[ Page 8957 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

School Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 11). Hon. Mr. Brummet

Introduction and first reading –– 8957

Oral Questions

Carmanah Valley. Mr. Miller –– 8958

Mr. Bruce

Job training office closure. Mr. Zirnhelt –– 8959

GO B.C. grants. Mr. Sihota –– 8959

Ministerial Statements

GO B.C. grants. Hon. Mr. Smith –– 8960

Mr. Sihota –– 8962

Mr. Harcourt –– 8964

GO B.C. grants. Hon. Mr. Smith –– 8966

Mr. Harcourt –– 8966

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Vant –– 8966

Mrs. Boone –– 8967

On the amendment

Mr. Jones –– 8971

Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 8976

Mr. Clark –– 8978

Hon. S. Hagen –– 8981

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honour today to introduce four citizens from the central Fraser Valley and one individual who served this House for many years In the past. First of all, Mr. Lyle Wicks served as an MLA for Dewdney, having been elected in the years 1952, 1953 and 1956. He was Minister of Labour from August 1, 1952 to November 28, 1960; he was Minister of Railways from September 27, 1956 to March 20, 1959; and he was Minister of Commercial Transport from March 20, 1959 to November 28, 1960.

Accompanying him today are Mr. Gordie Gardiner and Mr. Peter Funk. These two spent many years supporting the Social Credit Party under W.A.C. Bennett. Also with them are Al Epp and George Dunnaway. They're all from the central Fraser Valley. Would this House please make them welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce today a former member of the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Jim Rhodes, and also a mining consultant who is here visiting in your gallery, Mr. Hal Halvorson.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today are a number of people who are with the settlement language training program. They are accompanied by their teacher and leader Ann Muehlebach. They are also accompanied by Marilyn Fane and Joan Sutcliffe of Chilliwack Community Services. Would you please make them welcome.

MR. ROSE: I'm told - but I haven't seen them -that Mrs. Cory Pearse, Miss Laura Pearse, Mr. Tom Pearse and Mr. Ian Haye are in the gallery today. They represent that great and soon-to-be-abolished riding of Coquitlam-Moody. Would you welcome them.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the precincts today-and in the galleries from time to time this afternoon-we have 100 grade 11 students from Churchill Secondary School in Vancouver. These young people are accompanied today by their social studies teachers, Mr. D. Williams and Mr. D. Chevreau, and I would ask you all to make them very welcome.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery is a very good friend and a school trustee in the district of Langley. Would the House join me in making Linda Moir very welcome.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker. Before I make my Introduction, I would like to say a few words.

Today you can see all the members of the Legislative Assembly wearing daffodils. The daffodils are the cancer campaign symbol of renewed hope in the spring. Thousands of volunteers throughout British Columbia will be working to raise funds for the Canadian Cancer Society.

Martin Luther King overcame an almost insurmountable challenge. His words were: "I have a dream." If we paraphrase that and say that we have a dream, working together throughout British Columbia, we can conquer cancer.

With us today we have two special people, volunteers from the Victoria area. We have Katharine Ellis, who is president of the Victoria unit of the British Columbia and Yukon division of the Canadian Cancer Society, and Gladys Motherwell, the treasurer. Would the I-louse make them welcome.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in welcoming my cousin from Calgary, Carol-Ann Kieleau, her husband Doug Kieleau, as well as Jason Kieleau and Kathia Silk, who are petty officers with the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets. They are all in the gallery today.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker. I'd simply like, on behalf of the opposition, to second the welcome from the first member for Okanagan South to the Cancer Society volunteers. We pride ourselves in British Columbia on having an active Cancer Society, two of the genuine Canadian heroes who have raised funds for cancer and some of the best cancer treatment facilities and research efforts in the country, so I am delighted to welcome the volunteers who help make a lot of this possible.

Introduction of Bills

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

I-Ion. Mr. Brummet presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled School Amendment Act, 1990.

HON, MR. BRUMMET: just a few comments about the bill. This School Amendment Act introduces the amendments to bring into effect the changes to the education funding system which came as a result of the royal commission report recommendation that education funding should be based on a stable, predictable and accountable system. These changes will provide funding which is reasonable, realistic and will assure increases based on objective criteria, and both the funding and the increases are assured by the provincial government.

The act introduces the new block funding system. It describes the methods of determining and distributing the block, and also provides that a board must seek approval by referendum for extra moneys it may wish to spend above the block allocation. This act outlines the process for holding a referendum and provides the prescribed form of the ballot to be used.

Also, since the province now assures the total block of funds, the residential taxes - except those required by referendum -will now flow directly to

[ Page 8958 ]

the consolidated revenue fund and be distributed to districts from there.

This act also Incorporates transitional provisions to deal with the special time-lines for this year and the changeover of funding arrangements. We have made every effort to give boards as much time as possible to hold a referendum, and hence one change from last week's announcement: by compressing everything else, we have been able to move the referendum date to Saturday, May 5, and that is when the referendum will be held this year. The act specifies the regular process for other years.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 11 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

CARMANAH VALLEY

MR. MILLER: To the Minister of Forests, with regard to the Carmanah announcement. Would the minister advise what studies were done, and by whom, that led the government to its announcement?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: An information package was circulated to all MLAs yesterday with the information the member asked for.

MR. MILLER: A supplementary. The minister previously promised that all these studies would be released to the public before a decision was made on the Carmanah. Why was that promise broken?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would point out to the member, other members of this House and the public that yesterday's decision was proposed legislation' and every member in this House, including that member, the member from Port Alberni and the Leader of the Opposition, will have a chance to stand in his place and state their position.

MR. MILLER: Perhaps the minister, who has difficulty listening to the public, didn't hear my question. I asked If the minister would table the Information from the studies that were done and why he broke the promise to do so previously.

[2:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I take umbrage at the words "broken promise." I didn't break any promises. The information is in the information packages - all the studies that had to be done to make a decision to create a 6, 600 hectare park. We don't need any more information to create a park.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental. The minister says they don't need any further information. He also has the number wrong in the size.

Given that the minister's news release stated that further intensive studies are required to ensure that there are no negative impacts, I am wondering how the lines were drawn on the maps if those studies have not yet been done.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member seems to be confused as to the studies required to save the giant spruce In the park and the further studies required to harvest in the upper Carmanah. There is quite a difference. The giant spruce in the Carmanah occupy roughly 100 hectares. I did quote a wrong number a moment ago inadvertently: it's 3, 592 hectares. We have put in ten times the amount of land to protect those spruce trees. The studies will be required before any harvesting takes place in the northern Carmanah.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Until I recognize you, your mike won't work - that's all.

MR. MILLER: A new question, Mr. Speaker. I can't be responsible for the minister not understanding his own news releases. He clearly talked about further intensive studies that were required. Could the minister advise whether those studies are going to be undertaken by MacMillan Bloedel or by the Forest Service?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I understand perfectly well what I said, and I said yes. Further intensive studies will be required before there is any harvesting in the upper Carmanah. Those studies will be done, and they will either be approved or not approved by the Ministry of Forests.

MR. MILLER: The minister is most evasive.

A new question to the Minister of Parks. I just want to quote one sentence from the report he tabled In this House: "B.C. Parks is responsible for the designation ... of a system of parks ... In British Columbia." Last June the Minister of Parks stated in this House that his ministry was conducting a four-month study into the possibility of a park in the Carmanah and that that study would be released to the public. Why was that not done, and will the minister now table in the House those studies conducted by his ministry?

HON. MR. MESSMER: We in Parks reviewed the Carmanah from both a park and an ecological reserve standpoint, and the conclusion was obvious: the trees had to be fully protected, and there was no need to undertake a detailed paper study to justify that conclusion.

MR. MILLER: The minister is breaking his own guidelines. I quote from his annual report: "New areas being considered for park status will be evaluated under strict guidelines." The minister also announced that any initiatives will be reviewed and

[ Page 8959 ]

discussed with the public before the boundaries are legislated. Your annual report, Mr. Minister. Why did you not follow the mandate as you laid it out in your own annual report?

HON. MR. MESSMER: I would assume that my colleague is against parks in British Columbia. I think we're very pleased to be adding possibly some 7, 000 acres to the 13.5 million acres that we're custodians for, for parks in British Columbia. I look forward to the debate in the House to decide whether or not you as well as us are In favour of parks.

MR. BRUCE: I have a question for the Minister of Forests in respect to the Carmanah. Approximately a year ago I put together an ad hoc committee made up of representatives from local government and other portions of the forest industry to hear from the people of Cowichan-Malahat what they thought should occur in the Carmanah. We drew together a series of recommendations, one of which was the establishment of an advisory board. I'd like to know from you, Mr. Minister: will this advisory committee you're suggesting have any teeth, or will it simply be a rubber-stamping body?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To answer the member's question most succinctly, we will establish a committee, and the committee will be of the choosing of the people in the local area: the regional district, Port Alberni and North Cowichan. Those people will decide who will be on the committee, and we will listen to them-rather than, as the Leader of the Opposition He said he listens to people and then he looked into the camera and said: "Watch my lips We will not log the Carmanah."

MR. MILLER: Talk about rubber stamps. Back to the Minister of Forests. The minister said In his release that it was up to MacMillan Bloedel to decide if jobs were going to be lost. Isn't it the government's responsibility to determine that we get the most from our Crown resources in terms of jobs and economic benefits? Why are you leaving It up to MacMillan Bloedel to tell the government what's going to happen?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't know what the member has been reading. They seem to be able to Put their own interpretation on anything. All you have to do is read their latest press release, and you can see they put their own interpretation on anything.

I said I could not determine how many jobs MacMillan Bloedel is going to cut or add to their company at any given time. The people of British Columbia have a right to know that when we preserve a valley like the Carmanah -and it should be preserved - there is going to be a cost. Unlike many people who might live in some kind of a dream world over there, there is a cost to these decisions We don't mind the cost in saving the Carmanah, but the public has to know what that cost will be. The cost isn't in numbers on a piece of paper, Mr. Member from Vancouver-Point Grey, where you live in comfort in your bungalow in Point Grey. They're not little numbers on a piece of paper. These are real people in Port Alberni and Cowichan.

JOB TRAINING OFFICE CLOSURE

MR. ZIRNHELT: I have a question to the Minister of Advanced Education concerning job training standards. At a time when the Cariboo faces significant expansion of economic activity and industrial development, can the minister tell us why he's decided to close the Williams Lake job training office, forcing more than 250 apprentices in the Cariboo-Chilcotin area to rely on a computer terminal for important support services?

MR. SPEAKER: How refreshing to get a question completely in order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It did draw an incorrect conclusion. I thank the member for his question. I'll take It on notice. There Is some technical detail I'd like to provide to give you a full answer.

GO B.C. GRANTS

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the Provincial Secretary, further to what I asked him yesterday. On February 27, 1990 the Provincial Secretary released Mr. Marson's report on the GO B.C. grants. The question to the minister Is this: at the time, were you aware that the RCMP had recommended that charges be laid against your predecessor?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I listened to these same questions yesterday. I thought about it last night, and I really didn't know whether I should apologize to the member, because he seems to have some problems. I heard him about two weeks ago on television saying that he was unaware of an event that was going on in his constituency. This event, I found out, actually involved over 700 volunteers and over 50 organizations in his community, yet he was unaware of it.

I was going to apologize to him for not knowing, but obviously after being in this House and watching the government for three years, he still doesn't understand what the Provincial Secretary does.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Provincial Secretary, you seem a little incapable of being able to answer a very basic, simple question. So let me ask you one more time. On the day you held your press conference, February 27, did you or did you not know that the RCMP had recommended laying charges against your predecessor? That's the question. Answer it.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Again I would have to say that matters I checked the records last night very closely. In the Ministry of Provincial Secretary we don't employ one RCMP, so obviously you're directing your question to the wrong minister.

[ Page 8960 ]

MR. SIHOTA: To the minister. Did you or did you not know on the day that you held your press conference that the RCMP wanted to lay charges against your predecessor? Did you or did you not know that fact?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I guess I have to tell the hon. member opposite that if he wants a question answered in regard to legal matters, he should direct that question to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith).

MR. SIHOTA: The minister is not answering the question. He is being evasive. The only conclusion that I can come to Is that he knew and he was covering it up. I'll give him a chance to say that that Is not a correct conclusion. Let me ask him once again.

Mr. Minister, did you or did you not know, on the day that you held your press conference in February, that your predecessor had been investigated by the RCMP and that the RCMP had recommended laying charges? Were you or were you not aware of that fact on that day?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, in order to short-circuit this whole circus, I refer the question to the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, In answering the question, I ask leave to table this correspondence In the House, because I intend to refer to it.

[2:30]

Leave granted.

Ministerial Statement

GO B.C. GRANTS

HON. MR. SMITH: The situation that we see ourselves in here in British Columbia Involving this matter that is raised frequently - and I might add for political reasons -by the member for Esquimalt Port Renfrew is a matter of some considerable and serious concern and should be to all of us. When I refer to this correspondence, I think it will become clear to all as to why that is. But in beginning I may say that the reason I refer to the political efficacy of what is going on is that in a restaurant on the opening day of this assembly I had the privilege of sitting next to the member's table, at which I heard him brag to the people he was seated with that it was his intention to keep it alive, at least by the process he intended and suggested he would undertake on April 19. No clearer statement could have been made of the purpose here.

