[ Page 6277 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Home support for multi-disabled children. Mr. B.R. Smith –– 6277

Ms. Smallwood

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Pollution: enforcement and monitoring. Mr. Cashore –– 6277

Hon. Mr. Strachan

B.C. wine industry. Mr. Messmer –– 6281

Mr. D'Arcy

Nuclear disarmament. Mr. Perry –– 6283

Mr. Serwa

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Government Management Services estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Michael)

On vote 31: minister's office –– 6285

Mr. Clark

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Lovick

Hon. S.D. Smith

Royal assent to bills –– 6295

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. GRAN: In the gallery today is a friend of mine from Langley, Midge Roper, who is also the mother of my assistant, Tracey. Would the House please welcome her.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

HOME SUPPORT
FOR MULTIDISABLED CHILDREN

MR. B.R. SMITH: I am going to speak again about an issue that I spoke about earlier, because I think it's of crucial importance, particularly because we as a government believe in fairness, justice and people. We don't just support things for doctrinal reasons.

There are in this province between 200 and 250 multi-handicapped children. These are children who are looked after largely by their parents with support from our excellent health institutions. All of these children would qualify for extended pediatric care. That is, their natural parents could place them in Sunny Hill or Queen Alexandra Hospital and they would receive total care at the cost to the Crown. That total care, I guess, would range somewhere between $75,000 and $90,000, all inclusive.

The fact is that their parents have decided that they want to manage to look after these children and they want to keep them at home as best they can. I have had the privilege of meeting a number of these parents and seeing these children in school settings.

I know people will say: "It's very regrettable, but it doesn't touch me, because I was lucky. I didn't have a child who was born with some disability at birth. I got through that; my children got through that. I don't have any grandchildren who are disabled." But I can tell you that it does touch each of us, because many of these children are not deformed at birth. They have obtained their disability due to some trauma, meningitis.... One child I've visited, Billy — absolutely normal up to the age of two — fell down a well, was unconscious and drowned for 45 minutes. He was brought back, and over the last five years tremendous work has been done with him. He is now starting to walk, talk and respond. Amazing things are done now with therapy, time, devices and computers. These children — even the ones who are severely brain-damaged and those who have only 10 percent vision — are able to communicate through computers. They have tremendous communication with their parents and the aides who work with them. This is something that touches each of us.

There are members on both sides of this House who have made a commitment to help children and families in this situation, and I acknowledge the work that's been done. I know the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) has been very active in this field.

So have the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) and the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat). I also recall some of the things that have been done.... People haven't done them as politicians, for reasons of getting publicity; they've done them because they have some kind of commitment.

I know the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale (Hon. Mr. Reid) was touched by the story of a little girl in his community, Kimberley Rendall, and he raised money through his association to help her. She came over and had therapy in Victoria, and has made enormous progress. She was an ordinary, healthy 14-year-old teenager who was dragged out of a party, assaulted and left for dead. She is now multiply handicapped. She could be your grandchild, your daughter or your neighbour.

We have to do something to help the plight of these parents. The additional costs they are put to with these children range anywhere from $10,000 to $36,000 a year, depending on the size of the disability. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) has been fighting to get a home-care program, and this year he succeeded in getting some money for respite care, and that's a very good step forward. But the pattern is always the same with these families: only one breadwinner, because the other parent has to be a 24-hour home caregiver, has to be there to provide that care around the clock.

These families can't afford this kind of drain on the sole breadwinner, and ultimately it's always the same pattern: insolvency, unable to pay the bills, going to service clubs for help, then finally saying: "We can't afford it anymore. We're going to have to put this child in Sunny Hill or Queen Alexandra." The child goes in there, the parents visit, they try and keep their parental contact and then the institution doesn't want that kind of intensive cost. They also believe in deinstitutionalization, so they say: "Put this child in an associate family home."

So the child goes to an associate family home, and all the costs that the parents couldn't afford to pay are paid for the associate family parent to look after the child, plus $60 a day. Don't think that associate family parents are in this business for profit; they're not. This is a very tough job with tremendous commitment.

You can imagine what that does to the natural parents who fought to keep that contact with their child. Their child has been institutionalized, and now another set of parents is being paid to look after him. You can imagine the anguish, the guilt and all the rest of it that go with this. It's time these parents had some justice. It's time that a government that believes in the family and has a commitment to the family tries to keep these families together.

[10:15]

I say in conclusion that I want, in this House, a warrant to be provided this year in Health to start this home support program for the extended pediatric children who qualify.

[ Page 6278 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I will be brief, because I expect that the minister would like to respond as well. I'd like to thank the member for his statement, for his caring and for continuing to bring this very important issue to the attention of those who make the decisions for government. I acknowledge that the minister himself has said that this is an important issue, that there needs to be more attention paid to it, and — as I read Hansard of days gone past — that he acknowledges that things aren't moving as quickly as he'd like.

I'd like to make a couple of comments. First of all, I'd like to compliment the government in that they have been leaders in this jurisdiction in the deinstitutionalization of adults. I think that must be recognized. While there is an ongoing need to recognize the support needed for adults, we must also look at the needs of children in this province. There are currently 400 kids in institutions in this province, and while I have brought attention to the needs of ventilator-dependent children specifically, I think we have to look at all kids and the need for family support.

I understand that in March 1987 a report to the Ministry of Health — the Blair Richardson report — identified the need for the Health ministry to be involved in medical equipment and adaptive technology support to chronically disabled or chronically ill adults and children. Unfortunately, that report seems to have gotten lost, and its recommendations have not been followed. I would ask the minister in particular to comment on what happened to that report and whether or not we can expect to see some work in that regard as far as the ministry goes.

There is a policy in place that is somewhat related to government — it has to do with ICBC and damages — which automatically recognizes some of the needs of chronically handicapped people. First is the need for a van. Would the minister comment on whether or not there has been any progress in getting Ryan Bonson a van? Secondly, there is a recognition, through ICBC, of the need for a bathing system and accessibility to houses. There are already policies relating to this; what we need is acceptance so that there is universal treatment — so that all people can expect the same kind of services.

I would like to stress that without these policies, without this care, this government's actions are indeed anti-family. Without that kind of support, families are torn apart, and children are not allowed the care and support provided by their natural parents. In the aim to support families, in the aim to support universality and equitable treatment for all, I would urge the government to move quickly on these issues.

HON. MR. DUECK: I agree with just about all the statements made, except to say that these children are very well looked after in hospitals. The care in hospitals is absolutely excellent. Having said that, the issue here is not necessarily that they are looked after well in hospitals; the issue is whether these children would be better looked after as far as family unity is concerned in their own natural environment, their family. I have to agree that is so.

I've taken this up with my colleagues. It is not a simple move to have a program where this will function properly in all cases. We have gone a long way in establishing at least associate families, which is working very well. We now have about 22 children in that type of situation. We are deinstitutionalizing adults.

Talking about children, I intend to take a brief to cabinet again, pointing out some of the areas where we have some holes in our total approach to health care when it comes to these very disabled children. We perhaps can look after them in their own home where, I believe, a lot of them would be much better off than in an institution or a hospital.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the minister his time is up under the standing orders.

The Minister of Tourism seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REID: I take pleasure in introducing in the House today Mr. Greg Stevens, a former Minister of Culture from the constituency of Banff-Cochrane in Alberta. Greg is now retired and has been longing to visit and spend some time beyond those great mountains he has been able to see for the last few years. Greg is out here in Victoria and in the gallery today. I would hope this House would make a special welcome to Mr. Greg Stevens.

While I'm on my feet with that privilege, I would also like to introduce a guest in Victoria today, a man who used to work very hard in the precincts of Victoria but is now spending most of his time throughout the province in a private sector endeavour. He is Mr. Dave Laundy, and I would like to give him a special welcome today.

MR. B.R. SMITH: To close the saga on this crusade, it is not going to end. I think the government intends to do something about this and is moving in the right direction. It is not a case of having a good associate family program. We do have a good associate family program. It is not a case of just having some of the best hospital care for children in the world, which we do have. It is a case that many of these parents don't wish their children to be either in hospitals or in associate family care. They are struggling to maintain that parental contact themselves.

I'll give you the example of Stan and Susan. Stan works for the government, and Susan is a homemaker. They have three children at home from the ages of eight to ten, as well as Laura, five, who is a cerebral palsy child. She is severely mentally disabled; she has epilepsy, and she has 90 percent vision loss and limited hearing. They spend between $19,000 and $30,\000 a year in extra costs looking after the child. They can no longer meet this burden, and they have to make this awful, agonizing decision of having this child looked after by an associate family.

We cannot let that happen. A number of my colleagues here in the back bench — and on both sides of this chamber — feel as strongly on this as I do. I am very hopeful on this one.

[ Page 6279 ]

POLLUTION: ENFORCEMENT
AND MONITORING

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, the enforcement of existing pollution laws in B.C. is widely known to be inadequate and ineffective. The study by Professors Rankin and Brown showed that persistent offenders on Vancouver Island and the northern region of B.C. were almost never charged. In response, the minister said that the study was up to 1987, and he became minister after that. He said: "Look, I'm different; I'm an enforcer."

