[ Page 11639 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Compensation Fairness Act (Bill 82). Hon. Mr. Veitch

Introduction and first reading –– 11640

Job Protection Act (Bill 83). Hon. Mr. Smith

. Introduction and first reading –– 11640

Oral Questions

Provincial deficit. Mr. Harcourt –– 11641

Mr. Clark

Budget stabilization fund. Mr. Clark –– 11641

Salary increases for public servants. Mr. Clark –– 11642

Public accounts. Mrs. Boone –– 11642

Ms. Marzari

Petro Canada land near Fantasy Gardens. Mr. Sihota –– 11642

Houston medical services. Mr. Perry –– 11643

Ministerial Statements

Commonwealth Day. Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 11643

Mr. D'Arcy

International Women's Day. Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 11643

Ms. Marzari

Motion  — Appreciation of Canadian Armed Forces. Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 11644

Mr. Sihota

Hon. Mr. Jansen

Ministerial Statements

Native land claims, Hon. Mr. Weisgerber –– 11645

Mr. Harcourt

McEachern decision on Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en land claim.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 11648

Mr. Harcourt

Points of Privilege

Premier's ownership of Fantasy Garden World Inc. Ms. A. Hagen –– 11649

Hon. Mr. Vander Zahn

Taping of members' telephone conversations. Mr. Reynolds –– 11654

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. PARKER: I would ask the House today to welcome friends from my home constituency of Skeena; His Worship Jack Thalstra, mayor of Terrace, Ald. Mohinder Takhar and Mr. Peter Monteith. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege today of introducing two people: first, Helene Minishka, who is a community activist in Vancouver-Fraserview; second, in the public gallery is Alice McQuade, who is a vice-president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. PERRY: It is my pleasure also to acknowledge Helene Minishka. I'd also like to introduce to the members my new constituency assistant, Lynn Siddaway, who I think the government members can see in the gallery above me. She is providing very fine service to the constituents of Vancouver-Point Grey after a distinguished career with volunteer organizations  — most recently the Western Institute for the Deaf in Vancouver.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is Ms. Robyn Johl and Paul Curtis, both of Victoria, and I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a gentleman from my riding. This is a rare occasion, but I would like the House to join me in welcoming Phil Jennings.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in introducing a former colleague of ours and a former MLA, Mr. John Parks.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to welcome my friend John Parks, who is in your gallery, and also to introduce Mr. Brian Giles of Squamish. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER. In the west gallery today are a group of students from the University of Victoria who are enrolled in the administration-of-aboriginal-governments program, along with their instructor, Mr. Edward John, who is a former chairman of the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council. In addition to being an educator  — a talent I didn't know he had  — he is also a lawyer and a very successful businessman. Would the House please make all of them very welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring greetings on behalf of all of us to Cliff and Gwen Upton, who have lived in the Vancouver area for a number of years and have since retired to Arbutus Ridge outside Duncan. Would you welcome Cliff and Gwen Upton, who are seated up here.

MR. SPEAKER: It might assist during the introduction process to know that since television is left in the hands of the Speaker, this part of the proceedings, which is not a formal part of our proceedings, is not broadcast.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly, I'd like to ask you to join me in welcoming a former member of this House, James Hewitt, who is here today from Ottawa.

MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, we all have many friends in the House today, I know, and one from my own riding is Mr. Martin Olivier. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Olivier to our proceedings.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, we've welcomed some former colleagues, and I'd like the House to welcome some future colleagues, Dennis Streffel, who's carrying the New Democratic banner in Mission, and Derrill Thompson from Langley.

MR. PETERSON: Today is the fifty-first birthday of the Minister of Education. Through his eyes it's the second anniversary of his forty-ninth birthday. Would the House please join me in congratulating him.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Seated in the members' gallery today and meeting with me later on are Debra McPherson, president of the B.C. Nurses' Union; Rick Lampshire, director of members' services; and Margaret Neylan, who is the president of the Registered Nurses' Association of B.C. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I would like the Legislature to welcome Ron Williams, who is a constituent of ours from the Moorehead Lake area near Likely in the Cariboo.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery are two very good friends of mine, and I would ask the House to make them welcome, Bob and Austry Heustis.

MR. PERRY: Begging your forbearance, it's not every day that two people who work as hard as Debra McPherson and Margaret Neylan are in the Legislature, and I would like to welcome them on behalf of the opposition as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members it's my official duty, I suppose, to welcome you back and advise you of a number of technical changes that have taken place in your absence.

On my own behalf I have reduced the size of the desks so that once the next writ has been returned,

[ Page 11640 ]

there will be enough accommodation for members. The desks you are in now are substantially smaller than the desks you left behind when we last adjourned. In addition to that, the microphones on your desks are most expensive and most efficient. Please leave them alone. I know some members have a habit of wanting to grasp the microphone. It will work much better for you if you leave it alone. That's a request from the technical people in Hansard.