Mr. Speaker, on March 26, following a press conference convened by the Leader of the Opposition, I did direct to the Leader of the Opposition a letter which, in part, said the following:

"I've had the opportunity of considering your remarks at the March 20 press conference. You stated that you believe there to be sufficient evidence to warrant the laying of charges. One of a number of respected and experienced counsel who, following a review of all available material, has advised otherwise is Mr. John E. Hall.'

And then his address is given. The key question is the following.

"Mr. Hall has been requested to be available to review and advise on any material, evidence, potential witnesses and whatever you now bring forward so that a reconsideration of the decision reached in this matter by senior officials in the Ministry of Attorney-General can take place.'

The Leader of the Opposition was asked to be in touch with Mr. Hall. He was asked, as well, to take to Mr. Hall any of the defence counsel who -It was claimed - had advised on this matter or Crown counsel who it was claimed had been consulted.

Mr. Speaker, it was requested that Mr. Hall would avail himself for one week from March 26 –– 1 am advised by Mr. Hall's office, as of today, that no such consultation has taken place.

In response to that request, on April 4, 1 did receive a letter from the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. In part, that letter said This is the part that I think is the most odious in the extreme. The request was as follows: "I therefore invite you to provide me with this information ... (1) the RCMP report delivered to your ministry

Mr. Speaker, let every member in this House and in this province reflect on what that means: a request to the Attorney-General of the province by someone sworn to uphold the law to release a police file to an Individual not authorized to have it. That, Mr. Speaker, is a corrupt practice.

I have responded to that letter today with the following:

"It is the established role of Crown counsel in British Columbia to review the results of the investigation, together with the police recommendations, and to determine, in accordance with well-established policy, whether charges are appropriate. This policy requires that Crown counsel only proceed with cases where they are satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood of conviction and it Is in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.

"It Is imperative that the justice process operates free from even a mere perception of political interference. Practice and convention in this province have long excluded the Attorney-General from personally demanding, receiving or reviewing reports to Crown counsel or criminal justice files. I agree with that practice. In my view, the public must be protected from any Attorney-General interfering in the charging process by examining files and reviewing charging decisions.

"The only possible reason for your requests to date is the inspiration directed by political considerations. I will not inject political considerations into the process. Indeed, at all costs I will protect the process from those who would.

"It is my view that the professionalism and independence of the counsel involved, and not the review process you propose, answer whether this matter was properly handled."

You cannot separate the integrity of the process from the integrity of the individual, as this member seeks to do.

[ Page 8961 ]

"Fundamental to our liberty is the fact that no citizen should ever have to worry about any Attorney-General releasing files to anyone not authorized to have them.

"In closing, your request is denied for the very sound reason that it is unprincipled and, if granted, would set a precedent corrosive of, if not corrupting to, the administration of justice in British Columbia.'

Let it be said and understood very clearly that the integrity of our system is dependent upon three things: the Independence of the office; the ability, competence, experience and Integrity of the people who serve it; and it Is dependent upon the Attorney General’s obligation to protect that office from outside political pressure or any other ulterior pressure.

When members of this Legislature, members of the practising bar of British Columbia, stand and use deliberately that criminal justice process in the administration of justice in British Columbia for admitted political ends, then we are in serious trouble indeed.

When a leader of the opposition, or a leader of any other party, is prepared to condone a system that would allow and invite the Attorney-General to release files to people not authorized to have them, then we are indeed inviting a corrupt system, and I would invite that leader to stand up and say he does not condone that practice,

In our system, the investigative people look at information and put evidence before the Crown, and they do indeed from time to time make recommendations. And then the Crown makes the decision on whether or not to proceed. That system must not be interfered with. That system protects citizens, and it protects the administration of justice. It should not be dealt with differently in the case of one individual than in the case of the other. It should be dealt with evenhandedly.

The fail-safe on that system is this: the police or any other investigative agency are entitled -as a right at any time if they do not agree with the decision of Crown -to swear the information themselves. Indeed, they could hire someone to prosecute the matter If they so wish. The police can do that at any time. The fact that they do not in British Columbia - that they agree with the integrity of the system - speaks well of the system, the police and the people who administer it.

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to let these members, by inference, try to sully the reputation of people like Mr. Hughes and Mr. Stewart and others.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I will hear one point of order at a time. The opposition House Leader rose on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: We are all very interested in what the Attorney-General has to say - especially the claque of desk-pounders behind him. I'd like to point out that in my opinion imputing motives -as he did impute political moves on the part of certain hon members - is not part of our traditions in this House.

If I might cite some relevant authority, the Attorney-General has gone well beyond the propriety of ministerial statements, which are supposed to be brief, precise and specific about the administration within their department, and not to go on some great meandering far and beyond the bounds of a ministerial statement. This has happened before in this House, and it's got to stop.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell had terminated question period; however, I recognized the Attorney-General. The Chair is at fault in not having recognized the Attorney-General in the manner of making this matter a ministerial statement. It has clearly gone beyond the response of question period or beyond the response that would normally be given a question. The matter is being treated as a ministerial statement, and the appropriate reply will be allowed by the Chair. I would ask the Attorney-General to continue. You may take into account the remarks of the opposition House Leader if, in fact, you did impute the improper motive.

HON. MR. SMITH: It matters not to me whether it's considered an answer to a question or a ministerial statement. What must be out is the truth about what is going on here, and this is the forum in which to do it.

I want to restate that the process in British Columbia is filled with integrity. The people in it are filled with integrity and are entitled to be treated thusly. The failsafe on the system we have in British Columbia is that any citizen, including the police, can swear information if they have it.

I have invited the Leader of the Opposition, who made a very serious allegation at a press conference, to put the information he has and the people he consulted before Mr. Hall, who is one of the most outstanding counsel in this country - the person who prosecuted the McKitka case to which the Leader of the Opposition referred in that press conference. I asked him to do that for the reason that he might reconsider the decision. That has not happened. So, Mr. Speaker, I put this material before you and before this House. I say simply to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew that if you have information, sir, then appear before a justice of the peace and swear it. Do not politicize even that process.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition: please stand in this House before all citizens and repudiate and state that you do not condone a system that would require and request the Attorney-General of British Columbia to disclose police files about any citizen to people not authorized to have them. That system, sir, is corrupt, and you know it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, I would like to ask the Attorney-General to review, at his convenience, the

[ Page 8962 ]

process for making ministerial statements and the bounds as established by a rules committee of this House in terms of the scope and parameter. I believe you will find that you have extended your remarks beyond the regular bounds of the ministerial statement.

MR. SIHOTA: I appreciate those comments, because the Attorney-General Is obviously not prepared to pay homage to the rules and traditions we have in this House in relation to ministerial statements, and he went beyond those bounds.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I was going to be relatively brief in my comments, but if the members want to chatter over there, I guess I'll have to take a little longer than I anticipated.

The comments made by the Attorney-General were somewhat sanctimonious, and he protests a little too much. In the course of his statements, as he tried to wrap himself around and embrace a number of legal principles...

[2:45]

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I guess this is the kind of behaviour we're beginning to expect from that side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

... and as he tried to talk about a process that we have, the minister carefully avoided the issue at stake in this instance.

Let me put that issue directly before you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of the House so they understand what the issue is. The issue is very straightforward: it is whether, in cases involving the potential criminal wrongdoing of a minister, those decisions should be made privately and quietly in the back rooms of the office of the Attorney-General or whether they should be made openly and publicly in court where justice can be seen to be done.

The reason we made the request for the Attorney General to review this matter and ask that the matter be referred to court without us having to take the action we have said we will take -and which we will indeed take if the posture of the Attorney-General doesn't change -is that we felt it vital that in this Instance justice be seen to be done. Too long has this government preferred to do its work in the back rooms and not openly.

That request was made in the context of a number of facts which I'll talk about now. The first was that it had come to my knowledge that the RCMP had recommended in this instance that charges be laid. I found it most disturbing that in the months of January, February and the early part of March certain ministers opposite, including the Premier, chose to travel around this province making reference to an RCMP investigation as if to suggest that that investigation in some way excused the behaviour of the former minister; had taken a look at what he had done and had concluded that there was no breach of criminality.

This government, through its ministers - the Premier, the Attorney-General, the Provincial Secretary and the former minister - made reference repeatedly and publicly about the RCMP investigation. But for some reason, they made a decision not to disclose....

MR. SPEAKER: I can only hear a point of order at this point.

HON. MR. SMITH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to give notice that I will be raising a matter of privilege at the end of this statement.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is so advised. just before we continue, everyone has a copy of MacMinn's rules. I would refer those members who wish to participate in the debate to have a look at pages 49 and 50 and ensure that they're within the scope of the debate of reply.

But since the original statement was as broad as it is, I'm listening carefully to the remarks from the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. Would the member please continue.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, public utterances were made by members opposite, including the Premier of this province, in reference to an RCMP inquiry. Yet a decision was made not to disclose the fact that the RCMP had recommended that charges be laid in this instance.

I knew that at the time, but the reason why - and this gets to the whole matter of how this came up today in the House - we are asking questions, as we legitimately should in a democracy, is because we were aware of those facts, and we have seen what ministers have had to say. Today, regrettably, the Provincial Secretary chose not to answer questions with respect to whether or not he knew about the RCMP Investigation.

Now I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker and other members of this House, that we will be unrelenting In our desire to ask those questions over and over again until - to use the Attorney-General's words -we get to the truth of the matter.

Let me put it on the record in advance, as we did in the Knight Street pub affair, what we intend to ask. We want to know: Was there a political damage control strategy developed here? Who developed it? I want the minister to know now so that he can prepare for the set of questions we will be asking on those issues.

MR. SPEAKER: At this point I have to stop the member. I referred earlier to the Journals and MacMinn's ruling on the scope of answers to ministerial statements. Essentially it says as follows: "...will confine himself specifically to the points raised by the minister."

I can foresee a time when there will be a debate on this subject either in committee, which the Chair will not be aware of, or at some other time, but not during

[ Page 8963 ]

ministerial statements. I must ask the member to confine his remarks in reply to the ministerial statement made by the minister to the scope of subject that the Attorney-General left for you. Any other notice that you wish to give of other debate that you wish to enter at another time.... There's another time for it, but not right now. Please continue.

MR. SIHOTA: It has subsequently come to our attention that it wasn't once but twice that the RCMP asked that charges be laid. They asked for a review of the original decision, That's a seldom used process and I think it flows - if my memory serves me correctly - from recommendation 61 of the recommendations that Mr. Hughes put forward some time ago. To the best of my knowledge, it was one of the first times that process had been used.

As a consequence...

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The Attorney-General is going to have his chance.

... it seems to me that it is wholly appropriate for us to raise these matters, and it is wholly appropriate for us to consider the action that we've outlined with respect to an information.

It is also, Mr. Speaker, I would submit, not out of the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you still here?

MR. SIHOTA: Do you want to enter into this debate? You will have your chance.

Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual for counsel on a criminal matter . . . . I understand that the Attorney General has not had much experience in our criminal courts and that he does not realize, obviously, that it Is not unusual for police reports and particulars to be provided to counsel with respect to the details of a police investigation. That is what our request was all about.

The Attorney-General cunningly has chosen to quote only one aspect of the letter that we sent to him and has used that to frame his argument. I would like to put the letter that I directed to the Attorney-General in its proper context. Let me read out what I wrote, starting on page 2:

"Since you have chosen not to prosecute Mr. Reid, I am left to assume that you have evidence exculpating Mr. Reid. I take it that evidence was somehow overlooked or ignored by the RCMP. If so...."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have a point of order.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would remind the hon member that he does not use members' names in this House. He's been here long enough to know that.

MR. SPEAKER: The interjection is in fact quite in order. I would have hoped that all members, with the exception of the two who have most recently arrived, would have learned that rule, and they already appear to have learned it. Would the member continue.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I'm just quoting from the letter, and in the past I've seen members, when quoting from letters, actually refer to the name. But fair enough.

"If so, I believe it is in the public interest to know what that evidence is. I therefore Invite you to tell me..

And I want to Issue that invitation again to the Attorney-General.

Second, let me also go on to quote the next paragraph:

"I also think it is incumbent upon you to advise me as to what public interest considerations were applied in this case. I believe it is incumbent upon you to assure the people of British Columbia that justice appears to have been done.'

That, Mr. Speaker, touches on the other two issues the one I've referred to, that the Attorney-General chose to ignore, and the second one, which is a consideration in deciding whether to proceed with a criminal conviction.

The next paragraph says:

"I therefore invite you to provide me with this information. In addition, I would be grateful if your office could forward to me the following material so that I may have a clear idea as to why and on what basis the RCMP recommendations were rejected.' Then the request was made.

The Attorney-General knows full well that his ministry, on previous occasions....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Say it louder. Get out of the gutter.

MR. SIHOTA: I think It best I didn't hear that one.

I can quote to the Attorney-General other cases of which his ministry has provided us the full files in the past. To suggest that that would be a violation of his duty is incorrect.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not going to transcend to that level, Mr. Attorney-General.

Let me summarize then. Firstly, It is wholly appropriate for us to raise these matters both in court and within the legislative chamber, as much as the government may find embarrassment in these matters being raised.