The enforcement problem is worse than I thought and continues to be abysmal, even during the term of this minister, who sees his job as being an apologist for polluters rather than an advocate for the environment.

I have three documents from the Ministry of Environment summarizing total pollution fines in B.C. during the last three fiscal years.

MR. MOWAT: I can't believe it.

MR. CASHORE: You better believe it, Mr. Member, because this is information from the Ministry of Environment. Two of those years include the tenure of the present minister. Total fines under the Waste Management Act for those years — listen very carefully; read my lips — amount to $105,400 over three years. Is that big enough? Is that big enough to protect pollution offences in this province? That's for the whole province.

The work of the enforcer averages out to $35,133 per year. To be fair to the minister, during his two years it averages $46,025. This is the total fines in this province to protect our environment. Some commitment to sustainable development; some enforcer!

MR. LOENEN: Too much hot air.

MR. CASHORE: Thank you, I agree: too much hot air and not enough enforcement. I am glad to see the government members are understanding that. I am sure that this member understands that that abysmal record is really pathetic. I am glad to know I have your support, Mr. Second Member for Richmond, the member whose co-member from Richmond has demonstrated that he doesn't have the political will to protect the environment.

What we have here constitutes a crime against the environment. It's an assault on the health and safety of the people of British Columbia. This is what is really sad: the government says in the budget that additional financial resources will go toward enforcement. It's a confession of guilt. They admit that they never did have sufficient resources to meet the existing commitments to police pollution crime. They are saying that what we were doing before was a sham. Where is the political will in that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want us to cut it?

MR. CASHORE: No, I don't want you to cut it, Mr. Member, I want the political will that is necessary to make it work. Mr. Member, are you satisfied with what's going on in your region of the province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member will address his remarks to the Chair, please.

MR. CASHORE: Through you, Mr. Speaker: will that member say that he is satisfied with pollution enforcement in his area? If he is satisfied with pollution enforcement in his area, I am sure his constituents will want to hear about it.

What we have here does not even include any enhancement of your ministry's ability to seek out and stop polluters who are not in compliance. This government is, God help us, the wimp of environmental protection. That's what we have in this province: a government that is the wimp of environmental protection in Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you be more specific?

MR. CASHORE: Yes. Do you want to know how many fines were levied over three years? Do you want to guess? A grand total of 145, for an average of 48 fines per year. What kind of environmental protection is that? They're talking about bringing in tougher laws. They don't know how to enforce the existing laws, Mr. Speaker.

This ministry has wimped out on the existing law. The average fine in the fiscal year 1987-88, when the minister was in that position, was $230. That's pathetic. Compare that to the traffic ticket system. The average citizen gets a ticket for, say, $60, and that hurts that citizen very much. It hurts him in the pocketbook, because most citizens don't earn such a great amount that they can handle that. It's a deterrent because it hurts; there is no question about that.

[10:30]

Pulp mills, in many instances, are earning profits of over $1 million a day. Their comments in the House indicate that the Socreds really do place their priorities upon the very wealthy, the big corporations and the friends of the government. They don't indicate that they have an understanding of the ordinary citizen who struggles day to day to try to make ends meet, and here they are doing this to help their friends. This wimp approach to protecting....

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time under standing orders is up.

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

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY: I see in the gallery three members of Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, including their local president, Mr. Tom Murphy. I'd like the House to welcome them here today, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's good to see the NDP "profile in courage" finally stand up when I'm in the House. The last time he asked a question, he waited until I was away.

[ Page 6280 ]

As he did the other day and as he has done today, he has brought misinformation to the House. Perhaps I could ask the member if in his response he is going to table the letter, dated March 23 and signed by Dosenberg, he received from Western Pulp with respect to the comments he made about the pulp mill there, which were inaccurate. I wonder if the member has the courage to table that letter; I doubt it.

There is no question that the Rankin report identified a lot of weaknesses in the waste management system — and by the way, the fines for 1988 were $85,000. But we have had a considerable increase. The House will be aware that in waste management enforcement we have gone from a budget of $21 million to $37 million.

On the enforcement side, we've gone from $5 million to $10 million, so I think that speaks well for the ministry's response and will, and the government's will to ensure that we do have a clean, healthy and safe environment. I think the initiatives I've taken in the last six months, particularly with respect to dioxin testing, PCPs, anti-sapstains and so on, have really shocked the industry. We are leading the country in enforcement and regulation.

By the way, speaking of regulations, let's not forget, for the record, that when we first brought in toughened waste management regulations in 1987, the NDP voted against them. That was done on division and is a matter of record.

There is also this myth out there that the NDPers have some sort of enlightened environmental policy, and it's been interesting to watch the attack on Herb Doman. Herb Doman is a high-profile guy right now because of other events which I won't discuss, and the NDP seem to take great delight in talking about him and his relationship with the Social Credit government. It's interesting to note, though, that Doman Industries was first given, against the advice of an environmental board, the right to be at Cowichan on that estuary by the NDP government. That was one of the major assaults on the environment, and it was in fact done by the very member who is now taking Doman to task about his performance. It was in fact that Minister of Forests in February 1975 who approved the site at the Cowichan estuary, which upset every environmentalist, upset the B.C. Wildlife Federation and sincerely upset the committee that was in place to advise the government of the day on that.

To assume that the NDP has any enlightened environmental philosophy is, of course, nonsense. When you have a party dominated by trade-union policy, it's very difficult to think that they would ever be able to respond appropriately to environment.

We'll let the member finish up. I do want to state that the waste management budget has gone from $21 million to $37 million.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, $16 million indicates quite a bit of will. Enforcement has gone from

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: How many trap lines have you burned down lately?

I'm not really going to make any apologies for the ministry budget. It's aggressive. I appreciate the work done by Dr. Rankin. If I wanted to be surrounded by wimps and yes-men, I would have joined the NDP. Critical criticism is there; it's alive. I don't mind it at all. You live with it when you're in government. We don't have to lie about the issues as other people have done. We don't have to use cut-and-run tactics. We have the record. We have the budget. We have the commitment to respond.

MR. CASHORE: That was a pathetic response. The minister talks about increasing the budget. He talks about leading in regulations. He talks about improving the enforcement legislation. It's like the old song from My Fair Lady," Don't Talk of Love — Show Me." Show the political will. Demonstrate something that goes beyond the indications that you aren't serious about this. The indications are that what has happened as part of your ministry and part of your government, Mr. Member, is that you have acted like an indulgent parent with a precocious child. You have taught this industry to misbehave.

That minister wants to talk about something that is not the topic of discussion today, because he has not been able to deal with the issues that I brought before him at this time. The fact is that in that minister's own riding, there was one fine of $60,000 out of a total line of $67,000 in fines. That meant that in that year, during that minister's ministry, the total fines for the remaining 20 in that category were $100 apiece. It means that you had a bargain-basement sale at that time on permits to pollute the environment. The minister knows that there is no political will or commitment, and that this government uses the term "sustainable development" as a very hollow concept.

This government is not sincere, and it took an environmental embarrassment in that minister's own constituency to produce one fine that came up to $65,000. Even in that instance, over three consecutive days, that fine was only a fraction of one day's profit for that mill.

This minister sits in this House and defends his friends in high places, but he will not stand up for the ordinary people of British Columbia. He will not stand up for the people who have a right to have their health and their environment protected, because he knows where his priorities are. He knows where his funds are coming from when it comes to the next election. He knows that his priority is not to protect the environment and is not the value for the people of British Columbia. I call on that minister to indicate....

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time is up under standing orders.

[ Page 6281 ]

B.C. WINE INDUSTRY

MR. MESSMER: We saw in the past months the headlines on TV and in the news: 2,500 acres of grapevines are being pulled out in the Okanagan — with clips of chainsaws and tractors pulling out the vines. It was a sad sight but a reality. Between the free trade agreement and GATT, the grape acreage has been reduced to 1,000 acres. The balance of 2,500 acres qualified for the pullout compensation program and took advantage of the income replacement policy, supplied jointly by the federal government and the government of British Columbia.

Those hard decisions are now completed, and the process of removing the vines is underway. For most, it was the removal of a dream, and until this year, a future. The remaining 1,000 acres are the start of a new premium wine industry.

I would like to speak today about the possibility of an increased grape and wine industry. Also I acknowledge the business of the existing commercial and estate wineries, and the contribution that they have made to the industry in the past — and in the future. Without them we would not have a wine industry today.

However, in Boundary-Similkameen we probably lost close to 65 percent of the acreage that was removed — roughly 1,675 acres. As such, we need to find new ideas so the government, growers, wineries and consumers can renew what we have just lost. Along with my colleagues from Okanagan South, I have supported the British Columbia Grape Marketing Board in their effort to retain a viable industry and their undertaking to assist government in establishing goals and standards that will allow long-term regeneration.

In the short run, the 1,000 acres in the ground today are protected under the adjustment program for the next six years. But we all know that six years go by in a hurry. If we don't want to see a large portion of the 1,000 acres lost in six years due to our inability to act, the industry has to move — along with government. The industry can foresee a positive future; additional investment and long-range goals could be the result of a new B.C. wine policy.

