Minister, that we would get answers. That minister, I would remind you, was at that time also known to be the minister responsible for privatization.

What I want to do now is bring those questions back. We did indeed get some assurances. Accordingly, I am going to defer to my colleague the second member for Vancouver East, who pursued that matter and wrote a formal letter to the then minister of privatization — unless of course the minister would care to respond to my few questions first.

MR. CLARK: What I want to canvass with the minister, if I could, is what I canvassed with the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) when he was the minister responsible for privatization last June. I believe it was June 30 or July 1. We went until about 1:30 in the morning, and I don't know whether the staff here were there at the time; I hope they were. I know that Mr. Plecas was there.

AN HON. MEMBER: June 27.

MR. CLARK: June 27 was the date? In any event, what transpired that evening, at midnight or so, was a series of questions from myself and my colleagues, with the minister giving a series of commitments to provide information on specific privatization initiatives. Subsequent to that, after the summer, I sent a letter to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources reminding him of his commitments in the House. He then sent a letter to me, indicating he was no longer the minister responsible, passed along to the current minister my letters and my remarks with respect to a whole series of commitments he'd made in the House, and indicated that the current minister would therefore respond to those commitments. I would like to canvass again with the minister those commitments made by the previous minister and ask him if he might provide information to the House, as the previous minister committed himself and his government to do. If the minister would like a copy of my original correspondence, I'd be happy to do that.

[5:45]

I want to make the point that these questions are not to score great political headlines. They're designed to elicit reasonable information, I think, about privatization initiatives and the costs associated with them. Again, as I say, the previous minister agreed with the opposition — and with myself in particular — that they were reasonable requests and gave me a commitment to provide the information. To date, that information has not been forthcoming.

[ Page 6231 ]

At the outset, I draw your attention to page 5452 of Hansard last year. I'm quoting the previous minister responsible for privatization:

"Of the $1 million budget, some $775,000 has been committed to date, and I'll list the various consultants and others who have been involved in supplying information and advice as to privatization. Substantially it is consultants negotiating in respect to the privatization in half a dozen ministries, firms like Peat Marwick, Price Waterhouse, Stevenson Kellogg, Touche Ross and so on."

That's a quote from the previous minister where he gave a commitment to list the various consultants and others. To date we have not received that list.

On page 5453 of Hansard the minister responded to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), regarding the tabling of studies associated with privatization: "I think the government would be prepared to table some of these studies where they can be neatly published...to the extent that they can be neatly packaged up as studies with conclusions and so on, certainly I'll endeavour to have them produced." Once again, no studies were tabled, as the minister gave a commitment in the House last June.

On the same page of Hansard, in response to my questions regarding the list of employee groups that various consultants were advising.... By that I mean that what happened, as I understand it and as the previous minister indicated in the House, is that various consultants were hired to assist employee groups in preparing bids with respect to privatization initiatives. The minister responded as follows: "Perhaps if I could take that as notice, I'll get the numbers as soon as I can." And then, further, he said: "I'll take that as notice with a commitment to return the information." That's once again a very clear and unequivocal commitment. The consultants who were advising the employee groups, the names of the employee groups, the projects that they were looking at privatizing and the names of the consultants associated with those employee bids — the previous minister made a commitment to table all of that and all of the studies associated with those. None of those have yet been tabled in the House or forwarded to the opposition.

Again, I asked the minister whether he would make available the studies prepared by consultants; in other words, consultants who were paid from public money to do studies with respect to promoting or criticizing any privatization issue — hopefully relatively objective, as these things are, studies with respect to the merits of privatization. I asked the minister if he would table any of those studies, and there clearly were many. I asked the minister: "The minister has indicated that he will make the studies available. While he takes that on notice as well? Could he provide the information as soon as possible?" And the previous minister replied: "Yes." Again, almost a year has passed and we still have not seen any information with respect to those studies.

On page 5454 of Hansard the member for Nanaimo asked questions about the number and cost of personnel seconded to assist privatization. This is particularly germane to some of the questions we have heard in the last half hour. The member for Nanaimo asked: "May I ask the minister whether we can also get a copy of that list" — of seconded employees — "as well as an approximate cost attached and assigned to each of those names? Is that possible?" The minister responded: "I think so, but I will have to take it under advisement. Certainly we will have the costs. We'd have to develop them from sheets we have here, but I'm sure they can be made available — certainly the order of magnitude." Again, Mr. Chairman, we have not yet seen any of the costs associated with seconded employees. We will canvass that in further detail as the hours progress either tonight or tomorrow, when we come back.

On the following page of Hansard I rephrased some of these questions to try and elicit a clearer answer from the minister. This time the minister was unequivocal. I asked: "Will the minister provide for me the names of the employees who are seconded to his ministry or to government personnel services for the purposes of privatization, and their salaries, and where they're from?" The minister responded: "Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes." Again, we have not seen any lists of seconded employees, any costs associated with them, or a list of where the seconded employees came from. It's absolutely clear that the previous minister agreed to make that commitment in this House, and we have not yet seen that list.