Secondly, let me tell the Attorney-General - and make it very clear to this House -that it is imperative that justice be seen to be done. The government is currently under a cloud of suspicion with respect to whether or not justice has been seen to be done in this case.

I would invite the Attorney-General one more time to reconsider the handling of this matter to date and take the appropriate action and refer this matter to the courts where the public can openly see the

[ Page 8964 ]

merits of both sides of the dispute. A court - and not his office - could then properly make a determination as to the guilt or innocence of the minister involved.

[3:00]

MR. SPEAKER: First of all, hon. members, before continuing, let me just point out that when we deal with matters of ministerial statements, the Chair is constrained. When a minister goes beyond the bounds of normal ministerial statements, then the answers can go beyond the bounds of normal ministerial statements.

There is perhaps a better forum, in the orders of the day and the proceedings of this House, to have such a discussion. However, it has proceeded to this point. There is no further discussion on the ministerial statement. That Is established In our standing orders. However, the Attorney-General did invite the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement, and if he would like to make a statement....

The Leader of the Opposition is standing. May I ask the member under what pretext he is standing?

MR. HARCOURT: I am standing under the rules of debate, where it says that in the case of ministerial statements, It Is usual to permit the Leader of the Opposition to make some remarks thereon.

Secondly, I was Invited by...

MR. SPEAKER: That is appropriate. You are quite correct. It is appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition or his designate to make some remarks.

When the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew stood in his place to respond to the remarks made by the Attorney-General, the Chair takes It on the assumption that he is operating as the spokesman for your side of the House, and there will be only one.

However, you were invited to make a response, and if you wish to make a response, leave will be required at this time for that to proceed.

MR. HARCOURT: I would seek leave to respond.

MR. SPEAKER: Could I have silence please, so I could ask the question. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. HARCOURT: This is an important matter. It goes not just to the integrity of the rule of law and our legal system, but of our democracy too. The Attorney-General Invited me to rise and speak in this matter, and I intend to do just that.

I may say that the release of police files on citizens is not the issue here, as the Attorney-General frames it.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: The Attorney-General invited me to respond, and I intend to do that, however long it takes In the face of the braying that I hear from people who are braying on the democracy and the rule of law that we are proud of. If you want to continue to do that, please be my guest. You are only diminishing yourselves before the people of this province, so be my guest, if you want to behave that way.

I was asked about the matter of police reports, and I know that the Attorney-General does not have a great deal of experience in appearing In criminal courts. I have represented 400 to 500 people before the courts of this province in criminal trials, and I may say...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If members can't restraint themselves, will they please excuse themselves from the chamber. We're not dealing with the regular, normal debate. I would like to hear the response from the Leader of the Opposition, because the Chair may be called upon at any time now to make a decision. I'm having some difficulty hearing all the remarks from the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. HARCOURT: I may say, Mr. Speaker, for the edification of members of this House who are prepared to listen, that particulars of a case are made available from police reports every day to lawyers who are acting for people. This is done so that the administration of justice can proceed and so that our court system can work.

The Attorney-General also made reference to this matter being odious to him, and I can tell you that indeed this is an odious matter. It is one where justice must be done. We have an ex-Provincial Secretary who did wrong, was caught and resigned. It's very clear that that train of events happened. It was because of the possibility of creating a monopoly for his campaign manager and best friend -not just in White Rock but in Surrey and throughout this province.

The Attorney-General impugns my motives. I will tell him that my motives are very clear. It is because of my respect for the rule of law that I became a lawyer. It is because of my respect for our democratic system that I became an elected member of this Legislature. And it is from 18 years of being an elected political leader in this province that I have a great deal of respect for open bidding, for fair tendering and for members not misusing their office for their friends and insiders to the detriment of the citizens of this province.

The Attorney-General can huff and puff and put the people of British Columbia off the trail of the ex-minister who got caught. We will not rest until the truth prevails and justice is done. We will not rest until there is an introduction of proper conflict-of-interest laws in this province, laws that are not guidelines set by a Premier who then interprets them but strong laws that have an independent arbiter to decide whether a member has broken the laws of this province.

[ Page 8965 ]

I would feel far more confident about the Attorney-General's concerns for justice if he would stand up in this House and issue a ministerial statement about a strong conflict-of-interest law, about the underfunding of the legal aid system, which I was one of the founders of....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor in response to an invitation by the Attorney-General on a rather specific point brought forward by the Attorney-General. Between the interjections, I am able to hear what the Leader of the Opposition has to say. I would suggest to him and to the House that his discussion is now beyond the scope of the ministerial statement made by the Attorney-General and the response invited. Several items have been canvassed that were not discussed in the Attorney-General's ministerial statement.

MR. HARCOURT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will conclude by referring to page 3 of the Attorney-General's own letter to me:

"An Attorney-General must not, except in the clearest and most compelling of exceptional circumstances, become involved in a review of charging decisions, Intervention by the Attorney-General is only appropriate in instances such as when the integrity of ministerial officials has been brought into question."

This is exactly such a situation. It is exactly in those circumstances that we now request the Attorney-General respond by doing the right thing and responding to the request that we have put forward.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Attorney-General starts, the Attorney-General advised the Chair that he wished to bring forward a matter of privilege. I will review for members what that involves: stating the matter briefly, allowing the Chair to consider the matter as stated briefly, and being prepared to bring forward the motion at the appropriate time should the Chair find that a matter of privilege does occur.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the privilege to which I aver is this. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) said that the Attorney-General had been involved in a backroom deal in relation to this matter of the charging process we are discussing

Mr. Speaker, very simply put, when the Attorney General of the province - this province or any other jurisdiction - is accused of being Involved in a backroom deal, it necessarily follows that his privilege as a legislator has been impugned and that the office he serves has been attacked in the most fundamental of ways. That is the first point.

The second, Mr. Speaker, is this. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew said that the Attorney-General talked about police investigations on more than one occasion. That statement is false. The Attorney General, since being named Attorney-General, when asked with respect to all police investigations, has stated on every opportunity that he does not discuss police investigations, whether they are taking place or not. That applies in this case as well.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege, I would simply ask that those comments be withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not correctly a matter of privilege. The member can rise under a number of standing orders. If the member wishes to ask for a withdrawal of an incorrect statement that was made, then that Is the way we'll deal with the matter. If you wish the Chair to rule on it as a matter of privilege, then the Chair will rule on it as a matter of privilege. I will leave it to your guidance,

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to accept a withdrawal. If that is not forthcoming, then I would indeed ask you to rule on it.

MR. SIHOTA: Quite simply put, Mr. Speaker, in reply to both the points the Attorney-General made, I would have had to have said it to be able to withdraw it. I did not use the words "backroom deal" at all.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member will continue.

MR. SIHOTA: My understanding and recollection are that I referred to the issue at stake here; namely, whether or not these matters should be resolved in court or in the back rooms of the Attorney-General's office. I made no reference to a deal.

With respect to the second matter, I have before me a quote....

MR. SPEAKER: I only have one question for the member: does the member wish to withdraw? If the member doesn't wish to withdraw, I will deal with the matter as a matter of privilege.

MR. SIHOTA: I didn't say it. No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Then the Chair will deal with the matter as it was brought forward - as a matter of privilege - and bring back a decision at the appropriate time.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I realize you have had a trying day, but there are definite little recipes about how we deal with privilege: the first possible moment, written information to be read and a motion to be submitted. Are you going to ask for that in this case?

MR. SPEAKER: The member can rest assured that the whole process will be followed. The process for a matter of privilege, though, is that the matter should be stated briefly, with the Chair to consider the matter and to bring back a ruling. I have just such a ruling from a matter of privilege brought forward yesterday. If we've concluded this piece of business, I propose to proceed with that.

[ Page 8966 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, yesterday afternoon at the 2 o'clock sitting, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) rose on a matter of privilege relating to remarks made by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) during proceedings In the House on April 5. The minister stated that she listened to the Hansard tapes which had recorded the interjection in question. The minister was asking at that time that the second member for Victoria make an apology and withdraw the remarks in question. The hon. member did not tender the appropriate motion at the end of her statement of the matter of privilege, and accordingly the matter raised does not qualify under the rules of the House.

Ministerial Statement

GO B.C. GRANTS

HON. MR. SMITH: I seek the floor to make a very brief ministerial statement.

Moments ago the Leader of the Opposition stated that the integrity of ministry officials is in question, in reference to the Ministry of the Attorney-General. I can only conclude, Mr. Speaker, that he is referring to the integrity of the individuals who are involved very much in the decision that was taken. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because individuals such as the Hon Ted Hughes, the Deputy Attorney-General of British Columbia; Mr. Bill Stewart, the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General for the province of British Columbia; Mr. Robert Wright, the regional Crown counsel in Vancouver; Mr. Ace Henderson, who is on contract to the Ministry of Provincial Secretary; Mr. John Hall, on retainer to the Ministry of the Attorney-General; and Mr. Richard Peck, on retainer to the Ministry of the Attorney-General.... None of these individuals deserves to have those statements made or Implied. If you wish to sully me, then you may feel free. Do not sully people of their integrity.

[3:15]

I therefore advise the House, Mr. Speaker, that I will convene a public inquiry into the process that was undertaken and the competence and the integrity of every single individual who was involved, and I will invite any citizen to seek status at that inquiry to ask the questions they want and to cross-examine anyone else whom they haven't themselves called.

MR. HARCOURT: The Attorney-General Is once again going off on a wild goose chase. He totally misconstrued my reference. It is not to his ministerial officials that I am referring, and he won't even stay to listen to this comment. I think it's important that he hear this comment. He's walking out on us now, Mr. Speaker, because he doesn't want to hear the truth on this matter as I put it forward.

I said that the integrity of ministerial officials.... The ministerial officials we are talking about here are with the Ministry of Provincial Secretary, and that Is who I referred to throughout my remarks. I have never at any time referred to the integrity of people like John Hall, Ace Henderson, Bob Wright or Ted Hughes -many of whom I have known for my 20 years at the bar and have the greatest of respect for.

For the minister to misconstrue what I said Is abominable. I have never at any time referred to the officials in the Attorney-General's department. For the minister to get up now and misconstrue that and to then set up a public inquiry without even staying to listen to what I said -and what I have said from the beginning -Is a misuse of the public inquiry process and a waste of taxpayers' money. He won't even stay to hear my explanation and my support for the officials he has in his department. I think that it Is another attempt to get away from the very simple truth that the people of British Columbia know will be addressed and has to be addressed. That is that the Provincial Secretary did wrong, he got caught and that justice will be done.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Leader of the Opposition just impugned my integrity, and I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It may clarify matters If the Leader of the Opposition can respond.

MR. HARCOURT: I was referring, as I have throughout my remarks, to the ex-Provincial Secretary. It does not involve the present Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker at the first business day of this session, I introduced Public Accounts. It has come to my attention that, by virtue of a coding error In coding some supplier numbers, volume 2 of Public Accounts contains a number of clerical errors. As a consequence, I would like to table today errata to volume 2 of the Public Accounts that I tabled for the 1988-89 year.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a letter dated today, addressed to the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney, PC, MP, Prime Minister of Canada, with respect to the matter which was debated In the House yesterday on behalf of all British Columbians. I table the letter for information.

Orders of the Day

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

(continued)

MR. VANT: As the first member for Cariboo, I'm pleased to continue to support this good government throne speech. This government cares about the social and economic well-being of its first citizens. There is a very active Premier's Council on Native Affairs. The throne speech announces the creation of a first people's traditions for tomorrow council to assist in funding native language, heritage and cultural centres.

[ Page 8967 ]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to say, too, there is real substance to this government's handling of such things as land claims, especially when we consider the cut-off land claims. Indeed, it's this government, since 1976, that has restored 15 out of the 22 cut-off land claims.

The socialist NDPers say the settlement of land claims will somehow eliminate land-use conflicts. I don't agree with that. There will always be conflicts, whether those land claims are settled or not.

Also I understand that the socialist NDP say they would recognize aboriginal title. What does aboriginal title mean? The federal government doesn't recognize it; indeed, not even the NDP government of the Yukon recognizes it.

For sure, consultation with our first citizens is very important, and significant involvement of native people in all our land use decisions is very important' It can be done, and the native people are very competent in speaking for themselves. I refer to Carrier Lumber Ltd. in the west Chilcotin, in the western part of my constituency, and the Ulkatcho Indian tribe. In terms of the harvesting of timber in that area, both Chief Jimmy Stillas of the Ulkatcho and Paul Klotz of Carrier Lumber Ltd. have done very well in working out to their mutual satisfaction their common concerns.

I'm also glad that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) came up to the Cariboo to talk to the Cariboo Tribal Council about PA19. I'm also glad that just a week or so ago the Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) also came to the Cariboo, again for very important meetings, consultations and dialogue with our first citizens.

There are many stakeholders in the use of our provincial forest lands. There are trappers, ranchers, prospectors, outdoor recreationists -cross-country skiers, hikers, guides, hunters and, of course, tourists, who are always concerned about the visual impact of harvesting our timber. For sure, this perhaps is why PA16 has not been signed and sealed yet That is affecting the Ainsworth proposal to build an oriented strand board plant at 100 Mile House. Not every "i" has been dotted and not every "t" has been crossed, because the parties to that agreement, as the parties to any PA - pulp area - agreement, have to live with those agreements for a long time, as do all the other forest users.