The wine industry believes that the potential ability to produce premium wines is the same in the Okanagan as in other producing areas around the world, and that our quality wines can be equally highly competitive. We in the Okanagan have a balance between sugars and acids, as a result of our soil and climate, which is found nowhere else in western Canada.

Our B.C. estate wine policy and its 100 percent grape requirement has allowed the estate wines to capture the market and the acceptability that we have today. They have laid the groundwork so that consumers do not have to play Russian roulette when they are looking for quality B.C. wine. The growers believe that we can be successful if a new premium wine policy contains wine standards, marketing and distribution which are the same ingredients that have made worldwide premium wine successful. However, to be successful, we must promote a new image and a commitment to the consistent quality, so that the end purchaser can tell the difference between a true premium B.C. wine and wines that are bottled or blended in British Columbia from grapes from other regions or countries.

This portion of the industry believes we should have wine made from 100 percent B.C. grapes, that the wine should be labelled as British Columbia wines, and that these wines would be sold in the B.C. section of the government liquor stores. Other regulations would also be introduced to ensure that labelling used on wines does not disguise the end product or the end user — the consumer.

Three-quarters of the wineries in California have been started in the past 15 years, and 70 percent of those wineries are small and produce less than 50,000 gallons. Oregon has 5,000 acres with 60 wineries, 58 of which produce less than 50,000 gallons — so again small wineries. The finest wines in Europe are made from small wineries. So as you can see, while the Okanagan has been hurt and wounded, people in agriculture have always found ways to start again. To establish high-quality wines and use our land to ensure the highest and best use of our grape lands is and should be our cooperative goal.

[10:45]

In order to ensure success, changes in our policy have to take place. Small wineries must be able to sell their product from their farm gates, to establish a name for their own product and to contract to the public, along with commercial establishments such as restaurants. While they would have to pay federal and provincial markups, they would start a new process for small producers.

At the present time, our government has suggested that wineries ranging in size from 500 gallons to 50,000 gallons may be acceptable, so even those with small acreage could produce your favorite selection of premium wines that you would serve in your home.

We must fast-track the process of accepting input from all sectors and capitalize on this new spirit of cooperation among the agricultural industry, the business community and our government. The south Okanagan will be a greater tourist attraction in the future than it is today if we can encourage additional grapes to be grown and wineries to be established. Where else in western Canada can you have lands producing grapes and the wine? I believe that this alone is a major attraction in inviting Americans to our beautiful desert-like area.

We in British Columbia have said that we believe in the agricultural land reserve, and it's difficult to find replacements for grapevines that would be profitable. I'm sure that we can appeal to the citizens of British Columbia to support the purchase of B.C. wines. I'm just as confident that we will see venture capital and long-term investment coming to the Okanagan, as it did to the Napa Valley many years ago.

[ Page 6282 ]

MR. D’ARCY: I'm quite sure the concern of the first member for Boundary-Similkameen is very sincere. As with many politicians, though, when they develop a problem created by their own party in their own area, they quickly want to rewrite history or simply forget about it.

The grape growers didn't suddenly get zapped into the Okanagan over the last few years. The grape growing industry has developed over the last 30 years, encouraged, aided and abetted by government policy under W.A.C. Bennett, Dave Barrett and W.R. Bennett. Two years ago, when the major league team of the Social Credit farm team, the federal Tories — the Conservative Party which yesterday was thoroughly and resoundingly thrashed in Newfoundland, I'm glad to hear — decided they were going to enter into a trade policy that was going to hang the grape growers out to dry, we suddenly found a lot of apologists. The fact that a great many people in the Okanagan area found these policies unacceptable can be viewed most days of the week in the right-hand corner over here when my friend the second member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Barlee) enters this House.

As I'm sure the member knows, in most cases the land that is growing in grapes had no development at all on it prior to being developed in grapes. It was sagebrush and tumbleweed. It's not land that was taken from other agricultural uses. It was not grazing land; it was not orchard land; it was straight desert. The infrastructure to develop that land is in place. The farmers who are and have been growing grapes don't really, at this point, have anywhere else to turn. They don't have a pension plan. They don't have UIC. They don't have any golden handshakes. They don't have any benevolent corporation that's going to transfer them to some plant in some other part of the country. They don't have any programs from the Ministry of Agriculture of the Social Credit farm team of the Conservative government to help them out.

The member sincerely hopes that something is going to turn up over the next few years. The policy, as he has correctly pointed out, of taking out 60 percent of the growers, just like that, flies in the face of recent history, when in British Columbia — I hope most members would agree with me — some very fine world-class high-quality wines made of purely British Columbia grapes have gone on the market I'm not just talking about whites. Amazingly to me, I never thought that quality British Columbia red wines would be developed, but in the last few years red wines of very fine quality made from British Columbia grapes have actually gone onto the shelves of this province and other jurisdictions.

It is a shame that these quality people, these rugged individuals, whom I used to think that party wanted to represent — taxpaying citizens who have worked hard, who've never asked anything from anyone and who have been major participants in community activities — are now hung out to dry. The member sincerely says: "I hope something comes along in the next few years which is going to help them, and I hope something comes along so that their land will be put to other agricultural purposes." I hope it does too, Mr. Speaker, because that something, if it comes along, is not going to come along because of anything Social Credit or the Conservatives do for those hardworking, rugged individualists who have lived in the Okanagan Valley, particularly in the southern part, which I'm more familiar with than the northern parts.

I'm glad to know the member is concerned, and I know it's sincere. But I wish he would spend his time asking the cabinet benches, the treasury benches, for a program to help these individuals get into other forms of agriculture so that the good agricultural infrastructure and the good agricultural land will not lie fallow and wasted; most important, so that the efforts of those good people will not be wasted.

MR. MESSMER: We've just listened to what was said by the member for Rossland-Trail, and I know he is quite aware of what good red wine is, because he comes from an area that.... It may not go through our system, but certainly they make the best over there.

It's very unfortunate for me that the second member for Boundary-Similkameen, the agricultural critic, is not here today, because I would like to hear his views as well on the agricultural industry within Boundary-Similkameen. I thought there was a possibility that he would be here today to listen to it. I guess the big difference between that side and our side is that we talk about the future; we're not quitters. We don't always talk about the past, which you seem to do over there.

One thing about the people in the agricultural industry is that they've had some tough times, but they know how to work and how to come back. They don't always live off the amount of money that's paid out by government; they try to help themselves. What happened in the grape industry and the wine industry was partially what the member for Rossland-Trail said. There's no doubt that as a government years back we did encourage these people to get into the grape and wine industry. However, we can't always talk about the past; we have to start talking about the future.

Interjections.

MR. MESSMER: GATT was what put down the wine industry in the Okanagan. The people who have farmed have accepted an average of $8,100 an acre in compensation, and that was thanks to the efforts of the government of the province of British Columbia who made that deal. They're saying thank you very much. Very few industries are affected by a trade agreement and then helped out because of a government. I thank the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) for his efforts in helping these people out. They're quite prepared now, Mr. Speaker, to go to work to create a new premium wine industry in the Okanagan, and I think that they will be successful, with our help.

[ Page 6283 ]

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the members' gallery today are a young couple from Kamloops who are newlyweds. They have been honeymooning on Vancouver Island. The bride is a longtime friend of my daughter and our family. I would ask the House to welcome them to the Island and to this Legislature. Their names — and one has changed recently — are Mr. and Mrs. Robert Graham.

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

MR. PERRY: At the end of World War II Albert Einstein, perhaps the greatest twentieth century scientist, said the splitting of the "atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophes." We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive. That's the subject I'm going to attempt to address today, Mr. Speaker, a subject that is perhaps the most important that we could possibly debate in this assembly, and a challenge for us to find ways in which we can begin to adopt that new thinking on both sides of this House.

I have no military experience personally — and I know there are some veterans of the armed forces in this House and some in the gallery. My father-in-law is a veteran of the invasion of Normandy. He was captured at Falaise Gap by the Germans, survived a German concentration camp coal-mine in Czechoslovakia and a death-march across Europe, and he escaped World War II weighing 90 pounds, at the age of 18.

My father participated in World War II in the United States Army of General George Patton; among other things, he helped to liberate the Buchenwald concentration camp, and saw with his own eyes and with his camera — and I have seen his photographs — the effects of World War II on the Jewish and minority populations of Europe and on other people unfortunate enough to have been in the way of a war machine.

What Albert Einstein was talking about, Mr. Speaker, is something completely different: the possibility of modern war to eliminate all human beings, all human civilization and, conceivably through environmental change, all life on earth. Most of us, I think, recognize this fact; the Premier, among others, has recognized it in the past. But we have not yet adopted the new manner of thinking to which Albert Einstein referred.

Let me give you some examples of what I mean, Mr. Speaker. Since 1945, after the explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1,798 nuclear tests have occurred, of which the vast majority were by the United States and the Soviet Union. Mr. William Epstein, who represented the United Nations Secretary-General during the negotiations for the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty and the Non-proliferation Treaty of 1968, wrote an article in yesterday's Globe and Mail. On page A7 he said:

"Since the Non-proliferation Treaty was signed in 1968, the number of strategic or long-range nuclear weapons possessed by the superpowers has increased more than six fold. Even if the United States and the Soviet Union agree to cut their stocks in half, they would still have more than three times the number they had in 1968.