There is one final note on matters that I undertook on your behalf. The chairs have all been modified because the House isn't getting any bigger, although the members.... [Laughter.] We will have an increased number of members joining. And for those members who have managed to restrain themselves over the festive season, there are narrow chairs and not-so-narrow chairs, and so exchanges can be arranged. I think I can safely say, for the second member for Vancouver Centre, that we made appropriate arrangements for him to have the chair that he left when the House last adjourned.

It is also a special day for us because today begins the first day of televised debate in the House, and it is the wish of the Board of Internal Economy that the Speaker arrange for television to be available. I am advised that the signal is available to 98 percent of the cable subscribers in the province and may well be available to 100 percent of them by the end of the week. A great deal of technical work was conducted on your behalf by a number of people in Hansard. Television should be viewed as an electronic Hansard, and if you will just bear with us the first couple of days and have a little patience as the operators take the time to focus on members when members rise to take their place in debate just as is normally the case when a member rises, once you are recognized and your microphone is activated, so too will be the television coverage of your particular debate.

Because the cost of television uplink is expensive, I also, without consulting anyone, made the decision that we would terminate our television transmission at 6:15. If there is a tendency to run on in the evening, we will maintain an electronic record of it, and Hansard will be available. But we will not continue to broadcast after 6 o'clock. This would have required the purchase of guaranteed satellite time. I think "prohibitive” is a nice word to use to describe the cost.

In concluding, I would like to say a special thanks to some people who have made this possible. Garth Gislason is the chief of Hansard and has done an outstanding job, as has Russ Clifford, who has assisted us, and Sandy Wharf in my office.

Introduction of Bills

COMPENSATION FAIRNESS ACT

Hon. Mr. Veitch presented a message. from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Compensation Fairness Act.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, a key element of the 12-point taxpayer protection program announced by the Premier on January 29, 1991, is control of public expenditures, of which wages paid to public sector employees is a major component. This government is committed to protecting the jobs of British Columbians, and this act will help achieve a measure of job protection within the public sector. Faced with a strained public purse and rising public sector wages, government would have no option but to reduce employment levels within the public sector. This act, by limiting compensation increases, will prevent the need for layoffs while maintaining affordable government for the people of British Columbia.

[2:15]

It's not fair to ask taxpayers, the vast majority of whom are employed in the private sector, to fund wage increases for public sector employees at a rate exceeding their own. The private sector  — the sector that creates wealth in our society  — must lead the way with respect to compensation settlements. The private sector has its own form of discipline: the marketplace. Because the public sector is not directly subject to market forces, an element of market pricing must be imposed to assure fairness in compensation. It is critical that public sector expenditures not increase beyond the ability of the taxpayer to pay, resulting in cuts to those programs.

Flexibilities exist within this program. The guidelines will fairly consider pay equity plans intended to address gender-based wage disparities and compensation increases intended to meet human rights' legislation requirements. In labour markets where shortages exist, the commissioner will have the flexibility necessary to address compensation levels needed to attract and to maintain employment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I must ask you to conclude your remarks, as the time required under our standing orders for introductions has expired.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Only in the event that a public sector employer and a public sector group choose to negotiate an agreement under which the total compensation increase exceeds the guidelines will the commissioner become involved.

Bill 82 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.

JOB PROTECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Job Protection Act.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to bring before this House a bill that will help protect the jobs and paycheques of British Columbians in all regions of the province. The object of this bill is to

[ Page 11641 ]

minimize job loss and the consequent destabilization of regional and local economies, particularly in those areas that are dependent on one or two key industries. The Job Protection Act will help to preserve, restore and enhance the competitiveness of business enterprises in British Columbia and in the global marketplace.

This bill is a key component of the government's taxpayer protection plan. The Job Protection Act builds on the success of the critical industries commission, which we had as legislation in the mid-1980s. I look forward to further discussing the bill with members of this House at second reading.

Bill 83 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

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that as we gather today to sit in this chamber, the Premier continues to sit in that chair. But then British Columbians have come to expect double standards from this government. While this government is paralyzed by a political crisis of its own making, British Columbians have serious questions about the province's finances and about their jobs and paycheques.

I have a question to the Minister of Finance. Your predecessor admitted last week that the province was running a considerable deficit. Can the minister tell this House the size of that deficit?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has seen the quarterly report. It is available for all to peruse, and I presume that he will do that. In the fullness of time we will be presenting a budget to the House, and the hon. member will then be assured, once again, that this government is managing the finances of this province very well.

MR. HARCOURT: I have a supplementary for the minister. Last week your predecessor confessed that the operating deficit will be around or in excess of $700 million. Can the minister confirm that?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I can only confirm what I heard on television from the Minister of Finance for the province of Ontario  — I think his nickname is Pink Floyd. He said that next year the deficit in that province would be somewhere between $6 billion and $8 billion. And the hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to make Ontario his model.

MR. HARCOURT: Supplementary. The minister has been briefed. His ministry officials monitor the revenues and expenditures and the overspending of this government daily. We are three weeks away from the end of this fiscal year. What is your ministry's projection of the deficit for the end of this fiscal year?