I sincerely believe that meeting the economic and social needs of the various stakeholders in the forest resource requires the Forest Service to provide a coordinated and systematic approach to forest land use. I firmly believe that integrated management is the key to long-range wise use of our forest resource

This throne speech acknowledges very properly that forestry is indeed the economic backbone of British Columbia. In terms of timber harvesting, a balance is very necessary between harvesting on the one hand and conservation on the other, especially to ensure sustainable development.

Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker, we enjoy at this time in our province a very fragile prosperity. It depends on export markets, commodity prices, the Bank of Canada interest rates and that huge debt burden. This throne speech, I'm proud to say, gives the signal to all our citizens that this government will work hard to ensure the security of British Columbia's economic prosperity and the quality of life that we all cherish. We know in the Cariboo that we're very dependent on the good policies of this government for proper resource management and the preservation of our own unique, special lifestyles. It is with those closing statements that I unequivocally support this throne speech of this year of 1990.

Finally, it mentions as well the all-important equity for women. I was amazed that the NDP socialists and their constituency organization had to impose a quota on how many women they would have on their executive. And I'm happy to say that the Cariboo Social Credit constituency association, without any imposition, by free elections, have an executive that is exactly 50 percent women and 50 percent men. So we have equity already in Cariboo South.

MRS. BOONE: I appreciate this opportunity to respond to the throne speech, as there are many areas that people are very concerned about.

When I first listened to the throne speech, I thought that perhaps the government had been listening to us and that we were going to see some positive action in some of the areas I'm concerned about. In fact, on the surface this speech almost sounded socialistic. Perish the thought that this government would ever apply socialist philosophy to anyone but large corporations. However, this speech did mention a couple of items that at first blush certainly appear to be socialist policy.

I mention pay equity - and I am glad to see that the member before me mentioned pay equity as well. At various times over the past years I have had discussions - one could say arguments - with various people from the more right side of the spectrum from us, and until recently they didn't agree with pay equity. They used to use arguments such as: this was going to cost us too much money; you can't interfere in the marketplace; it's not really necessary.

In fact, the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) came into my region and mentioned on a radio program that pay equity wasn't really necessary; that women had to begin to think and behave a little more like men; that that would be one of the answers to the inequities that have occurred with women.

[3:30]

When New Democrats suggest pay equity, we are always met with: how are you going to pay that? In fact, when New Democrats mention any program whatsoever, the first response off anybody's lips is: How are you going to pay for these things? How do you expect to foot this bill?

I would like to ask the government those things. How do they intend to pay for pay equity at the same time they are saying they are going to arrest the problem of public sector wages increasing tremendously-in fact, above the private sector? How are

[ Page 8968 ]

you going to arrest those public sector wages while simultaneously dealing with pay equity and giving women the necessary increases required to put them on a regular footing with the male members? I don't know. The government doesn't mention this. They don't do any of those things.

So I looked a little closer at this. And I think you can rest assured that this government will never Implement a socialistic policy like pay equity. The throne speech actually says that they are going to provide a framework for pay equity. The women of this province don't want a framework for pay equity; they want pay equity. They don't want to have something to build upon; they want to have that thing built right now so they can see what is going to happen there. They don't want a framework for pay equity.

A socialist plan mentioned is the establishment of a B.C. pension plan. Real good idea! Sounds a little socialistic to me, though. This is the sort of thing we talk about in terms of giving people access to money, providing funds for women who are homemakers, etc., and giving them some pension money. It's probably something that a good socialist government would bring In.

Again, there Is no mention here of - and nobody asked this government -how you are going to pay for it. If that was a New Democrat saying It -if my leader were saying we're going to implement a pension plan -they would be saying in headlines: "How are the New Democrats going to pay for this? They're going to sell us down the tube. They're going to raise your taxes." They never asked this government how they are going to pay for these things.

When you look a little closer, you think, "Gosh, maybe this government is going to do something; maybe they really do care." But you know what they're going to do? They're going to have a White Paper on this pension plan. Is this White Paper going to be on recycled paper, one might ask? I think this White Paper will probably get pretty yellow sitting on the shelves, once an election is over and they don't have to meet this promise. Just like the federal government has allowed the day care plans that they promised to sit on the shelves. They have no Intention whatsoever of meeting the promises in this White Paper.

As I realize, there Is no real intention to act on either the pay equity or the pension plan. I thought I should look a little closer at the other promises there, promises that I thought sounded pretty good when we were hearing the Lieutenant-Governor talk about them.

What did I find? I can tell you that I didn't find much in the throne speech at all. We have promises to expand, increase, improve, strengthen, enhance or re-examine just about everything in B.C. Those things that aren't going to be examined or enhanced are going to be maintained or continued. Those are the words that are in the throne speech.

I'd like to give you a couple of examples. I've gone through them. I have three pages of examples of enhancements, promises and re-examinations of various things that are around. The government is going to promote - and I think our agricultural community will be very happy with this - a stronger agricultural economy by fostering entrepreneurship and targeting economic development activities.

Just what does that mean? I would ask any member who is speaking from the other side later on to tell me just what the heck that means -fostering and targeting. I think that would give a great amount of security to those members in the Cariboo who are suffering because they can't find markets for their cattle, for those people in the Okanagan who are suffering because of the problems in their grape growing industry.

I think that those people would find a great deal of security knowing that this government is going to foster and target economic development activities. If this government can tell me what this means, I think they're further ahead than anybody else.

It doesn't stop there; there are all kinds of things here. I am glad that the member before me mentioned the native community, because they mention In the throne speech that they're going to work with the native community to improve the justice service, expand victims programs and develop greater recognition of just about everything again. But there is no mention in this document, Mr. Speaker, of the one thing that the native community in this province wants, and that Is a negotiation and settlement of land claims. There is no mention in this document of those things at all -none whatsoever. Platitudes are what we are hearing here, strictly platitudes; nothing but words on paper.

They also mention seniors in here. There's only a very short, small section about seniors, but again I think our seniors will be happy to know that their needs are going to be addressed as fully as possible. What on earth does that mean to those seniors out there who are unable to find housing in Vancouver? What does it mean about those who are being evicted from places they can't get into? What does it mean to those seniors who are facing extraneous medical costs because of the user fees that this government has imposed? I think they will know that they are going to have their needs met as fully as possible. I suppose they should be happy about that.

I suppose we should also be happy that there are going to be economic policies. They are going to stress the attraction of new industry and creation of investment. Again, what does this mean? This is what this government has been talking about time after time. Words, Mr. Speaker, are all we've got in this throne speech.

I was particularly upset to find that some of the Issues I was really concerned about have not been addressed whatsoever. I will mention very specifically the ones around forestry. In forestry they are going to re-examine current forest management practices. It certainly gives me a lot of security knowing that they are going to re-examine them. We need some action on the forest practices out there, not re-examining. What are you going to do with these things?

[ Page 8969 ]

We need to improve forest utilization, they said. Sure, we all know that. Anybody who walks in our forests and sees the waste out there can tell you that we need to improve those things. They need to promote integrated resource management. Why do they need to promote it? Why don't they just do integrated resource management, not promote It?

This is the one that I find most upsetting. Continued representation is going to be made to the government of Canada, and that's for the forest resource development agreement. If we continue the type of representation that this government has made to the federal government regarding FRDA, we're in big trouble, because the FRDA....

MR. REID: Talk to your Member of Parliament. He's responsible for that.

MRS. BOONE: Would the member go back to his own seat, please. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, this government has let us down when it comes to FRDA. FRDA is one of the most important -I think probably the most Important -federal agreements that affect my area. We are very concerned about what's going to happen to the forest resource development agreement. That has brought $50 million into our community, provided some 670 jobs and now this government is just continuing negotiations.

Those negotiations should have been taking place over the past year, and we should have had an agreement by now. We should know specifically that we are going to be able to have those dollars in our community to provide the necessary jobs to reforest our backlogged areas. We don't have that; what we've got here is a commitment to continue representation I think if they continue the type of representation we've had from them, we're going to be in big trouble.

You can't talk forestry without talking land use; land use is a very important aspect of it. However, Mr. Speaker, we can all rest easier knowing that this government intends to strengthen its policies. What policies? You have no policies regarding land use. We saw that earlier today when it came down to the Carmanah. There are no policies. There ' are no studies taking place. There is nothing whatsoever happening when it comes to land use policies.

What policies are you going to strengthen? We need to have land use policies, and we need to have policies that are going to be strong, that are going to address the issues, because the land use problem is going to be the problem in the future. Unless we address this problem, we are going to constantly be in conflict.

Again, the environment. A big step last year -they said they were going to enforce existing standards. They never enforced them in the past. This year we're going to have "Vision 2001" for the environment. Mr. Speaker, unless action is taken today, the vision that we're going to have in the year 2001 is going to be one that none of us is going to want to see.

It is with sadness that I note that there is nothing in this throne speech to deal with the type of misconduct that we have come to expect from successive Socred governments. I say "successive" because the type of conduct we've seen in the past is not restricted to this government alone.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that cabinet ministers abuse their positions and the public trust, as it has become accepted as the norm by past and present....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I am afraid the Chair cannot accept what you just said. Would you withdraw that, please?

MRS. BOONE: If it offends the Chair, I'll withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Please continue.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, I think it has become clear that cabinet ministers in this government and other governments have abused their positions. It is clear that it has almost become accepted as part of the norm.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, I know the member has a written speech and it's hard to deviate from what's there, but she's committing the same error that she committed a minute ago. I would ask her to withdraw any impugnment against any other hon. member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the hon. member will be pleased to withdraw.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, what specific part is it that you want me to withdraw? I am not impugning any particular cabinet minister. I am merely stating a fact. There have been problems, and I would like to know what the Speaker finds offensive in this section.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Impugning any member. It doesn't have to be a cabinet minister; it can be anyone in the House. We shouldn't impugn their integrity or honour, and that's why we ask you to withdraw.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, that is difficult to do, because....

Interjections.

MRS. BOONE: There are no specific references here. Do you want specific references?

Interjections.

[3:45]

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, the concern I have is that various actions in the past - the recent past and the distant past - have not been considered to be in the best interests of the members of the public.

[ Page 8970 ]

Ministers have acted In ways that have caused them problems and that have caused them to have a conflict of interest. In fact, in the past, several ministers were charged with and found guilty of offences. I don't think that is impugning anybody; it is a statement of fact.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, are you positive of what you say? That's quite a broad statement to make.

MRS. BOONE: Yes, I am.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I am always very conscious-at least I try to be-of parliamentary language and treating one another decently. But I think the member is stating a fact. There have been a number of court cases and convictions - if not felonies, at least improprieties and conflicts of interest. I think that's a fact. I think the record of the government is being questioned here, not any particular member, former or current.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I guess a reference to a group of people and charges that might have happened in years past would be acceptable, as long as the House appreciates that the last member of this assembly who was charged was a member of the New Democratic Party.

MR. ROSE: I think, Mr. Speaker, what we are prepared to say is: yes, there have been certain kinds of charges laid, but certainly the last member was not.... There have been a number of conflict-of-interest charges since that time, and convictions. I happen to know when that particular court case took place; it was In 1983. There have been at least three or four since that time. Unfortunately they happened to belong to that side of the House; but we're not all Simon pure, and nobody's making that point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, just before the member continues, it seems that once a year or once a session there's a requirement to read out this one little excerpt from good old Sir Erskine May, so I'd like to read it at this time for the edification. of everybody in the room. He said: "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."

The member continues please.

MRS. BOONE: The debate that took place today in this House clearly shows the need for this Legislature to address the problems that exist. I think that it is wrong of this government to pretend that problems do not exist regarding conduct of behaviour and the conflict of interest that has taken place in this Legislature. It's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that we should need legislation....

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, she is accusing this hon. House and Legislature assembled of having a conflict of interest. I ask her to withdraw that absurdity right now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure the member will withdraw.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member thinks that I've said that the Legislature has a conflict of interest, certainly I'll withdraw it.

The members on the other side certainly seem a little testy on this issue, as we saw earlier today during the debate - and probably rightly so. There's an old saying, "I think he doth protest too much, " and that certainly is the case right now.

The situation is that in the past we have had members of this Legislature-not the Legislature, but members of this Legislature- whose conduct certainly can be questioned and is questionable and has been questioned and will continue to be questioned, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REID: Frank Howard?

MR. ROSE: I wonder if now we're going to be pushed into naming names and dragging all that stuff up. I mean, you're the one who did it. You're the one who raised it -a former member. There have been among the current members of the House at least three I know of who have been at least temporarily denied their portfolios in the cabinet because of the appearance of conflict of interest. That is a fact, and there has been at least one criminal conviction. I don't think that's something we should be proud of. I don't know why we aren't doing something about it, and that is what the member is talking about.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: If there have been two.... One twice, by the way.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, it would seem to the Chair that there is a great deal of latitude provided during the course of discussion of the throne speech. But it would seem to me that the discussion we're getting into at this point in time Is.... We're getting onto a rocky road, I would suggest. One would find some difficulty in really appreciating the significance of it with respect to the throne speech itself. Having so said, perhaps the member could continue, and we could canvass this subject in a more temperate way.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, I can't see how I can be any more temperate than I am being. It's the members opposite who are being a little intemperate on this issue.