"Moreover, without a total test ban, even these deep cuts would be almost meaningless because the latest weapons are even more dangerous and destabilizing than the old ones. In this case, less could be more.

"Reason and logic are on the side of ending all tests. Both superpowers now realize it is in their own interest to slow the arms race and divert their astronomically high military expenditures to human needs. Moreover, continuing improvement in U.S.-Soviet relations should inspire both to approve a total test ban as well as reducing their arsenals."

Let me tell you a bit about the consequences of nuclear war, even if it never happens, and the consequences for preparation for nuclear war. "Detonation before destruction" is a term coined by the distinguished American physician Dr. Victor Siedel, president of the American Public Health Association and a professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. What does that term mean? During the seven minutes I will speak here, 420 children will die or be permanently maimed around the world — one every second — from preventable diseases like polio, tetanus, diphtheria and measles. I've seen children in Argentina dying of tetanus, a disease we should never see. We virtually never see it in Canada. I have seen them writhing on hospital beds, and it is not a pleasant sight, especially when you know it is preventable.

[11:00]

As I speak, $7 million (U.S.) will have been spent globally in the nuclear arms race. Every minute of every day and night, $1 million (U.S.) is being spent. Next year, if the present trends continue, it will be more than that. What can we do about this, Mr. Speaker? The single most important step to control the global arms race right now is a comprehensive test ban treaty. This is a proposal from which our own federal government is regrettably backing away, after having endorsed it as the single most important step since the strategy of suffocation of 1972.

How does this relate to British Columbia? It relates first through the establishment of nuclear-weapons-free zones, of which there are over 55 now, including my own city of Vancouver. It relates not only through the formalization but the meaningful realization of these zones. For example, last week Vancouver city council attempted to prevent the visits of nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable ships of any country to the port of Vancouver. It relates through the question of low-level flights — which are preparing for nuclear war now in Labrador — for which the Innu people have been subject to arrest, though they were acquitted by the courts of their own land. It relates to the low-level nuclear war flights planned for practice in British Columbia in a corridor from Fort Nelson to CFB Comox, at the request of the North American

[ Page 6284 ]

Aerospace Defense Command and the United States Air Force Strategic Air Command. The Department of National Defence is presently completing an environmental impact study of this proposal.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to advise the member his time is up under the standing orders.

MR. SERWA: I would like to thank the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey for bringing this topic forward this morning. It is already abundantly clear to us that the nuclear weapons which now exist in the arsenals of the world are capable, if used, of annihilating all forms of life — a new holocaust for which a word was invented: "omnicide." Nuclear weapons are no longer just in the arsenals of the superpowers. The proliferation of nuclear weapons has added to the overkill statistics. Many fingers are on the trigger. Nuclear weapons technology is exportable and exotic materials necessary to construct the bomb are available from a number of nuclear power reactors around the world.

For the first time in the history of man, every living thing is confronted by a common enemy: nuclear radiation. Plutonium, a radioactive substance, is toxic for 500,000 years. One pound of plutonium could, if equally divided and placed in the lungs, kill every man, woman and child on earth through cancer. One nuclear reactor produces 400 to 600 pounds of plutonium every year.

Not so clear are the facts surrounding the hazards of the radioactive by-products of the nuclear power reactors. Chernobyl and the nuclear disaster that occurred in the Ukraine have emphasized that danger. The radioactive emissions from Chernobyl spread out over and contaminated vast areas, some thousands of miles from the site of the disaster. The radioactive release was of the order of 90 times the magnitude of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Radioactivity will be found in drinking water and food. It may be taken into the body with every breath of air.

The nuclear industry has found no absolutely safe way of storing wastes. Radioactive wastes must be permanently contained. Murphy's laws unfortunately are especially applicable to the nuclear industry. Containment leaks allow radioactive waste to contaminate water and are concentrated by the food chain Chernobyl has left us with this recognition, which has unsettled our complacency. Not so clear are the facts surrounding the effects of uranium and its daughter elements which contaminate the environment with radioactivity from the tailings of mines.

The challenge and the responsibility that confront all people is to make these nuclear dangers known and believed. Education is the only tool we have. I add my voice to those who wish to end the nuclear arms race and to reduce and finally eliminate nuclear weapons.

HON. MR. DIRKS: This House will remember my private member's statement on the Hanford nuclear site. My constituents know that I have spoken out about my concerns about Hanford. I believe I'm qualified to speak, if for no other reason than from the aspect of involvement and caring.

I believe that disarmament leanings are good and noble, but I also believe that in Canada we sometimes are somewhat hypocritical and holier-than-thou on this subject. When speaking to disarmament, we too often point the finger elsewhere. Always somebody else is the perpetrator rather than ourselves.

There is a nation and a subject which is never mentioned when one speaks of nuclear proliferation. That nation unfortunately is Canada, our nation, and that subject is Candu. In the beginning, Canada believed that we would lead the pack in nuclear sales. We went into the business very greedily.

We donated a Candu to India for research purposes and to show off our technology. No safeguards were attached to that reactor. In 1964, India built a plant that would allow it to extract plutonium from the spent fuel. No action was taken by Canada, even when India announced that it would not sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Pakistan, which had been at war with its neighbour three times in 17 years, made forceful complaints to Canada. Our reaction: we sold two more Candus to India. On May 18, 1974, India set off an atomic explosion with material that came out of Candu. Our reaction: simply, again, to try and sell more Candus, this time to Pakistan, and then to Korea, a country that had a paranoid dictator as a leader. This was followed by Argentina right at the time that they were at war with England.

I would ask that we reflect on our legacy as Canadians towards the proliferation of nuclear armament before we blame others. What is that old saying? Charity begins at home. I think the same thing can be said about what our attempts should be to stop nuclear armament proliferation. It should begin at home.

MR. PERRY: I'd like to welcome and echo the comments of the two government members. It's a day I've long looked forward to, to hear a debate develop from both sides of the House in a non-partisan way. To develop the last comments, I'd like to return to what we can do to get our own house in order in this province, particularly on the issue of the nuclear weapons-free zones. I think we have an obligation to make them meaningful, as the people of New Zealand have done through their Prime Minister and government and through public opinion.

I think we also have an obligation to look very seriously at the real purpose of the low-level military flights planned for British Columbia. I have a document, which I'd be pleased to table, indicating that the Department of National Defence is still reviewing the environmental impact study on low-level military flights in British Columbia and has not yet given final approval to these routes.

I'd like to ask the government of this province to consider this issue seriously, to consider the real purpose of these flights. As we were told by Rear-Adm. Eugene Carrol of the Centre for Defense Information, a very distinguished veteran of the United States Navy, on Wednesday, the real purpose of these flights

[ Page 6285 ]

is to practise for the delivery of nuclear weapons in fighting a nuclear war. That is their single purpose.

I'd like also to invite members from both sides of the House in a strictly and totally non-partisan sense to take part in the walks for peace in their own communities which will be held tomorrow. In Vancouver, Victoria, Nelson, Kelowna and I'm sure in other cities around the province there will be manifestations of public concern which are non-partisan, have nothing to do with the issues that sometimes divide us in this House, and for which, if we're going to accomplish the goal we seek of the control and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons in all countries, we need the efforts of every single citizen in this country including the members of this House.

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

MS. SMALLWOOD: On a point of order, I rise to ask unanimous consent of the House to debate a motion in my name. That motion is: be it resolved that this House, mindful of the need to promote peace by mutual balanced disarmament and supporting a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, endorses the peace walk and encourages all British Columbians to participate.

MR. SPEAKER: Only the government House Leader is allowed to ask for unanimous consent. He controls the order of the House, and he has called orders of the day for Committee of Supply.

Before we go to that, the first member for Vancouver South seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. R. FRASER: I'd like to introduce to the House today the 106th Girl Guides company who are in Victoria visiting the Legislature with their guider, Mrs. Anderson, and other friends and adults of the troop. It's interesting that you would be here on a day when we would be discussing nuclear arms and the wish that we do not have nuclear warfare. I'm sure that all of us are looking for that goal no matter how we intend to do it. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, and I would ask the members of the House to join me in extending a very warm welcome.

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).

HON. MR. MICHAEL: It gives me pleasure to again rise in the House and discuss my estimates. Mr. Chairman, upon reflecting on yesterday's events, I am disappointed in the opposition for highlighting a case which is well known to be before the courts in the province of British Columbia and for deliberately bringing issues before this House, deliberately misleading....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm well aware of what's happened, hon. member. Mr. Minister, we cannot allow those statements in the House. "Deliberately misleading the House" is completely unparliamentary. Please withdraw that.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I'll withdraw that remark, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CLARK: I would ask the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) to withdraw his remark as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't hear anything, hon. member. I'm sorry.

MR. CLARK: He said: "It's true." He didn't have the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the minister please proceed.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: When I sent over to the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) a copy of the statement of claim regarding this case, dated August 2, 1988, and when I watched this document arrive at his desk, it was evident to me that he had already read it and that he knew the contents.

I say this because I was watching him as it arrived at his desk, and he simply set it aside. I referred him to page 6 to review the words on that page. He didn't bother referring to it; he was obviously aware of the contents. I find it necessary now to read from this document to fully clarify for the press, the members opposite and the general public the facts behind this so-called flip of which this government was accused of being a part.