I'll go on. I asked: "Are there other contract employees" — other than seconded employees — "working now for the ministry with respect to privatization or in this branch? Of the 20 who aren't part of the regular staff and are not included in the consulting budget that we talked about earlier, are there contract employees currently in place?" The previous minister replied: "If there are any additional staff or any support services in addition to those already indicated, we'll provide the information." Once again, Mr. Chairman, no information has been forthcoming since that commitment was made in the House at the end of June last year.

On page 5456 of Hansard I asked a series of questions regarding the costs to different ministries of the various training programs being conducted by the privatization consultants, As we know, there were many seminars and training programs for workers to run their own businesses, etc. I asked for information regarding those training programs. The minister replied: "There are some transportation and other expenditures, but we'll endeavour to get those numbers specifically as related to the particular privatizations that have taken place." Again, a commitment was made in the House last June that all of the costs associated with training employees to make bids on privatization ventures would be tabled in the House. Again, no estimates of the transportation and other costs have been provided to date.

On page 5456 of Hansard I asked for more detailed information regarding the cost of the 20 or so seconded employees — the number came from the previous minister responsible for privatization. The minister replied: "In addition to the list of 20 names" — I remind the members that we have not yet seen the

[ Page 6232 ]

list of 20 names — "and their positions in the different ministries, we'll supply an approximation of the times which they are expected to spend on privatization. Some are for a matter of weeks, some are for much longer. It varies between projects." A very clear answer, and I commended the minister for his forthrightness that night in June. He very clearly said he would give me a list of all of the seconded employees, which ministries they were from, which projects they were working on and how much time they were to spend on those projects. Again, we have seen no evidence after that commitment was made in the House.

I would like at this point to be charitable about the reason for these answers not being forthcoming. It seems to me that there was a summer in there and a change of ministries. I have no direct experience, but I'm sure it is disruptive in terms of the staff and commitments made by previous ministers. It seems to me the minister is bound by the previous minister's commendment in the House to answer very simple requests for information. It seems to me that those requests are in order. The previous minister, with staff help, said that all the commitments he made would be given to us, that the data to make those commitments was in hand.

To start off this line of questioning, I would like to ask the minister whether he will honour the commitment made last June by the previous minister with respect to providing all of the information which he agreed he would provide to the House?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I should have added to the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) that not only have there been many announcements made in the past but, to make sure the record is straight, there are currently announcements pending. I can think of a couple that could be made as early as the end of next week. I just wanted you to know that progress is coming along within the ministry, and we are very proud of the items that have been accomplished to date.

The member did mention the Langford sign shop and the Kelowna soils lab. I know that he has been working hard in the area of privatization to get to know more about it. I compliment him for those efforts. I would certainly also suggest that if he has the inclination, I'm sure the employees in those two areas would welcome his presence and provide him with a tour to show the member the success. I have spoken to people and visited one, and they are extremely proud and pleased with the way things are going.

The member mentioned the costs. The only thing I can refer to in talking about costs, Mr. Member, is that the figures are in the budget, and that's what we attempt to live within.

He mentions attempting to get a handle on the specific initiatives and the specific studies that have taken place and what they cost. I make no apologies for not being able to provide those figures. I also have no hesitation in saying that we have no intention of changing our bookkeeping and clocking methods in order to look at every initiative that we've ever looked at in government — whether it takes one hour, 50 hours or 500 hours — and start keeping track. It would be a tremendous expense, and I don't think that's really what the members opposite want. Well, it may be what they want; I'm not sure.

Looking at some of the past records of socialists, how they spend taxpayers' money and the things that happened in Manitoba, I don't know.... It really is somewhat ridiculous, the way they have spent taxpayers' money. I don't think they want that.

I have to conclude by saying that we run that particular division of the ministry on a global budget, and we don't try to identify the costs of individual projects.

I compliment the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) on his manner of setting out the questions; I sincerely do. If all members opposite would do their homework and be as thorough as he is.... Indeed, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is another person who thoroughly, clearly does his homework and sets out the questions, and it certainly makes our job a lot easier.

To the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), the one with the expensive tastes who likes to dine at the Oak Bay Marina among the socialists out there in Oak Bay, I must say that it's interesting to listen to the questions asked in the House.

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I fail to see what my taking my wife out for our anniversary for a nice dinner has to do with this debate.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I didn't suggest....

MR. CHAIRMAN: One can always tell the time of day by the tenor of the debate.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I just want to end by saying that this is the first I've seen of the three-page letter. I sincerely compliment you on the way you've laid it out. It's very clear and understandable. We will have a look at it this evening and analyze it, and hopefully we will be able to get you some information at the earliest possible date.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.