The people of British Columbia deserve a government that is prepared to treat its friends no better than it treats anyone else. They deserve a government that is willing to listen to the weakest and the least

[ Page 8971 ]

affluent among us with the same respect, concern and generosity as the most affluent and powerful.

They want a government that makes itself truly accountable at every step of the way by letting the public see how it conducts their business. They want a government that respects people with different values and beliefs and makes room for all of us to live in harmony with each other. Mr. Speaker, they want a government that understands that its paramount duty is to act in the public's interest and for the public good. I think that has not been done in the past.

I would like to see it happen in the future, and that Is why, with regrets, therefore I make the following motion, seconded by the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones): that the motion, "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session, " be amended by adding the following: "But this House regrets that the speech was largely a compendium of vague promises of more consultations and more studies on areas of public concern where action is vital, and further regrets that no proposals for conflict-of-interest resolution and enhanced ethical behaviour requirements for cabinet ministers were included In the speech."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the member pass a copy of the motion forward, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, you have concluded then that the amendment is in order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not concluded whether it is in order or not in order.

On the amendment.

MR. JONES: It's a pleasure that I rise to second the amendment from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, an amendment that laments the absence within the throne speech of any proposals to deal with the difficult subjects we've talked about today in this House with some difficulty - that of conflict of interest and enhanced ethical behaviour of members, particularly cabinet ministers.

I appreciate that this is a difficult subject to deal with, and it's a potentially acrimonious one. My remarks will certainly be trying to make the point that we make in our amendment, but at the same time in such a way as not to offend the House. And if I do so, I know the Speaker will certainly bring me back into line.

The reason why I feel very comfortable seconding this amendment is because I think the public - and we have a number of members of the public in the gallery today who have sat through this afternoon and have witnessed the cantankerous nature of this House in debate on these difficult issues.... Those people-as the member for Prince George North indicated - those ordinary working men and women in this province, those people without benefit of political connections, those people who join us in the gallery today, have expectations of their elected members, and they particularly have expectations of cabinet ministers in this province - cabinet ministers who have been honoured with the power to collect and spend taxes on behalf of those people. Those expectations are not great on the part of the members of the public. They're fairly simple. They're not so demanding and so onerous that they should not be lived up to.

Those members of the public who sit in the gallery today have expectations of a fair, honest and impartial exercise of power on the part of cabinet ministers. They expect those cabinet ministers to put aside self-interest and personal gain for themselves, for members of their family, and also for friends and insiders - contacts they might like to help in a particular way because of a connection they have. And as a very minimal expectation, those people who join us in the gallery today, so representative of the public, expect that at the slightest hint of a conflict of interest or bias a cabinet minister would at the very least disqualify himself from participation in any discussion or from any voting on an issue where he has that bias or perceived conflict of interest.

If those people in the gallery and those members of the public could speak to cabinet ministers today - and it doesn't matter their political stripe, for they would say it to cabinet ministers in this House, in the federal House and in municipal councils - they would say that if you cannot live up to those simple expectations the public have, then you must resign that privileged position you have.

I want to speak In specific reference to some remarks made yesterday in the House by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage). The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, who is one of those people who does have that honoured position of member of the cabinet, in an emotional but specious and spurious attempt to put forward a motion of privilege in this House, demonstrated his own ethical myopia, because even the Premier of this province....

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask the hon. member for Burnaby North to withdraw his allegation against the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. Keep it decent. Don't accuse anyone of ethical myopia, whatever that may mean. That's highly offensive to this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair, at least on one previous occasion this afternoon, has reminded members that they mustn't impugn the motives of any other member. I would remind the member that this is just not acceptable in this House. Motives have been impugned, as I heard, and I would ask the member to withdraw.

MR, JONES: Mr. Speaker, I was definitely not impugning any motives. My comment was on the

[ Page 8972 ]

remarks made in this House yesterday and describing them. If I finish my remarks and If they offend that particular minister of the Crown....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the hon. member would contribute to the ongoing good measure ... in this House if he would withdraw that remark.

MR. JONES: Very well, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I'll withdraw if it offends the sensibilities of the Minister of International Business and Immigration (Hon. Mr. Veitch).

Let me explain why I think those comments yesterday were inappropriate. Look at the Premier's own guidelines on conflict of interest and ethical behaviour, guidelines that we say -and the Leader of the Opposition said so eloquently earlier today -need to be enshrined in legislation in this province. I believe It's the fifth guideline - and the Premier can correct me If I'm wrong -that suggests that ministers shall withdraw from decisions that affect themselves or their Immediate family's financial interests The Premier's own guidelines refer to a members family and their financial interests. It was absolutely absurd yesterday for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) to suggest that we were criticizing his parents.

[4:00]

For two days in this House last summer - on June 5 and 6-1 spent considerable time canvassing with the minister about development in the municipality of Delta and his own personal financial Interests in areas adjacent to development there. I was providing that minister an opportunity at that time -some months ago - to declare publicly that there was a conflict of interest in that situation. The minister at that time chose not to take advantage of that opportunity to declare his particular interests in property that was about to be affected by development that he had a hand in creating. He chose not to come clean He chose instead to slip and slide and evade that particular issue, and that Is on the record.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. On many occasions this House found imputations of "coming clean, " "slipping" and "sliding, " when referred to another member, to be quite unparliamentary. I think the member should withdraw that language. It Is not parliamentary at all.

MR. ROSE: I'm quite sure my hon. friend will withdraw if that's found to be offensive. I think that probably what he meant was that the minister was somewhat less than explicit in responding to the questions posed by my hon. member during estimates last time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would expect that the member for Burnaby North would withdraw those remarks and that he would consider what he Is saying when he proceeds with his speech so that we will not have to bring this matter up again.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, could I ask if "slipping, " .sliding" and "evasive" are unparliamentary?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think anything that Is considered to be unparliamentary, when referring to another member, Is unparliamentary, so I would ask you to withdraw that, please.

MR. JONES: If anything that's considered unparliamentary is unparliamentary, then of course I would certainly withdraw those remarks.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I know that this member is still wet behind the ears and doesn't understand the rules of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'll withdraw it. What do you want me to withdraw: "wet" or "behind the ears"?

Mr. Speaker, he must withdraw without reservation, without equivocation. He can't say "if it offends someone" or "if it happens." If it is unparliamentary, it is offensive to this House, and I just wish you would so apprise him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I think the member has already been apprised.

MR. JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate all assistance from members opposite and from the Chair.

The point very simply is that we had a motion of privilege yesterday. I think the motion of privilege was out of order, and I'm sure the Speaker will so rule. But if there has been a breach of privilege, then It has not been by members on this side; in fact, it has been by the minister. It has been a breach of privilege against the taxpayers of this province who ultimately pick up the costs from the windfall profits that are about to be made by speculators in the municipality of Delta.

Let me speak in general about ministers. As I said earlier, the public has expectations of their ministers of the Crown. When a minister or a Premier, In general-riot any specific ones, not in this Legislature, but in general - continually confuses his or her public duty with private business, then very clearly that kind of behaviour... With this amendment we're suggesting that we have legislation and that it should have been promised in the throne speech. But when we have the kind of situation where a minister puts his or her public duty behind that of their private business, then it's very clearly a conflict of interest. It's ethically questionable, and in those situations there is no alternative - it's true In British parliamentary tradition - but that the member must resign.

We have such situations existing right now. These are a matter of public record, and in order to buttress the argument for the need for this kind of legislation In British Columbia, I must suggest that we do have

[ Page 8973 ]

such examples; and I feel it is my responsibility to cite them.

Again, I will go back to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, whose record in this House and predating this House, intertwining with his responsibilities as a cabinet minister... He has put himself into those kinds of situations on numerous occasions. It is well known in the municipality of Delta that as an alderman that minister of the Crown voted a number of times on Issues that would abridge the fifth of the Premier's guidelines on conflict of interest. Specifically, he voted on rezoning applications that affected property owned by members of his own family. That is on the public record and well understood in the municipality of Delta.

If the minister..

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I just can't allow this to continue. You are impugning the motives of a minister of this House, and that is not acceptable. You have been told two or three times that this is not acceptable.

If you can't make your case for this amendment in some other way, we should go on to another speaker.

MR. JONES: Thank you for that advice, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If members would read the good book, the only time you can get into this kind of discussion - to impugn the motives of any member of the House - is on a substantive motion.

MR. ROSE: I think it would help all of us, Mr. Speaker, if you would cite a particular section of our rules or precedents that would help us here; because from our point of view we are not Imputing a motive but reciting a history.

A moment ago the minister of foreign trade and development named a former member who had been convicted of a charge in court. We could have retaliated by naming a number of other people here, and I chose not to do that. Now what the hon member for Burnaby is doing at the moment is proceeding with a case-by-case factual history of some of the things that have occurred that at least give the appearance of conflict of interest. That's all he is doing. I think that as long as he Is not imputing any motives he's probably on pretty safe grounds.

HON. MR- STRACHAN: At the outset, when the opposition House Leader said, "What are the guidelines?" with respect to this.... Well, the first guidelines - the ones that bind all of us - are that the debate must be relevant.

The amendment before us now talks about proposals, and it laments that there are no proposals Maybe that's reason for argument, and that probably would be the thread for their debate. They are not following that. But to make personal reference to a member of this House, and to use actions that occurred in another forum when the member had other responsibilities, really has no place in this debate. If the members read their amendment and if they understand the thread of that amendment - as I read it and as it is stated In the Orders of the Day, it is that no proposals exist - and stick to that debate, then we will have orderly debate. But to continue with personal reference against an hon. member of this House and to try and cite examples - which may or may not be correct - from another forum is unparliamentary.

MR. JONES: I appreciate the comments from the Minister of Advanced Education, because I think he Is quite right. That last instance cited was one that I did suggest would abridge the fifth item in the Premier's guidelines of ethical behaviour and conflict of interest, but It certainly occurred before that member was a cabinet minister, and as such could be ruled out of order. Certainly I withdraw those remarks if they are out of order.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

However, when that same member was elected and became a cabinet minister, he did so while remaining a member of the Delta council. Now clearly we have a situation here where the public perception has to be that that member is serving two masters: serving the municipality of Delta and serving the province of British Columbia as a member. The Premier at that time recognized the difficulty. What we're arguing here - as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier - is the strong desire not for guidelines that are judged by the Premier, but for legislation on conflict of interest and enhanced ethical behaviour of cabinet ministers. We believe the public interest would be much better served in the province of British Columbia if we had such legislation.

Even the Premier of this province recognized that difficulty with the first member for Delta when he served both on the council and in cabinet, and he forced that member to resign. He had to force that member. But clearly the Premier was acting properly at that time and enforcing his guidelines by asking that member to resign. The Premier understood that at least the perception of conflict of interest was totally inappropriate for a cabinet minister, and the Premier at that point did the appropriate thing. He had the minister resign from one of his seats; the member chose to resign his aldermanic seat in the municipality of Delta.

One of the questions that came up during that time, when the member was both an alderman and a member of cabinet, was the Point Roberts water deal. When the Point Roberts water deal was debated in this Legislature, the member opposite steadfastly defended his participation in that decision and steadfastly participated in that....

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I can sit here and take the heat as well as the

[ Page 8974 ]

next guy. I'll tell you one thing: if the member opposite checks the record of the decision of the council of the day - which had been there for some time -members of the party of the members opposite voted unanimously to support that particular issue. So there is....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The difficulty the Chair has in this matter is that members rise on a point of order without realizing that they have to or should in fact quote the particular standing order which has been offended. If a member wishes to bring a point of information or make a correction, it's tradition that you wait until such time as the member speaking has taken his or her place. If a member is imputing improper motives, that's another matter.

But I am listening carefully to the debate, and I find it in order. Would the member please continue.

MR. JONES: The point I was making was that under the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines, those guidelines require that a minister absent himself from any participation in discussion of a particular piece of legislation that would increase or enhance the financial holdings of a member of that member's family.

[4:15]

It's very clearly understood by those who care to read in this province that the Point Roberts water deal clearly did enhance the holdings of a member of that member's family. At the same time, that member did not withdraw from participation in those discussions. He steadfastly defended his participation in those discussions, which is against the Premier's guidelines on ethical conduct.

I'd like to move to....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. VEITCH: My point of order is simply this. The Chair obviously has no knowledge of what occurs in a cabinet meeting. Therefore the member is impugning that It Is Improper for a member of this House to vote on something that may or may not benefit a class of people. I mean if that were true, he would never be able to vote on an education bill, nor would the Attorney-General be able to bring forth a legal bill. So his tenor of debate is completely ridiculous.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I clearly remember that it wasn't a class of people that we were talking about; we were talking in reference to No. 5 of the guidelines. "Any legislation that might benefit a member of a cabinet minister's family...." So we're not just talking about a big class of people like 500, 000 school children; we're talking about a rather limited number.

I recall vividly the debate on the Point Roberts waterworks system. It was in this House, and the minister did indeed take part in that debate. He took part in It for the purpose of clarification, because he was more familiar with it. Nevertheless, he did take part In I

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has only one observation in this matter. For the purposes of the word "family, " it becomes a definition problem. If I were to use my own family as an example, there are approximately 300 direct descendants from my grandfather living In this province who might benefit in one way or another. I wouldn't even know who they are. It depends on what the member means by that word. It would assist the Chair and assist the debate if we were to define it.