[11:15]

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

In looking back in Hansard, the members opposite talk about questionable land deals. They make such statements as the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) did, who has yet to make an apology to this House. The precise statement out of Hansard reads: "I've listened with great interest to the skilled presentation of my colleague from Vancouver East about the facts of a corrupt land sale in New Westminster, where the public was defrauded of money that it should have had."

I listened to the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) yesterday, who made this statement: "It seems to me there are only two explanations: either the staff was grossly incompetent, or there is some corruption in your organization."

Shameful statements, Mr. Chairman. I find it passing strange that trade union pension funds are a part of this entire document, and that the members for

[ Page 6286 ]

Vancouver East were not pre-informed and fully aware of the true facts of this so-called government flip, of which they accused this government of being a part.

Page 6, clause 24, reads: "On January 7, 1988, Westminster Pier Development Corp. was beneficially owned and controlled by exactly the same companies and persons that owned and controlled the flip company." The same people.

They own it one day, pay $2.2 million for it, and they sell it to themselves the next day for $10.5 million — paper transactions. The members opposite are attempting to lay that blame on this government and past directors and employees. Shameful acts. Slanderous, scurrilous remarks made in this House about this government, about past and current boards of directors of Crown corporations, and they don't care. They don't care about the reputations of the staff, the dedicated employees, their families, children, in-laws, parents. They don't care about slandering individuals, and I have yet to hear any form of apology, when they are well aware that this document was intentionally circulated to members opposite yesterday.

You were fully aware yesterday, and you continue your slanderous, shameful actions. The press were also well aware of this document; many of them had the document in their hands prior to 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon. BCTV was advised of the contents of this document well before the 6 o'clock news last night. But they continue with the half-truths.

I'm wondering what we're going to hear from the members opposite, whether anyone is going to stand up in this House and make some apologies — slanderous, scurrilous remarks made against government, against all members of government, cabinet, boards of directors, past and current.

It's no wonder, in looking at the record of the political party opposite, that they finished in third place on the percentage vote in Alberta in the last election. It's no wonder that they got defeated in Saskatchewan. It's no wonder that they went from first place in Manitoba to last place in the last election. It's no wonder, give the shameful actions of members opposite, that they have been rejected time after time in Quebec. It's no wonder that they go from first place to last in the public opinion polls federally. It's no surprise in yesterday's election in Newfoundland that they got completely wiped out, that they finished last in every single riding.

Keep up this kind of action, these scandalous remarks, tainting the reputation of employees of Crown corporations, and you're going to end up in the same place in British Columbia, Mr. Member, in the next provincial election, because we're going to go out and tell the people the story. If the press doesn't tell it for us, we'll go into the communities and tell the people the stories.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, prior to your proceeding, I would just like to read from Erskine May, under "Allegations against Members": "Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a Member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate." I would like all the members of the House to follow the practices outlined in Erskine May. Please proceed, hon. member.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it's a good time for a cooling-off period, and perhaps the member for New Westminster would like to rise now, after having examined the facts, and make a statement to the House.

MR. CLARK: We won't revisit this matter today; we'll come back to it next week with more information, I can assure you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask one question. I wonder how the minister could explain the fact that the Bank of America appraised the land at the time of the transaction at $11 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No answer.

MR. CLARK: It's a very simple question: the B.C. Enterprise Corporation's in-house assessment of the value was presumably $2.2 million. The same day, the Bank of America assessed the value at $11 million. I wonder if after working on it all night with his staff they have come up with an explanation for the discrepancy between these two assessments.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: Well, Mr. Chairman, we'll revisit that some other time. I would like to pursue some other questions which remain.

I thank the minister for responding....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Yesterday the minister responded.... There's a lot of heckling going on over here. They're all antsy; I guess they're on the defensive here.

Yesterday in response to questions....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask members to come to order. I'd also like to point out to the members that the administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation can only be discussed in supply on a substantive motion. The minister is responsible for those matters which lie within his ministry, not those which lie without his ministry. Please proceed.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not quite sure what that meant. I was responding to the minister, who indicated that he had some concern. We were asking for the in-house appraisal by BCEC. The appraisals were quite clear: both the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and the Bank of America appraised the land at $11 million; the government appraised the land at $2.2 million.

[ Page 6287 ]

I would like to move on and ask some questions that arise out of questions answered by the minister. In answer to a question about the various consultants and others who have been involved in supplying information and advice on privatization, the minister listed a number of companies. I appreciate the answers. Perhaps the minister could answer this question: what advice with respect to privatization did Vrlak Robinson provide?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I understand they did some advertising work.

The member may wish to table the document that he made reference to in his prior remarks about an $11 million appraisal. The members on this side of the House would certainly like to examine that document if he's got it.

MR. CLARK: We'll pursue this line of questioning on Monday with more facts for the members opposite.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: They're squealing. They're having trouble with this one.

I just want to go through a series of questions with respect to these consultants on privatization. What did the consultant Schroders perform for the government?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: If the member doesn't have the appraisal, perhaps he would be kind enough to let us know the name of the appraiser.

MR. CLARK: If you look at Sir Erskine May, I believe you'll find it's the minister who is to answer questions, not back-bench members of the opposition.

Could the minister respond to this question: what did the consultants, Schroders, do with respect to giving advice on privatization?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I wonder whether the member has had the opportunity to reflect on the statements that he made in this assembly yesterday. He said words to the effect of "grossly incompetent" or: "There is some corruption in your organization." Mr. Member, I want to advise you that the telephone in my office is off the hook right now, with the speaker turned on, and several employees over at the Enterprise Corporation are listening to this debate. They're wondering if you've got the guts to stand up and withdraw the scurrilous remark you made yesterday.

MR. CLARK: I'm very pleased that the minister wants to keep this alive, because we on this side of the House want to as well. As time goes on, the public will become more and more aware of the kind of scandalous land dealings that BCEC has been involved in, the kind of insider deals, and particularly this deal, where millions of dollars were made because of either incompetence or corruption on the part of staff at BCEC.

What did the consultants, Schroders, do with respect to providing advice on privatization?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I don't want to take up a lot of the time of my staff, because they have very important responsibilities over there in the city of Vancouver. Many of them are sitting on the second floor, taking up time listening to this debate. I want to ask the member one more time: does he have the guts to stand up and speak into that microphone to my employees and apologize for the suggestion that there was corruption among this government or the employees of the Crown corporation? If you just stand up and say," No, I'm not going to," or "Yes, I will," then we can send the employees back to work. Now will the member please stand up.

MR. CLARK: It's rather odd that the government is attempting to ask questions of the opposition.

I'll repeat what I said for your employees. On the surface, looking at the evidence, there appears to be only two explanations: either there was the grossest of incompetence — and it's hard to fathom the kind of incompetence that would see millions of dollars lost to the public treasury — or there was corruption. There are only two explanations, it seems to me. The minister has not responded with any refutation of the fact that the lands were clearly worth in excess of $10 million, and that today still untouched, unserviced raw land is worth in the neighbourhood of $20 million. The government sold it a year ago for $2.2 million; today it's worth $20 million. That sounds like gross incompetence to me, Mr. Chairman. There's only one other explanation, and that is corruption, and the minister has not yet refuted any of that evidence.

I wonder if the minister could answer a question with respect to consultants who gave advice on privatization. Maybe he could answer what the consultant Schroders did with respect to giving advice on privatization.

[11:30]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I guess it's evident to the House and to my employees that the second member for Vancouver East doesn't have the courage and decency to stand up and make an outright apology, so perhaps we could refer the conversation to the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), who has certainly had time — I made sure she also received a copy — to read this. Perhaps she would like to stand up and withdraw the remarks, which were directed toward not only this government but the employees and directors of the Crown corporation, and which reflect on the employees and their families. I wonder if she — a member, I might add, whom I've had a great deal of respect for since her entry into this House — would have the decency to stand up and withdraw the remarks made the other day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would again like to remind all members that there are not to be personal allusions

[ Page 6288 ]

made by one member about another. Before recognizing the member for New Westminster, I would like to reiterate that and remind the House of that parliamentary practice. I would ask the member for New Westminster to proceed and to please direct her remarks to the Chair.

MS. A. HAGEN: I shall certainly happily direct my remarks to the Chair.

It's always difficult to find language to express outrage at the action of government in plundering the resources of the people, and we are talking about my riding and the resources in my riding. Sometimes we want to refer to great writers. As I walked to work this morning, one of the phrases that went through my mind was from Hamlet by the Bard of Avon: "something rotten in the state of Denmark."

Mr. Chairman, if there was anything unparliamentary in the language I used yesterday, I did not intend, nor would I ever intend, to use unparliamentary language in this House.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if I could ask the minister a question with respect to consultants who supplied information and advice as to privatization. Perhaps the minister could answer the question on what the consultant Schroders did with respect to giving advice and information on privatization.

I'm sorry the minister's not going to answer. It's going to be a long hour and a half, I guess.