I would also ask the member speaking to remember to respect the sensitive nature of imputing improper motives when discussing these matters. Would the member for Burnaby North please continue.

MR. JONES: I appreciate that advice. I did not mention specific members of the family, because the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries took great exception yesterday to any mention of members of his family.

In terms of the Point Roberts water deal, what we're talking about is George Hodgins, brother-in-law of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and, I assume, members of that person's Immediate family, which would include immediate members of the minister's family, to be specific.

What I wanted to mention also in terms of the difficult situations that this member has continually found himself in has to do with what I consider to be one of the most insidious acts of this government: the Introduction, in June 1988, of order-in-council 1141. That was the order-in-council, of course, that denied the experts on agricultural soil in this province, denied those who have been charged with the responsibility of preservation of farmland in this province, the opportunity of reviewing and deciding on applications of removal of land from the agricultural land reserve. As I said, I consider that to be one of the most Insidious acts that we have seen in the last three years.

That act was taken with no prior public discussion and no prior consultation with the Agricultural Land Commission. Very clearly, that minister participated in the talks leading up to that order-in-council. The minister must have known, from his vast experience in business and in farming, what the implications of that order-in-council were and what the impact on the value of farmland in this province would be.

Very clearly, the price of farmland had been controlled through the agricultural land reserve. Once there was the opportunity to put golf courses on agricultural land, the floodgates were opened and we saw some 67 applications in 18 months for golf courses. That's in the context of there being only 73 18-hole golf courses in the entire province of British Columbia. The applications in Delta alone would withdraw from the agricultural land reserve more than one and a half times the entire amount of land that had been withdrawn from the agricultural land reserve since 1974.

[ Page 8975 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On a point of order, may I remind the hon. member that the applications do not - and I specifically say, do not - remove land from the agricultural land reserve.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, it is improper to interrupt a member during a speech to make a correction of that nature. It would be more appropriate to do that following the completion of the member's speech.

MR. JONES: The minister is technically correct, of course, but he uses that specious argument time and again. He knows, with the investment put into a golf course - between $1.5 million and $5 million - what happens with the installation of drainage and irrigation for a golf course. He knows that all the investment in that infrastructure, as well as the restaurant and pro shop and all that financial commitment of an individual, will preclude ever again the opportunity for that particular land to be returned to farmland. So, In effect, it is removed from the agricultural land reserve.

Even more insidious is the fact that the order-in council took away the opportunity for the soil experts in this province in the Agricultural Land Commission - those who have an overview of the need for preservation of agricultural land in this province -to make those decisions. It must be the Agricultural Land Commission that makes those decisions on golf courses and not any particular municipal council.

The whole point is that the minister did not hesitate to participate in those discussions, knowing full well the financial Implications that it was going to have. He did not ask for a legal opinion on his own holdings and how they might be impacted at the time of that decision. And he did not absent himself from any discussions leading up to that. He signed order in-council No. 1141. Now, only after he has been roundly criticized by the chairman of the Agricultural Land Commission, by the Delta Farmers' Institute, by municipalities like Langley, by the head of the B.C. Golf Association, by the Southlands community committee and by the B.C. Institute of Agrologists, he says he doesn't agree with that policy.

MR. PERRY: And he has the nerve to call us sleazy

MR. JONES: The essence, Mr. Speaker, is that there was that....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of International Business.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I clearly heard the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey use the word .sleazy" with respect to the Minister of Agriculture. I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: I clearly heard what was said, and I won't ask the member to withdraw. The record in Hansard will clearly indicate that that was not what the member said.

Would the member for Burnaby North please continue.

MR. JONES: As I mentioned earlier, on June 5 and 6 of last year I gave the minister ample opportunity to declare his interest in a piece of property in Delta that was surrounded by a potential development that was being discussed in that municipality, and the minister chose not to deal with it.

The farmland in question Is class 2 and 3 farmland. It was put on the market for some $1.6 million. The minister's own real estate agent indicated at the time that that price was not reflective of the value of farmland. If one estimates that there was a down payment of some $50, 000 for that property in 1985, then that price, should it have been achieved, would have been a profit of 32 times the original investment within a five-year period.

Clearly the minister participated in discussions that led to the order-in-council that allowed for that golf course development, which caused the Inflation of the land and which has to be in violation of the Premier's guidelines on conflict of interest. So what we need, Mr. Speaker, is legislation, since the Premier indicated that he saw no conflict there because, as the minister says, it affected all farmland in the province. "I make $1.3 million and other people can make $1.3 million." But the minister did take that property off the market, as if that could somehow erase the potential gain he would make.

The only method by which that minister can extricate himself is to forget self-interest and think of the public interest. I ask that minister, in the public interest, to withdraw order-in-council No. 1141 or resign as Minister of Agriculture.

The absence of any proposals in the throne speech on conflict of interest or enhanced ethical behaviour on the part of cabinet ministers is not just a serious omission; is not just a blind spot. It is, in my view, a fundamental flaw in the entire makeup of that side of the House - the government. We know that we have had a number of instances of conflict of interest in this Legislature in the last three and a half years. We have had ministers resign their positions. In 1987 we had three or four of them - so many I've lost track. I'm sure we set an indoor record for legislatures in this country for the number of ministers resigning.

What we see is a familiar scenario every time. Allegations against a minister are made public, and either there's a whitewash by the Premier or the minister resigns pending an inquiry. We have the inquiry, and we have some report that says the minister used poor judgment, or whatever, and then that cabinet minister is reinstated by the Premier.

The recent comments - and I can only describe them as arrogant -on the part of the member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Reid), in his expectation of returning to cabinet, are really nothing new. We expect that kind of behaviour, and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) sitting there made those same kind of comments a couple of years ago. In resigning his Highways portfolio for mixing personal business with cabinet business in November 1987,

[ Page 8976 ]

that minister said: "There are several cabinet ministers who have violated the guidelines over the years and who are back in cabinet today." So I say to the member from Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale, don't worry; hang in there. You'll be back, and you belong In that cabinet.

[4:30]

As I said, we have these kinds of problems because of a lack of leadership in terms of demanding from cabinet enhanced ethical behaviour. Being caught in a conflict of interest as a Socred cabinet minister is not a sin of any serious consequence in British Columbia.

The Premier should know about conflict of interest. There is a long history there as well. When he was made a cabinet minister in 1975, virtually all of the Premier's colleagues put their interests in a blind trust. The purpose of the blind trust was to protect the minister from allegations of conflict of interest. What did the Premier do In that particular situation? Did the Premier put his interests in a blind trust? No, the Premier stayed In the nursery business, and while in the nursery business and while a cabinet minister, the minister did a number of radio shows that very clearly were promoting the then minister's own business. I think he even did a newspaper column at the time. However, I think the editor of that newspaper caught on and fired the then minister, now Premier, as a newspaper columnist.

I think what the citizens of this province expect is that in rezoning applications ministers of the Crown will be treated as ordinary citizens. Clearly that wasn't the case In Richmond. Clearly we saw the Premier as well In trips as Premier of this province -trips to California, for example -shamelessly flogging Fantasy Gardens as a tourist Mecca. As well, we had the Premier of this province borrowing huge sums of money from the same bank which the province deals with.

There is no way, If the Premier of this province wants to have referenda on controversial issues, that the public of this province would accept any of that kind of behaviour. And I think the only way members opposite might understand this particular issue is if the shoe was on the other foot.

What if we had Premier Harcourt receiving favoured treatment from Vancouver city council with Mayor Libby Davies? I wonder how the members opposite would react in that situation. What if we had Attorney-General Sihota, for example, flogging his law practice while a minister of the Crown? I wonder if members opposite would be so silent in that circumstance. What if we had Premier Harcourt borrowing huge sums of money from the same bank with which the province dealt? I don't think we'd hear silence on the benches opposite.

The Premier of this province has not provided leadership in this area. In fact, the Premier of this province wouldn't know a conflict of interest if one stared him in the face.

It's time to put this House in order.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I was going to say that it was with great pleasure that I rise in this debate, but listening to the claptrap I've heard over the last half hour in looking at this amendment makes me feel completely different.

It is very apparent to me that the members opposite are not really interested in an action plan. They're not really interested in a good debate, but rather they are simply, by innuendo based on very specious arguments, trying to impugn the members of this House. It Is for that reason that I cannot and will not support this most ridiculous amendment to a very superb throne speech.

As I listened to the throne speech the other day, I cast my mind back. And part of that casting back....

Interjections.

HON. MR. DIRKS: If the member opposite would like to listen for a little while, It might be rather enlightening for her.

I do not support the amendment. When I thought back to the throne speech some three years ago, it also was based on what the government of the day was going to do. I thought about the things that have occurred In my constituency over the last three years, things that I talked about in my maiden speech. I remember very vividly saying that Nelson-Creston was truly beyond Hope. Although we are still geographically beyond Hope -and sometimes I'm very pleased about that when I see what happens in some other areas - we are not psychologically beyond hope, nor are we economically beyond hope. That is really due to the tremendous efforts of this government over the last three years and its concern for the future of all British Columbians.

I remember also commenting on the historical mining and the importance of mining and exploration in my area. I would say to this House today that exploration and mining is still alive and well in my area, and I'm very pleased with the recent initiative by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to re-assay the samples of gold that they took a number of years ago. That work will be finished this September, and I'm sure that when it is completed we will see a flurry of activity in my area in search of gold.

In 1987 1 spoke of the Importance that has been placed in my constituency on educational opportunities. I want to tell this House that over the last three years education has been very important and has been expanded. Selkirk College has expanded the number of classes it offers. I am pleased that it now has the opportunity to expand to third- and fourth year university classes as student enrolment increases.

Not only did this government undertake its access-to-education study - something I understand the opposition members are totally opposed to; at least this amendment would seem to indicate that they do not like studies or public input.... Unlike them, we did conduct the access-to-education study In my area. Also, through regionalization - that

[ Page 8977 ]

good program - we conducted a study on what employers saw as being necessary for their employees in our area in the years to come.

We did yet another study in conjunction with Selkirk College. This focused on the students in the region and in what career fields they would be Interested In seeing classes offered. We're now in the process of combining the workforce study, the Selkirk study, the access-to-education study, as well as a similar study conducted by East Kootenay Community College to design a definitive picture of where education should be headed in the Kootenays. Completely contrary to what the opposition members would like to see, we value public input. This is a common-sense approach to long-term, post-secondary education planning, based on input from local residents.

But, Mr. Speaker, one part of their amendments says that we need action, not more studies. Well, let me tell you that last fall Selkirk College introduced several unique programs that have and will attract students from throughout western Canada. I might add that these programs have all been very successful and very enthusiastically welcomed.

A very innovative music program was established through Selkirk College at the Canadian International College campus in Nelson. The goal of this professional music program is to train musical performers for today's highly competitive commercial music and entertainment industry. The program is looking forward to establishing a professional recording studio on campus to enable second-year students to specialize in recording techniques and music programs. This really Is a very unique program in western Canada, and it is proving to be an unqualified success.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have, through private initiative -and this is something that the member opposite who is now reading might like to listen to -the fledgling Nelson University Centre. While they're very limited in their student enrolment, they did have 12 full-time-equivalent students last year, and for this I commend them. The dedication and commitment....

MR. JONES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the education in the Kootenays However, the opposition moved this particular amendment in the hopes of having a focused debate The specific areas of public concern that we wanted to bring to the attention of this House had to do with conflict of interest and enhanced ethical behaviour on the part of cabinet ministers.

Mr. Speaker, I've heard no such comments from the Provincial Secretary at this time. I am just questioning whether this is the kind of latitude we can have in this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: As the session goes on, members will want to discuss a very broad range of issues; and as the session winds on, debate becomes much more specific. But it has been an established practice of this House for many years that on the budget and throne speech virtually anything is in order, and that includes the amendment. On that basis, I would ask the Provincial Secretary to continue.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I am referring to the part of the amendment that talks about more consultation and more studies, because I am trying to prove to the member opposite that we are doing good studies and that we are, through those studies and through local input, bringing forth a plan of action. I was talking about the Nelson University Centre and the dedication of those individuals to education. Unlike the member opposite, I would certainly not make fun of the work of good people in the community.

I am very pleased to say that once again, after a number of years without apprenticeship programs at Selkirk College, we have an apprenticeship program starting on that campus. This was greatly missed by our area, and I am very pleased it is back.

This government is committed to providing quality education for all students throughout this province. Unlike the hon. members of the opposition, however, this government believes in planning for the future education of our children. And in that planning we should be listening to the people of British Columbia, unlike this amendment that would seek to limit any kind of public input into the debate. Through the studies that have been conducted in my area, we have proven many times over that we want and welcome public input.

In 1987 1 also talked about the need to improve access into our area. This has been done. Road access to the Valhalla class A park is a reality. The Kimberly-Gray Creek connector is a reality and will be officially opened shortly.

[4:45]

1 talked at length about the heritage miles through the Slocan Bluffs, Well, I would like this House to remember fondly the Slocan Bluffs, because in a few short months they will no longer be there. They will be a memory only, as the two-laning and the paving will be completed this fall. I am sure that further improvements to our road system will undoubtedly continue during this construction season.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DIRKS: The hon. member across the way brings up something that happened over the weekend. Apparently there was a little nomination convention. I am very pleased to see that the Leader of the Opposition was in our area as a visiting fireman. When he's in my area he talks about regionalization -unlike when he's in Vancouver, where he says, "If it's good for Vancouver, I'm for it; if it's not for Vancouver, I'm against it."

One of the things that the members opposite might like to reflect on is the philosophy brought out at that convention by their good candidate. I would just like to enlighten this House a little bit as to what the NDP feels the future of this province is in high technology. One of the planks of the platform of my would-be opponent is that we abandon high tech in the forest industry and go back to a labour-intensive

[ Page 8978 ]

era. So you might like to keep that in mind when you sing his praises, Mr. Member.

My thanks and those of my constituents to this government and the various cabinet ministers who were Instrumental in finding solutions to all those problems that multiplied while we had an NDP MLA for 14 years.

This thirty-fourth parliament is not over. Once again we have heard a throne speech that outlines a very ambitious program for the province, a program designed to protect the fragile economy and yet meet the environmental and social needs of the province. Unlike the negative, doubting people opposite, our government is once again putting forward a positive program for the benefit of all British Columbians -and again I stress, all British Columbians, because our government, through regionalization initiatives, has succeeded in diversifying the economy, not only on product production but also geographically.

In all fairness, we have a plan of approach. We have a very solid program, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who really has no plan of approach. His plan of approach really consists of: tell me what you want and I will say it. He said this very clearly to the IWA and Mr. Munro on the Carmanah. Then he said the same thing to his Green caucus, again on the Carmanah.

The throne speech and the opposition leader's utterance present a series of choices for the people of British Columbia: a choice between a government that has built a widely based economy throughout the province and will see that effort continue, through a powerline and gas line extension into the interior and northern areas-a point that Is very important, especially to some parts of my constituency .. a choice between decisive action by a Premier who takes a stand and is willing to let the public know his position, and the mugwumping of the Leader of the Opposition; a choice. between proven, competent fiscal managers and entrusting a fragile prosperity to a party that, depending on the time of the day and the audience it is addressing, is either socialist or free enterprise.

The throne speech, Mr. Speaker, outlines a very ambitious program; a progressive, not a regressive, plan; a plan that will have very positive effects on all British Columbians. Therefore I cannot and will not support the amendment to this throne speech.

MR. CLARK: I appreciate the latitude you've given the previous speaker; I'll indulge in the same, I'm sure, Mr. Speaker.

The motion we have moved deals with the need for conflict-of-interest legislation and for enhanced ethical behaviour requirements for cabinet ministers Unfortunately, I've only been allocated 30 minutes for this rather huge topic, which we could discuss for some time in this chamber just dealing with the last three years. I'll leave out certain members who have been in conflict of interest in the past for the sake of brevity.

I know this is a matter dear to the heart of Mr. Speaker; I know that he's very interested in conflict-of-interest legislation. I know that if we had conflict of-interest legislation, perhaps life would be easier for some members. That's the point. If we had clear legislation and a clear arbiter to make decisions - if we could go to an individual and say, "Is this a conflict of interest?"; if we could have those kinds of clear guidelines-then I dare say certain members who have found themselves in conflict In the past might well not have been in conflict. But the appearance of conflict was there because we don't have guidelines.

The member from Courtenay had to resign his seat over an apparent conflict of interest. Yet he came back into the executive council at the invitation of the Premier because it was ruled that it wasn't a conflict of interest, although It appeared to be at the time. Perhaps if we'd had clear conflict-of-interest legislation - if we had a judge or someone who could make those decisions, who could give us some advice -the then Minister of Advanced Education could have sought that advice in advance, the rules would have been clearer and he would have been spared the terrible time I'm sure he went through, having to resign from cabinet and take that big pay cut for a little while, and then come back in.

Unfortunately, we don't. We have guidelines by the Premier, guidelines in which the Premier is the sole judge, jury and executioner- although he uses the last part rather sparingly, members might find. He has guidelines, but they aren't very clear. It's hard to go to the Premier and ask for his judgment as to whether something is a conflict of interest; In fact, I dare say it's impossible.

Then we had - and I'm glad he's here - the Minister of Tourism, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Hon. Mr. Michael). Remember when the minister tried to sell lots that he owned personally to someone who was appearing before cabinet, and there was a perception that he was saying: "If you buy my lots, maybe the cabinet will rule differently on the proposal"? Remember that? He had to resign from cabinet briefly.

MR. SIHOTA: That was the first one.

MR. CLARK: Did he resign again? He resigned from cabinet, and then, of course, the Premier put him back in. What does that tell the public about the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines? It tells them, as someone once said about a verbal contract, that it's not worth the paper it's written on -and neither are the Premier's guidelines. That's why we need legislation. Other chambers, other Houses, have legislation governing conflict-of-interest guidelines, but not ours. We have the Premier's vague guidelines which he may or may not enforce. He may or may not choose to recognize a conflict of interest.

We had the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke resign from cabinet. Now that, Mr. Speaker, demonstrated.... Of course, he served a small period in purgatory. He took that big pay cut for a little while; he served his penance. He followed the Premier

[ Page 8979 ]

through good and bad - unlike other members of the government - and he got back into cabinet.

I see members over there who didn't follow that guideline - the most important guideline of all -which is to follow the Premier, right or wrong. If you do that, as we see with the member for Shuswap Revelstoke, who got back into cabinet.... That's the clear guideline, but it's not written in the Premier's guidelines. It's clearly inferred by the actions we have seen.

So he served a brief period of purgatory when the Premier decided.... That was when he was first elected. He was very sensitive. He said: "We want the highest standards for our cabinet ministers." He doesn't say that very often these days, but he did say It when he was first elected. When the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke tried to flog that personal land of his, he quickly fired him from cabinet. But then when the furor died down, he got back in. He's still there, for a while, until the next scandal comes along.

Then we had the Knight Street Pub - a sorry history in British Columbia. Remember, every day -day in and day out - we'd turn on the television, and there was the Knight Street Pub. It was just terrible for government members to watch that scandal unfold every day, day in and day out. And yet, they probably could have avoided some of that scandal if we had the kind of legislation that showed very clearly whether or not guidelines or laws were being broken. Instead, we had the Premier's millionaire friend Involved. Remember Mr. Peter Toigo? More facts kept dribbling out on television day in and day out.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Then we found that Charlie Giordano, the Premier's campaign manager, did the poll. How did he get on the list? It was very difficult. He wasn't on the list. It turned out that Mr. David Poole, the Premier's.... Remember Mr. David Poole? That's another story, but we won't go into the details of Mr. Poole. He made that one phone call to Bert Hick, who was the head of the liquor board, and he said: "Mr. Giordano is onside. Let's put him on the list. Can we put him on the list?" SO they did.

Then he did the poll for Mr. Toigo. We had Mr. Toigo, Mr. Poole, Mr. Giordano-all friends of the Premier - involved in this Knight Street Pub affair.

We had Mr. Hick, who was asked at a press conference: "Were you called by Mr. Poole, the Premier's principal secretary?" And he said no. Remember when he said no? They kept running it over and over again on BCTV; they kept running Mr. Hick's denial of the phone call. It was terrible Government members rushed to the television at 6 o'clock to turn on the TV, and there was Bert Hick saying: "No, I wasn't phoned."

Then the facts dribbled out again. Months and years went by, and they dribbled out last session. It showed that Mr. Hick had lied. Poor Mr. Hick took the fall; he lost his job.

Then we found that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. L. Hanson) was sitting there at the press conference when Mr. Hick lied. We asked: "Did you know he lied?" We never got an answer, much like we didn't get an answer today in question period on a similar question. He didn't know the answer, or if he didn't know the answer, he didn't say. It was really bad for the government. There was this cloud-this perception - that something was going on, because we had all of these friends of the Premier involved in a pub application. It just went on and on and on.

We saw all these friends and campaign managers and principal secretaries to the Premier involved in this commercial enterprise, and it dribbled out every day on television for about two years. And BCTV, doing their job as investigative reporters, kept digging and digging. We had to dig and dig on our side of the House, and it dribbled out every day. They'd rush to the television to watch the latest revelation. "My God, they're finding out. The truth is coining out. What are we going to do?" they said. It was terrible. Remember that?

[5:00]

Just think, if we had conflict-of-interest guidelines, if the rules were clear in British Columbia and if we had a judge - someone impartial - to make these decisions, we wouldn't have to go through BCTV's investigation day in and day out, the embarrassment of the government and using up question period every day every session. Remember that? It was terrible. Every session and every day we had my friend the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), until every member was tired of the Knight Street Pub affair We were tired of it, but we were finally getting the truth.

Clearly the public perception still hangs over the government to this day, and it's reflected in the polls. They try to find other issues. It's now the Carmanah. Let's pick on the teachers. Let's bring in wage control. Let's get people's attention away from all these scandals. We can't have these scandals. They're clouding public opinion. We're losing. God forgive us if we have another scandal in British Columbia to remind people of this endless series. There are other scandals and they'll be there, but they're trying to get away from it.

Of course, the true agenda of the government was clouded and they couldn't get their message out. Remember that? They had to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money advertising their version of the facts because they kept being....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe this member honestly believes in reincarnation. I think he was probably an evangelist in a previous life, or something. However, he is becoming tedious and repetitious, and I would ask you to ask him to get on with whatever it is he's trying to get on with.

MR. CLARK: I'll go on, because there are other scandals.

[ Page 8980 ]

I must say that they are now looking for an issue. They have to get an issue to get people's minds off all those scandals, to get people's minds off Charlie Giordano. Remember he was going to go to jail -sorry, he didn't go to jail; he got off. But he went to court, and the press were there. The Premier's campaign manager was charged, and every day we saw It on television.

We had David Poole. Remember? I can still see him on BCTV. I can still see that silhouette. I can still see that principal secretary. He took all the power unto himself, he made these decisions for onside people and he intervened in the process - and he's gone from British Columbia. He had to leave British Columbia, but he got a job with Peter Toigo’s dog food subsidiary in Ontario, an appropriate place for the former principal secretary of the Premier.

Remember the Expo lands controversy? Oh yes, that was another case that dribbled out day in and day out. All the members of the government ran to watch the television every day at 6 o'clock "What has happened now? What has our Premier said now? What's the line? How are we going to get out of this?" Ten times we documented the Premier inserting Peter Toigo his friend into the process.

There was another member, from Little Mountain, a member on the government side of the House, who resigned from cabinet because of the government, because of the Premier's interference on the part of his friend Mr. Toigo. We had a member resign from cabinet, but she has crawled back. She's back -we saw her yesterday - trying to help the government, trying to save Social Credit again. The great lady for Social Credit Is back in the fold, helping her friend the Premier. Yet just about a year ago she resigned on a matter of great, high principle. She lost.

The principle was: who should get it, Li Ka-shing or Peter Toigo? They were fighting among themselves inside cabinet. It spilled over to the floor of the House and finally she resigned in protest. But she's back in cabinet. Excuse me, that's a Freudian slip -she will be back.

Ten times the Premier inserted his friend into the process, and even Social Credit members knew that was wrong. Some of them resigned; some of them even resigned from caucus for a little while - remember? We've heard of people - rats, I think it is -who jump a sinking ship, but we've never seen them swim back on board before the ship goes down. We're seeing it here in British Columbia with four members.

I can't forget to mention the member for Surrey White Rock-Cloverdale (Mr. Reid). That's a sad case, because I must say I really appreciate it when he heckles In this House. It makes life more interesting, with that scintillating wit from that member over there who constantly adds to the decorum in the House. I can't ignore the fact that he tried to direct a lottery grant to two friends of his - two campaign workers. He tried to direct a lottery grant to political supporters of his. He tried, but he was caught. His hand was in the cookie jar until the press -again, thank goodness for the press - caught him. This time the Vancouver Sun - a lowly reporter covering.... Excuse me, I had better not say that. A reporter covering White Rock city council uncovered the fact that a minister of the Crown was lobbying on behalf of two political supporters of his.

But more than that, when you look at the record it wasn't just one grant for White Rock. He was meeting with the Purchasing Commission, and the Minister of Tourism was meeting as well. His staff was meeting to discuss it: "Can we make this deal that a friend of mine has into the prototype for the whole province?" He wanted to establish a monopoly for the entire province.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, I appreciate what the hon. member is attempting to do here. I used to think he was a wit; now I know he's only half a one. What he's doing here is impugning the reputation of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael), and I would ask him to withdraw it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdrawal

HON. MR. VEITCH: Which do you want me to withdraw, "half" or "half a wit"? just withdraw "half a wit"? Okay.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, discussions in this chamber will please go through the Chair. The member will continue, please.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm tempted to say that it's very difficult to match wits with the Minister of International Business (Hon. Mr. Veitch), and I'll leave it at that.

I am simply reciting the facts of a sad chapter in British Columbia history, a chapter that's not yet closed. That's a real problem for government members, because they have to get these scandals off the front pages. They have to bury them. They have to pick on those public servants - hammer them. They have to go after teachers and school kids. They have to find an issue that diverts public attention from the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale from David Poole, Charlie Giordano and Peter Toigo. They need a big issue. I mean, it has to be really bi& because if it isn't really big, all those scandals will continue to come back, all those scandals will flood back onto the front pages. There might be more scandals yet.