I wonder if the minister could answer the question about what Bob Leighton and Associates did with respect to providing information and advice as to privatization.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: As has been proven in the past, the member opposite is very good at writing out his questions, and he's had extremely good service from this ministry's response to the questions he asked. As a matter of fact, it's been 24-hour service, which I don't think any member can quarrel with. If he wants to know the consultant's birthday, his middle name, the name of his children or grandchildren, what he does when he goes to work in the morning and how he travels home, he should put all those in writing and send them over to the ministry. We'll gladly accommodate the member and save a lot of time of the House, and perhaps we could get back to the question of the day.

Is the member going to have the courage, the gumption and the guts to stand up and withdraw those scurrilous remarks directed towards my employees over at the Crown corporation?

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister's admission that he's broadcasting these proceedings from his office is a contravention of standing order 120(2) and (3). Mr. Chairman, if you'd like me to explain, I'll read you standing order 120(2): "The public use, employment, publication, transmission, or broadcast outside of the House of the...record of the said debates, or any portion thereof, is prohibited without the express authority of Mr. Speaker." I wonder if the minister has sought the authority of Mr. Speaker to broadcast the debates as they proceed in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The matter will be taken under advisement. Please proceed.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll assume that the staff will respond to that question about standing order 120.

I wonder if the minister could advise the House what the consultant R. Dolphin and Associates did in terms of supplying information and advice with respect to privatization.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that a lot of people are waiting, not only those over at the Crown corporation but a lot of citizens of the province, for some type of response from the lead attacker over there today. After having been familiarized with the contents of the document and being absolutely wrong in their accusations yesterday, I would like to hear what the member has to say about the remarks put on the record yesterday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the member who's standing, I must remind the minister that estimates do not offer the opportunity to question members of the opposition; they offer the opportunity for members of the opposition to question members of the executive council. However, it would be nice — I have been listening to this debate — if we were using parliamentary language and addressing the Chair.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the tone of moderation.

I would ask the minister whether he can advise the House what the company D.H. Keen and Associates provided in terms of advice and information with respect to privatization.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I will refrain from asking members of the opposition questions, but I do believe that words have been spoken in this assembly which reflect on people's reputations — good citizens, doing an honest day's work for Crown corporations, current and past employees. There have been remarks made that I feel should either be withdrawn or require an apology to clear the character and reputation of those employees. Without asking a question, Mr. Chairman, I feel it's fair, equitable, just, and right to receive such a withdrawal or apology.

MR. CLARK: We appreciate that the minister's remarks are in Hansard and duly noted. I think I've responded several times now that the minister has not given any explanation with respect to B.C. Enterprise Corporation land value: a current value of over $20 million, sale-priced by the government of British Columbia at $2.2 million. There has been no explanation for this huge discrepancy. I proffered two possible explanations. The minister appears to be rejecting

[ Page 6289 ]

those explanations, but he has not come up with one himself.

We could get to some other angles with respect to B.C. Enterprise Corporation shortly, but I'd like to canvass a little more and elaborate on some of the answers the minister gave yesterday with respect to privatization.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what the individual or company Donald Cliffe provided in the way of information or advice with respect to privatization.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I guess we are not going to hear what I would consider to be a statement by the member, words that would be decent and proper. For the edification of all members on this side of the House and the staff of my ministry, perhaps he would like to table the report that he refers to about the $20 million land value. We'd be very interested in receiving that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The requirement for tabling a document is only for members of the executive council. However, the member may choose to, of course.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that elaboration.

I wonder if the minister could advise the House what the company W.J.C. Kirby did for the government with respect to supplying information and advice about privatization.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Could the member repeat the question?

MR. CLARK: I'd be happy to. I wonder if the minister could advise the House what the company or individual Donald Cliffe did with respect to supplying information and advice as to privatization.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I am still awaiting some comfort to my immediate staff and the staff of the Crown corporation. I think that the people of British Columbia deserve a firm, clear, forthright apology. Remarks without any substantiation, allegations being made against employees...

MR. BLENCOE: I guess you don't want to answer questions.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: ...current and past....

MR. BLENCOE: Hate those questions.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I think perhaps the second member for Victoria would like to rise. He has some things to file too, regarding some receipts that we will all be looking forward to at some time in the future.

MR. LOVICK: This is Mr. Honourable Man. This is the symbol of rectitude speaking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have recognized the second member for Vancouver East. Will the member for Nanaimo please restrain himself.

MR. CLARK: With respect to B.C. Enterprise Corporation, perhaps the minister could inform the House who the individual was who was in charge — Mr. Chairman, I was just waiting for the minister, because I know he wants to talk about B.C. Enterprise Corporation and so I thought we might talk about some aspects of it — of the sale of the lands that we have been talking about.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I believe I'd like to refer back not to yesterday's debate but to a couple of days prior to that and talk about the remarks made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen). I would like once again to read into the record the sentence quoted from her, appearing on page 14 of the Blues: 'I've listened with great interest to the skilled presentation of my colleague from Vancouver East about the facts of a corrupt land sale in New Westminster where the public was defrauded of money that it should have had."

I wonder if we could have one shred of evidence, one piece of paper, one fact. Lay anything on the table that you wish to that would back up that statement, that we could investigate and search. We're not asking for a file; we're not asking for a massive, enormous amount of evidence that I am sure the member must have to have justified a statement such as this.

[11:45]

Just put on the table and send over to me, so I can have it looked at, one piece of paper, one paragraph, anything at all, to suggest that members of this government, current or past employees of the Crown corporation were guilty of the allegations to which she made reference. Could we have some evidence, please?

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could tell us who the individual was at B.C. Enterprise Corporation who was in charge of disposing of the piece of property that we've been discussing.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: It's difficult to participate in one's estimates when one tries diligently to supply written answers to questions. We have produced more material to members opposite than you could believe, reams of stuff. Staff have been working. To be subject to scurrilous, libelous, scandalous remarks.... I am insisting that those members stand up and give my staff an apology.

MR. CLARK: We do appreciate the information that the minister has provided. We are just asking for a few more pieces of information. Could the minister advise the House which individual on staff at B.C. Enterprise Corporation did the assessment that arrived at the price of $2.2 million for the land which we've been discussing?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I haven't called the vote. Second member for Vancouver East.

[ Page 6290 ]

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's interesting that the minister doesn't want to respond to that. I wonder if he could respond to this question. Who at B.C. Enterprise Corporation was in charge of negotiating this land sale? We, of course, have canvassed this at great length in this House and will, no doubt, continue for some time. This land was not put up for bid; there were no bids accepted. It was a negotiated land sale. Who at B.C. Enterprise Corporation negotiated this land deal?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I've tried my very best to cooperate with those members. We've answered pages of questions; we've had staff working full-bore assembling.... I am not prepared to cooperate or answer any more questions from that member until he has the decency.... It is cowardly to use this chamber, Mr. Member, to make accusations to be recorded in Hansard

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Minister. The word "cowardly" is an unparliamentary word. I must ask you to withdraw it.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I will abide by your direction and your wisdom, and I certainly withdraw that remark. But it shows a lack of intestinal fortitude to leave blemishes on employees who are innocent victims of shameful remarks.

They know the facts now; they've read the statement of claim. Come clean; withdraw the remark; make an apology. Then, Mr. Chairman, I'll be prepared to take all the questions which that member asks and will either give him direct responses or take them as notice and see that he gets a written response.

MR. CLARK: I guess I'm going to hear this speech a few more times. The evidence is very clear. The land was sold for $2.2 million by this government, and this government is responsible for that. The land is currently worth somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 million. That's a tremendous windfall profit to those who purchased the land. Someone has to bear responsibility for that. The minister is saying that it's not his staff's fault. Then we may accept that on this side of the House, and we may say it's his fault as the minister responsible.

Perhaps the minister could answer several other questions with respect to this deal. Could he advise the House whether all of the deals made by BCEC and the New Westminster waterfront were negotiated by the same individual?

AN HON. MEMBER: There we are; the public's right to know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 31 pass?

MR. CLARK: This is the "open government" that the government tends to brag on and on about.

I wonder if the minister could advise the House whether any of the individuals involved in negotiating this particular land deal are still in the employ of B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 31 pass?

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could explain whether the individual who negotiated the New Westminster land deal negotiated any of the other land deals on the New Westminster waterfront.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could confirm for the House that the individual in charge of negotiating the land deals on the New Westminster waterfront was Tom Douglas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 31 pass?

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could confirm for the House that this particular land sale in New Westminster had to be approved by the board of directors of B.C. Enterprise Corporation before that decision was made.

I wonder if the minister could confirm for the House that all of the land deals, with respect to BCEC land on the New Westminster waterfront, were approved by the board of directors of B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 31 pass?

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could answer the question with respect to earlier land sales by First Capital City. Were those land deals negotiated by the same team that negotiated the land deals with respect to B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Has the member taken his seat?

MR. CLARK: Well, I suppose, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's going to be difficult for me to continue recognizing you. If there's no one else standing I have to call the vote.

MR. CLARK: It's extremely difficult. I suppose I could speak for 15 minutes and ask a series of questions. This might be a more appropriate order. Then I could sit down, and then get up and canvass the minister further on these questions. I seek advice from the Chair with respect to the order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is not prepared to dispense advice. The Chair will only recognize those members standing. If there is no one standing, I will call the vote.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will canvass some questions along this line, and continue doing that for some time.