I could talk about the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage), but my colleague from Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) has talked about him at some length and I won't do that. But there will be more scandals, more conflict of interest - more and more-because we don't have clear guidelines in British Columbia; we have vague guidelines enforced by the Premier. The judge, the jury and the executioner is the Premier of British Columbia. I can't think of a worse adjudicator of conflict of interest than the Premier himself.

We need clear guidelines; we need them in law. They have to have the force of law, and there should

[ Page 8981 ]

be an impartial adjudicator, a judge, to make decisions on all members of the House. Only when we have them will all members be clean in the eyes of the public, because this cloud hangs over all of us when these scandals dribble out day In and day out. They dribble out on television; they dribble out in the House. We need to come clean, Mr. Speaker. The government has to come clean. They need to bring in legislation, and if they don't, we will very shortly, after the next election.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, It is indeed an honour to participate in this debate and, in fact, to raise the level of the debate on the Speech from the Throne and to speak against the amendment put forth by the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone).

First of all, it's my pleasure to congratulate you in your continuing role as Deputy Speaker.

With your permission, I want to begin my remarks by highlighting a passage from the throne speech, which read: "We enjoy a fragile prosperity. My government will maintain that prosperity through a disciplined budgetary framework within which economic growth, environmental integrity, job security and social services are maintained."

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: In spite of the socialists.

Indeed, the last four years have marked a period of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity in all regions of this province. But as the Lieutenant Governor’s address made clear, making this period of growth and prosperity a durable one is the most important challenge that we face.

The world is going through a period of unprecedented change. Freedom long denied by totalitarian socialist rule, freedom that we in Canada take for granted, is washing over the world like the fresh clear waters of a spring thaw. That process of change is still in its Infancy. The fresh waters of freedom running through eastern Europe, washing away socialism, still do not run deep. There are dark reminders that the struggle for freedom is sometimes a difficult process, a process that shows that our world is still a troubled one.

Last fall I had the good fortune to represent our province as part of a delegation of British Columbians visiting the Soviet Union. Throughout my visit I was continually reminded of the things that I as a Canadian take for granted.

AN HON MEMBER: Tell them how much money you spent.

HON. S. HAGEN: I should inform the House that I'm reminded that on that tour I spent a grand total of $20.

I was reminded of those who gave their lives fighting tyranny and fighting for the liberties that seem commonplace to us today. I was reminded of the enormous freedom we have here to speak our minds, to move freely, to worship in the religion of our choice, to create, to produce wealth and to shape our own destiny. But to the people I saw and talked to in the Soviet Union, these liberties remain a dream - albeit a dream that for once has the real possibility of taking hold. The ideology and walls that once divided the world are now crumbling. Freedom Is now replacing fear as a motivating force in the world.

[5:15]

Our world is becoming a smaller place. Still so many challenges lie ahead. Their impact will be enormous, They will be felt the world over. No one can expect to be immune from these changes. That change is globalized, affecting entire political and economic systems and particularly our environment. In my mind the changes, challenges and choices we face in this rapidly changing world of ours underline the message of this throne speech. Our government anticipates change, and its response to its challenge will determine our success, not just for this decade but for many to come.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.)

As Canada's gateway to the Pacific, British Columbia is strategically positioned to take advantage of the changes occurring in world markets. As the throne speech points out, last year marked the first time that British Columbia's exports to Pacific Rim countries surpassed exports to the United States. We lead Canada in exports to Europe. This diversification is testimony not just to government's efforts to broaden our economic base, but also to our private sector, which has responded with new dynamism and vigour.

In their February 1990 report, the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada made several observations on the performance of the British Columbia economy over the past three years. I would like to take a moment to share them with members of this House.

"For the past three years real economic growth in British Columbia averaged 4.3 percent, significantly above the national average.

"Business capital spending has provided the momentum for strong growth in 1986-1989."

MR. SIHOTA: On a point of order, I see the minister is reading from prepared notes, and I take it he prepared those notes in anticipation of a throne speech reply. But he may have not noticed that we're on an amendment that deals with the matter of conflict of interest. I just want to make sure the minister is aware of that, because his comments as of now have not touched upon the matter before the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair dealt with this matter only moments ago for your colleague from Burnaby North, who brought up the same point of order. You may wish to consult with him. Please continue.

[ Page 8982 ]

HON. S. HAGEN:

"Last year British Columbia created more new jobs, in proportional terms, than any other province in Canada. Employment growth was 5.5 percent in 1989, more than double the 2 percent rate for the country as a whole."

I know it bothers the members of the socialists to hear this sort of good news, but for years the members opposite have been telling British Columbians how ruinous government policies would be for the economy of this province.

MR. MILLER: Read the script.

HON. S. HAGEN: I would ask you to listen.

When we came to office, they predicted our policies would spell disaster, and they predicted enormous job losses. Well, our policies are creating jobs -the most jobs in all of Canada. Since October 1986, almost 170, 000 new jobs have been generated in British Columbia. In 1989, over 1.4 million people were working in this province. All I can say to the NDP is: keep on making those predictions. The people of British Columbia will keep proving you wrong.

The Investment Dealers' Association of Canada report made other important observations, of which members of the opposition should also take note.

"British Columbia leads all governments in Canada in demonstrating fiscal responsibility. Sound fiscal management Is the key to investor confidence and will enable continued real growth and new job creation. British Columbians can take pride in this strong economic performance."

More British Columbians are working today than ever before - and you should try it - testimony not only to government policies which have created a climate for growth, but also to the ability of our private sector to do what it does best, and that is to create real and lasting jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I'm particularly proud to be a minister of the government that has done so much to promote the regions of this province and to ensure that growth occurs In a regionally balanced manner. This government has taken steps to make our regions full partners in the prosperity that is sweeping this province. We have sought the ideas and input of people in our regions on a wide variety of issues.

The throne speech mentioned the provincial transportation blueprint, which will be the impetus behind new initiatives throughout the throne speech. I am continuing discussions with federal colleagues in this regard, and for a reversal on the Polar 8 decision. The Sullivan royal commission recommendations have given us a framework for major new Investments in education. Our Pacific Rim educational initiatives will continue to grow, allowing our young people to fully explore the growing economic and cultural opportunities with our partners In the AsiaPacific.

We have put post-secondary education and training within the reach of more people in more locations all across British Columbia. As the throne speech points out, over 700 additional third-year students were attracted to Malaspina, Cariboo and Okanagan Colleges, which now offer degree programs in partnership with our universities. This session of the Legislature will feature the introduction of the University of Northern British Columbia Act, and I was pleased to set in motion the consultation process to make this positive regional initiative a reality.

The regional development boards, regional advisory boards and regional advisory task forces established by my ministry are helping to build regional consensus, a regional consensus that has the backing of more than 100 community leaders, including 55 mayors, 18 regional district leaders and 16 aldermen. They are helping to set in motion new projects and new initiatives.

On Vancouver Island, for instance, they have provided the impetus for a Vancouver Island advanced technology centre. In my own riding a strong cooperative effort by the province, the regional government, the community and the private sector allowed us to make a major improvement to the Mount Washington ski-hill road. These improvements will be a major boost to the local and regional economy, providing new jobs and economic activity. Just as importantly, the upgrade of the road to Mount Washington brings to fruition one of the chief recommendations contained in Peter Larkin's Strathcona Park report.

We are consulting In the areas of forestry and health care, and on seniors' and women's issues. We are assessing ways to encourage entrepreneurship among young people. We are consulting with our small business sector, a sector that forms the backbone of the economy of this province. Small business has played a major role in this government's commitment to consultation.

In addition to the advice and input we've received from small business people serving on our regional and advisory boards, my ministry has benefited from the recommendations of the Task Force on Small Business Programs and Services, chaired by the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) and the Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Messmer). This task force was made up of key Individuals from our small business sector from all over this province. Their advice and expertise is evident in their recommendations, and their report is going to provide a sound basis for strengthening this vital sector in the years ahead.

We've reached out to the small business sector throughout the province in other ways as well, through programs such as Community Organizations for Economic Development, business information centres, home-based business seminars and Business Opportunities at Your Doorstep. A record number of British Columbians were provided access to business information and opportunities and to government services. Our business information centres, for example, served over 100, 000 clients last year.

Access to government services has improved through the establishment of access centres by my ministry in Nanaimo, Chilliwack, Prince George and Merritt. Through our Strong Communities in the 90s

[ Page 8983 ]

initiative, we're responding to the needs of local communities and helping them with their economic development strategies. This dialogue Is essential to responsive and responsible government, and It will continue.

We're consulting with people on the environment, with the B.C. Round Table on Environment and Economy. We're pulling together people from diverse backgrounds and areas of expertise, and seeking ways to find a balance on the tough issues that we face. We're dealing directly with the Issue of sustainable development, and we're not afraid to ask fundamental questions. How does our growth change in order to ensure sustainability? How do you measure the economic costs? Are the costs of Intrinsic values identifiable? For purposes of analysis, do we attach a monetary value to the environment as if it were a commodity? Will people give up their jobs or just the jobs of their neighbours? How do we measure the rights of a logger to a job versus our need for pristine wilderness?

I, like all members on this side of the House, am not scared to ask the tough questions. I've not found any easy answers or even possibly right answers Possibly there are no right answers. However, I can say that sustainable development marks a fundamental change In the way we look at the environment and the economy.

All of us now recognize that the environment and the economy are mutually Interdependent. This was clearly demonstrated at Globe '90. Were you there? Experts from around the world gathered to discuss and exchange ideas on sustainable development. I was pleased to be part of those discussions.

Sustainable development is not a temporary phenomenon or destined to fall by the wayside; nor is it a static entity that falls under the domain of a particular ministry, jurisdiction or political ideology. Rather, sustainable development is like a living, growing organism that affects not only all branches of government, but each of us as members of society, because It cuts across the societal spectrum. We In government are called upon to act as arbitrator, and that's why we are acting to mediate conflicts and achieve consensus

As members know, we've made some solid progress in incorporating the principles of sustainable development into our economic structure. In fact, as part of our plan to establish a formal mechanism to ensure sustainable development becomes part of the government's decision-making process, we've established the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development. The pursuit of a sustainable-development policy is the thread that binds together our approach to economic development. While we may still be grappling with an ideal meaning of sustainable development, we in this government recognize that it is the presence of a strong economy that provides us with the tools to ensure sustainable development. In fact, sustainable development must be the end product of our approach to wealth generation in British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: Did you write this?

HON. S. HAGEN: You bet your sweet ... I did!

The move to a cleaner environment can happen more quickly when an economy is robust and resilient. A strong economy affords the opportunity today, not given to Third World and eastern European countries or socialist countries, of implementing a process for sustainable development as a long-term solution, rather than as an ad hoc, short-term Idea. Indeed, some east European socialist and some Third World countries do not have the resources or expertise and therefore the interest to address these issues even in the short term. Because our economy is strong, we can, unlike other jurisdictions, successfully address the issue of sustainable development.

Promoting and fostering the economic pillars of this government - trade, regionalization, diversification and small business - is essential for our province's long-term economic well-being. However, facilitating these four elements is part and parcel of achieving our larger objective: namely, sustainable economic development.

For example, our small business sector -a sector responsible for creating 96 percent of all the new jobs in our province -is capitalizing on the many new opportunities emerging for environmental industries in all regions of the province. In terms of diversification, we are helping to facilitate the expansion of other environmentally friendly sectors, such as advanced technology. In my Ministry of Regional and Economic Development we are working closely with business in emerging technology sectors such as electronics, aerospace, subsea engineering and biotechnology.

Of key interest to British Columbia's high-tech future is the success of the TRIUMF kaon project, the proposed expansion of Canada's national particle physics laboratory located at the campus of UBC. At the outset of my remarks I talked about the challenges and choices we face in a rapidly changing world. Utilizing new science and technologies is one of the greatest strategic decisions we face in this country. We cannot win tomorrow's markets with yesterday's technology. In the TRIUMF kaon project we have the ability to move Canada into a position of global leadership in this leading-edge field of research. The TRIUMF kaon project represents enormous potential for Canada in seven separate areas of technology. It represents new advances in industry and medical science. It represents new jobs and quality opportunities for British Columbians and all Canadians. Our discussions to secure International funding for this project have gone very well. Members will be interested to know that it is now realistic to expect that as much as $200 million of the project's construction cost can be raised from international sources.

[5:30]

I have much more that I want to say about this great province, Mr. Speaker, but I will close my comments by saying that much has been accomplished and yet much more remains to be done. I believe that British Columbians can build on these successes and create an even stronger and more

[ Page 8984 ]

dynamic province. Our province is the envy of all Canada, and with good reason. People believe in British Columbia; they believe in its future. Working together on initiatives like those described in the throne speech and those I have described today, we can continue to make that future a bright one.

MR. SPEAKER: The standing orders require that at 1730, the appointed hour, the motion be put. It is my intention now to read the motion and then call the question. The motion is: "But this House regrets that the speech was largely a compendium of vague promises of more consultations and more studies on areas of public concern where action is vital, and further regrets that no proposals for conflict-of-interest resolution and enhanced ethical behaviour requirements for cabinet ministers were included in the speech."

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 20

NAYS - 35

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In view of the hour, I see no point in re-entering the debate at this time in the evening. On behalf of the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson), I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:40 p.m.