I wonder if any of the other land deals, like the Westwood lands that are currently being negotiated, are being negotiated by the same scintillating team of experts that negotiated the land sale at New West-

[ Page 6291 ]

minister that sold the land for $2.2 million when it was clearly worth in excess of $10 million.

I wonder if the minister could confirm for the House that the individuals involved in the land deal with respect to the New Westminster waterfront are no longer working for B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

I wonder if the minister could confirm for the House that the individuals who negotiated this particular land deal also negotiated other land deals: Songhees, Whistler and others.

HON. MR. DIRKS: You really don't know much, do you?

MR. CLARK: I hear some comments from the Minister for Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks) so I'm hopeful that we can canvass these questions further, because there are other interesting land deals with respect to Crown lands.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, the cheap seats are heckling me, and I'm trying to get some answers from the minister.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We've only got an hour to go this week. Let's try and make it pleasant.

MR. CLARK: I think, Mr. Chairman, it's only a half an hour before the L-G comes in.

I wonder if the minister could give us any information with respect to the Whistler land deals to see whether the individuals in question that negotiated this particular land deal in New Westminster are the same individuals who are negotiating land deals in Whistler.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 31 pass?

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're not getting too far with this line of questioning. I can see that. But we'll continue to canvass it until the minister responds. That may be some time. I see his staff behind there who no doubt want to get back to work. They'll enjoy this for three or four weeks if need be I'm sure the minister will appreciate that come Monday we'll have more questions with respect to questionable land dealings by his ministry and by his Crown corporation that he was responsible for. We've got months and months of sitting here for this to come through.

I wonder if the minister could answer any questions with respect to the people who work for B.C. Enterprise Corporation currently and who are doing work on the side as consultants. For example, I wonder if he would care to comment on Mr. Rod Cameron, who is listening, I assume, on the speaker phone because he's the PR guy for B.C. Enterprise Corporation. They've got a lot of PR to do in the next few weeks to cover up for this shoddy transaction that's taken place.

HON. MR. REID: I hope you've got the guts to say that to them.

MR. CLARK: I do have the guts, Mr. Minister, to say that to them. It's patently clear that something smells in British Columbia with respect to B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think we'd like it if you would address these remarks through the Chair. The Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid) used an unparliamentary word. The unparliamentary word was also used by the second member for Vancouver East. We'll just assume you mutually agree to delete it, and I would ask the member for Vancouver East to stand and address the Chair.

MR. CLARK: I noticed that the minister responsible for culture has lost that portfolio. We're all deeply saddened that culture is once again spelled with a "C" since it has moved from that minister.

I wonder if the Minister of Government Management Services has any policies with respect to Crown corporation employees doing work on the side for other corporations. For example, it's come to our attention that Mr. Rod Cameron, who gets paid by the public purse — as we speak, and is probably being paid to listen right now to the speeches in the House.... I wonder if there's any policy with respect to him now working for Molson Brewery promoting the Indy 500 car race in Vancouver.

It's certainly quite clear in my mind that there should be some rules with respect to Crown corporation employees freelancing on the side and promoting car races by breweries. I wonder if the minister has any concern or policy with respect to Crown corporation employees taking money from the private sector and doing business with the private sector. By the way, this particular case, interestingly enough, required some government action because the brewery would not be allowed to sponsor the wheel race had it not been for a change in government policy and a change in legislation in June of last year.

HON. MR. REID: You're like your leader. You were against Expo. You were against SkyTrain. Why don't you quit? You're against everything.

MR. CLARK: We have an hour to kill here, and I was hoping the Minister of Tourism would stand up and speak rather than sit down and speak.

Mr. Cameron currently represents Molson Breweries, and he also represented B.C. Enterprise Corporation. In most provinces — certainly in most states, the federal government, the American federal government — that wouldn't be allowed. In part it wouldn't be allowed because Molson Brewery requires favoured treatment from the government — different levels of government as well — in order to run the Indy car race.

[ Page 6292 ]

[12:00]

I see that the minister responsible for liquor is here. It would be interesting to see the timing of Mr. Cameron's working for Molson Brewery and when the government changed the law to accommodate the car race with respect to Molson's promoting a car race in Vancouver. This is while the minister and other ministers of the government, including the current minister whose estimates we have before us, are promoting $130 million against alcohol abuse. They are trumpeting it; they are advertising it. No doubt advertising is coming out of this minister's budget to promote these kinds of ventures, all the while that they're allowing a car race to be sponsored by a brewery. And the individual who works for the brewery works for B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

HON. MR. REID: You're against tourism, aren't you? You're against the world.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Minister for water slides, or whatever it is you do over there.

I wonder if the minister has any comment with respect to other B.C. Enterprise Corporation employees who work for the private sector. Rather promptly, upon being dismissed or leaving the employ of B.C. Enterprise Corporation.... There's Mr. Stanley Kwok, for example, who really is, I think, outstanding in his professional career and an outstanding individual in B.C. Clearly in most jurisdictions an individual couldn't simply leave the employ of a Crown corporation and start working for the private company that took the place of the Crown corporation.

So there's a whole series of questions regarding the government's policy with respect to Crown corporation employees doing work for the private sector at the same time. The Indy 500 car race is a fascinating one because B.C. Enterprise Corporation employees are promoting it. Mr. Kinsella, I understand, was promoting the car race. I understand that Mr. Kinsella approached the mayor of Vancouver during the last civic election with respect to the car race. The law was changed. Now we have a B.C. Enterprise Corporation employee working for the private sector promoting a car race. In most jurisdictions that simply wouldn't be allowed.

There are some other questions with respect to B.C. Enterprise Corporation and their employee policy, and the government's employee policy. As I say, conflict-of-interest guidelines should be in place to prohibit Crown corporations from doing business with private companies that may be doing business with the government. There is clearly a conflict with respect to public servants acting for the public sector and therefore theoretically for the public interest — although that is not always clear with this government — and at the same time working for a Crown corporation that may well be doing business with the government or at least promoting government.

I could go on and on, and no doubt I will; but at the moment I will defer to the member for Nanaimo, who wants to pick up this line of questioning. I gather my 15 minutes are up. We'll take a break, and then I'll pick up where I left off.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: In my earlier references to the Supreme Court document between the parties, the statement of claim dated August 2, 1988, perhaps I was at fault for not going into it in more depth. Perhaps I did not go into the document thoroughly enough to explain to the two members present today — we mustn't forget the member for New Westminster (Ms. Hagen) as well as the second member for Vancouver East — that their allegations yesterday were completely unfounded. It was a scam purposefully and deliberately perpetrated by those members opposite: make accusations of corruption against this government and the employees of Crown corporations, and indeed those remarks reflect on their families, their children and their parents.

MR. CASHORE: On a point of order. The first year I was in the Legislature I was asked to withdraw a remark when I used the term "scam," and I would like to ask this member to withdraw that word from his vocabulary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair was about to do it, but I'll accept the request from the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. I must ask the minister to withdraw the word "scam." It's unparliamentary.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw "scam" and replace it with the word "sham."

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not acceptable to the Chair.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, if that word "sham" is also unparliamentary, I will take your advice and withdraw that as well. I suppose we'll have to leave it with the members of the public throughout British Columbia, and they'll make the determination.

Members opposite know full well what's in this statement of claim. Referring clearly to clauses, clause 25 on page 6 reads: "The purpose and intent of the transfer from Flip Co. to Westminster Pier Development Corp. was a sham designed to hide the true acquisition cost of the subject lands." Perhaps in reviewing the document the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) missed that clause. Perhaps also in reviewing the document they missed clause 28 on page 8, which reads: "The said representations were deliberate, material, false and fraudulent." Perhaps they missed that when they read the document yesterday afternoon. In fact, I have reason to believe that at least the first and second members for Vancouver East had this evidence prior to yesterday afternoon. Perhaps they also missed clause 31: "Each defendant was a part of a conspiracy with some or all of the other defendants to (a) set up and/or implement a fraudulent scheme to hide from an ultimate purchaser, including the plaintiff, the fact that the true purchase price of the subject lands was $2.2 million and not $10.5 million."

[ Page 6293 ]

I'm sure that all members would welcome any evidence that that member for Vancouver East has that would suggest either a $10.5 million or a $20 million value. If you have such evidence, please, Mr. Member, table it in the House.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it's evident to all members of this side of the House — perhaps not on that side of the House, because they refuse to recognize it — that if the value was indeed $10.5 million or $20 million there wouldn't be a lawsuit. There are groups in society, trade union funds, before the courts right now in an attempt to disprove what that member is stating as a fact. I'm sure that the trade union members who are a part of the statement of claim would welcome any evidence that you might have that would indicate the value to be any more than the $2.2 million selling price.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction in the assembly.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's indeed a pleasure for me today to welcome to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia the 4th Ladner Girl Guides company There are 33 members and their leader, Mrs. Reynolds. Would this assembly please make them very welcome.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, now that the Minister of Government Management Services has decided to give up the vow of silence that he took some 40 minutes ago in response to the line of questioning from my colleague from Vancouver East, would he like to begin to answer the 30-odd questions that were posed by my colleague? Perhaps we could start with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 31 pass?

MR. LOVICK: I'm just a little shocked, because to my knowledge I have done nothing to give offence to the minister's sense of propriety, justice, truth and all those things. Yet he seems committed now to ignoring whatever question I as well might have to pose. How sad that is.

I would like for the next short while to take a different line of questioning to the minister.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You want to get away from this.

MR. LOVICK: Oh no, to the hon. House Leader opposite: don't worry, we'll get back to those issues. There are numbers and numbers of questions that have yet to be answered and, believe me, everyone is listening for those answers. We will keep posing the questions, I assure you.

However, given that the minister is taking a vow of silence, we have no choice, if we want to serve the interests of this chamber well, but to take a different line of questioning. Therefore I intend to do that.

I want to pursue the matter of some highways privatization contracts. I want to turn now to a particular contract: one concerning area 22; that's the Peace River. Let me start by asking the minister this very direct question. In negotiating highways maintenance privatization contracts, what steps were taken by the project teams in your ministry to keep government MLAs advised of the progress of the negotiations? What went on?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Any questions dealing with highways privatization will have to be directed to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, whose staff were heavily and deeply involved in all those sets of negotiations. Those estimates will be coming up in due course, Mr. Member. I would refer all of those questions dealing with that matter to the respective ministry.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I have been listening this morning with a good deal of interest to the questions that have been directed to the Minister of Government Management Services with respect to the lands in New Westminster that were referred to yesterday, the lands that are the subject of an action, and the participants of that, who are the subject of an action in New Westminster — indeed, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

[12:15]

I think it is entirely appropriate and indeed I have a number of questions myself and always do when there is the sale of land, particularly the sale of public lands. It is the case that public land sales have, by necessity, to be put under the kind of scrutiny that those of us who understand something about the sale of land and the value of land recognize does not have to occur when those sales are done privately. There are a number of issues that are quite appropriate and should be asked about and ought to be answered. These issues relate to decisions, the process of decisions, the value of lands and the ultimate use of land.

When you are dealing with a property as large as the First Capital City lands in New Westminster, which was a joint venture between the provincial Crown and the city of New Westminster, and which has had enormous success in contributing to the redevelopment and revitalization of that entire community.... That, indeed, was the intent and the purpose of that development.

When we scrutinize the transactions and discuss value and use, I think we are entirely on sound ground. If there is ever any suggestion that there is something wrong or corrupt — or indeed fraudulent — about a sale, this House and chamber ought to deal with it very carefully.

I listened to a phrase used this morning by the second member for Vancouver East, a person for whom I have a great deal of regard. I say that in a very personal way and with some trepidation, because I don't want to say anything to him which might injure him within his own party. I say that with sincerity. But I do have a great deal of respect and considerable affection for him.

[ Page 6294 ]

I am concerned when I hear — as I did today — a phrase that was used in this House once by Gordon Gibson in relation to another matter. What was different about the use of the phrase then as to now — it was a powerful phrase, and it is a powerful phrase — is concurrent with the use of the phrase. There was placed before the people in the House fact after fact after fact and document after document after document to support the dramatic statement and allegation that was made. That's right, and that's proper, and ultimately, justice did take its course.

We have had stated In this House over the last number of hours that this transaction was either the result of gross incompetence or some corruption in the organization. I do not want to go off into some great flight of rhetoric about that and about the appropriateness of that, but I want to say to the second member for Vancouver East — and the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), who joined in that line of attack — that clearly on the facts that are now before you, there aren't just two choices as to why the result you were concerned about might have occurred.

There is before you today evidence of a third possibility of why those values that you're concerned about might be so deviated from what you consider would be an appropriate, logical progression of the land transaction. That fact pattern is contained in the statement of claim that you had read to you in this House. That is a third alternative: that, in fact, as is alleged in that statement of claim, for the people who were involved in the transaction — the purchasing agency — the purpose and intent from flip company to Westminster Pier Development was a sham designed to hide the true cost of the lands. That is a third alternative possibility.

I would say to you simply this, Mr. Member: when you have put before you a third possibility, different considerably from what you said yesterday, that the only two explanations were either that the staff was grossly incompetent or that there was some corruption in the organization, then with the greatest of respect to you and your concern — proper as it is — I urge you to give thought to the possibility that because your statements do impact on other citizens, it is not illegitimate for the minister to stand in this House and be concerned about the impact on staff, decision-makers, members of the board, and indeed members of the municipal council of New Westminster, who throughout this period have been involved in First Capital City. I see nothing wrong, no loss of face, no impediment to your acknowledging that there may very well be a third possibility. Please, sir, do the honourable thing and try to clear the air for the employees of that firm.

Likewise, Mr. Chairman, I urge the same proposition on the member for New Westminster, who said yesterday that she had listened to the facts of a corrupt land sale in New Westminster, where the public was defrauded. I know perhaps better than anyone in this place that sometimes our sense of outrage and competitiveness, and our ability to use rhetoric in ways that are colourful and that are intended perhaps to attract headlines.... I know that is a danger and a risk we all run. But surely to goodness, when you stand in this chamber, which gives us the benefit of absolute freedom of speech, as closely as it can be given anywhere in our society.... Knowing that these proceedings are broadcast, as they are, and knowing that those kinds of statements obviously have an impact on individual decision-makers in an honourable organization, surely to goodness we have some responsibility, parallel to that privilege to speak, to be certain that if we're going to make those kinds of allegations, we must try to have some facts to back them up.

I'm not asking for a tome. I'm not asking for an investigation that you would presume would be done by agencies that do investigations. I ask not for ten pieces of paper but for one fact. This is an incredibly serious allegation that someone presumably participated in a corrupt land sale in New Westminster, where the public was defrauded. I don't think we should take those things lightly on either side of this House.

As I said at the outset, I can understand very well why people carefully scrutinize the sale of public land and, indeed, the acquisition of public land. Quite frankly, it's because it is difficult to deal in public land. I have always had some trouble about public organizations dealing in land development to begin with. But that philosophical position aside, I well can understand why the public should expect us to be absolutely careful and hard-nosed about scrutinizing the sale and acquisition of public land. I can appreciate that, and I can appreciate members bringing those concerns to this House. I can appreciate them bringing those concerns to this House with both drama and intensity, because that is how this House operates and sometimes how it best operates.

But, Mr. Chairman, when people bring to this House allegations of corruption, allegations of defrauding the public purse and allegations about corruption in an organization, then I think the least this House can expect is that there be some reasonable set of facts to back them up.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Secondly, when a member in this House brings those propositions forward and says, as the second member for Vancouver East did, that it is his view there are only two explanations, I can understand that too, because at first blush I think you might well be led to that conclusion. But when you have put to you a very plausible, carefully drafted third explanation, then I think the least that ought to be done is to recognize that there is another possibility.

For the sake of the employees and the decision makers in the organization about which the allegations are made, it seems to me that as honourable members, as everyone in this House is, we do some credit to that word "honourable" and at least try to accept the possibility of some alternative. Before this day is out, I would urge those members to do whatever they think is appropriate to do. It will be to their

[ Page 6295 ]

credit to do whatever is appropriate to do to ensure that the people who inevitably are going to be smeared by those kinds of words will not be so and that there will be some possibility that this weekend with their families and their friends and their workmates they will not be sullied by that kind of charge and will not have to explain interminably that those were the only two possibilities and there is no other reasonable explanation. I urge that on those members with the greatest of sincerity.

MR. CLARK: This is not the first land deal that we've questioned in this House, and as I stand here today, I tell you honestly: this is not the last deal. I have not read the writ that the Attorney-General and the minister respond to, but the question raised by the minister, when he read the section of the writ, relates to the purchase price and a fraudulent claim of a purchase price.

Nowhere in the writ is the value of the land questioned. That is the crux of the question. Any independent evaluation of the land conducted both by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and the Bank of America values the land at in excess of $10 million. Any independent assessment of the land today — untouched, unserviced, raw land, the same land — would assess the value at close to $20 million.

The land was sold a year ago by this government for $2.2 million; today it is worth $20 million or thereabouts. There can still be no other explanation that I can think of than either incompetence or corruption. I say that advisedly. I didn't say there was corruption. I say that those are the two choices I see Any of the words read with respect to the writ deal with the purchase price. No one has questioned the underlying value of the land, and that is where the government's attempt at defence today for what can clearly be a very bad business deal for British Columbia falls apart.

[12:30]

I will defer to the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) to carry on his line of questioning with respect to privatization.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE: In the gallery today are 23 grade 5 students and teachers from the Pacific Academy School in Coquitlam. They are here to learn about democracy and how it functions in our society today, and in this Legislature. I ask you to join me in welcoming them. Some of them are from Burnaby.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It appears that we have ground to a halt in Committee of Supply for today, and it's doubtful, given the member's response to the Attorney-General's plea, that we are about to hear what we would so dearly love to hear on this side of the House, at least not at this sitting. So 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: Mr. Speaker, I have word that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts, and I would ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while we prepare for his arrival.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Provincial Symbols and Honours Act

University Endowment Land Park Act

Residential Property Tax Increase Limitation Act, 1989

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieu tenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:36 p.m.