HON. MR. VEITCH: That will depend very much on the budget estimates, but the hon. member has been in the House long enough to know that that is future policy. There will be a budget. You'll be here to fret over it. We'll be here to make budget after budget year after year.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the Minister of Finance. I've talked to senior officials in the Ministry of Finance. They know what the deficit is now and what it will be in three weeks' time at the end of this fiscal year. You know what it will be, and the people have a right to know in this chamber now. Will you tell the House what your ministry is projecting for the deficit for this fiscal year?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. critic across the way knows full well that there will be estimates coming down in this House, and that is the proper time to discuss budgetary matters of this kind. I'm sure you'll be here, and I'll be here, and we'll have lots of time to debate them at that time.

BUDGET STABILIZATION FUND

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the minister. I know your predecessor had difficulty explaining the BS fund, so I thought I'd simply start off welcoming you to this new office by asking you to explain the BS fund for us and for the people who are now watching on television. A simple question: is there any cash in the BS fund? If so, what bank is it in, and what's the bank account number?

MR. SPEAKER: I must remind members that the scope of the answer can follow the scope of the question, and that question period is limited in time.

HON. MR. VEITCH: This side doesn't deal in b.s. If you know something about it, hon. member, you practise it, and you carry it on.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps, since this session and others are being televised I believe the member for Vancouver East was referring to the budget stabilization fund. In order to maintain parliamentary language, perhaps we would refrain from using that particular abbreviation and in fact go ahead with the full description.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I thought everybody in British Columbia was familiar with the acronym which has come to be associated with this administration.

Could the minister tell the House whether there's any cash in the budget stabilization fund, and if so, which bank it's held in and what the bank account number is?

HON. MR. VEITCH: He wants to know the number of the bank account? Is that what you're after? I see.

[ Page 11642 ]

I want to tell the hon. member that we will put the finances of this province up against any province or any jurisdiction anywhere in this country. I know this is future action, Mr. Speaker, but we will continue to do that. We're very fortunate. I want to thank the member for Saanich and the Islands for having the vision to put away some money so that on rainy days  — in times like this  — we would be able to carry on the services that we have to the people of the province of British Columbia. We're going to continue to provide good fiscal management and good government. Sit around; watch it. You'll wait, hon. member; there will be estimates brought before this House, and I'm sure you will enjoy them at that time and we will enjoy debating with you.

SALARY INCREASES
FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS

MR. CLARK: The minister knows, and the people of British Columbia know, there's no actual cash in the BS fund, and all that money is borrowed. That's why we have a deficit in this province and will have one this year.

I want to ask the minister a new question. The minister's own assistant, Mr. Stephen Pescod, received the highest of the recent political-appointee pay increases. His salary was increased from the July 1990 level of $48,452 to $58,088 in December, a 20 percent increase worth nearly $10,000 a year. Will the minister recommend to cabinet that it roll back this and other recent pay increases which contradict the government's alleged commitment to protecting taxpayers' dollars?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I hope the hon. member isn't trying to delude the unwary. He would never do a thing like that. I'm sure the hon. member understands  — if he had taken the time to look back  — that the gentleman in question did not receive his increment last year. He received an increment this year and also received the increment that was given  — which I believe was five-point-some percent  — to every public servant. I think that if he takes the time, he'll find that the increases were entirely consistent with government policy.

Please don't try and delude the people who are watching you on television, because they'll find you out, hon. member, even though you are pretty. You've got a few bags under your eyes, but you'll be all right.

MR. CLARK: What the minister is saying is that it's all right to have 20 percent pay increases for political hacks that work for the minister, but nurses and teachers and public servants in this province are going to be restrained. Since the Premier was sworn into office in 1986, deputy ministers have had their salaries increased by 59 percent  — in four years. Is it the new Finance minister's policy that the pay scale for the government's political appointees shall increase at nearly twice the rate of inflation at the same time as they're trying to hold nurses and teachers and public servants at subinflation wage increases this year?

HON. MR. VEITCH: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Pescod's adjustment was simply a range adjustment. He understands that.

I don't want to speak to a bill before this House, but if he will take time to peruse the document I have just tabled, he will find that we are indeed looking after and controlling the finances and all public sector wages in this province very well, regardless of where they may be: at the deputy minister's level, at the hospital board level, at the school level and in the whole area. I think you'll be very pleased. I'm glad to see that you're now a fiscal conservative. It's very important.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

MRS. BOONE: The people of British Columbia want and are entitled to know the true state of the province's finances, Information vital to this question  — the public accounts  — has not yet been released. My question is directed to the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Does the Chair have any information on when we are going to see the public accounts?

[2:30]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this is a normal procedure. The only question that can legitimately be asked of the Chair of Public Accounts has just been asked.

MS. MARZARI: In 1989 the Public Accounts Committee unanimously requested government to disclose the public accounts as soon as possible after the end of the fiscal year — generally within four months of March 31. This was a motion put forward by a member of the Social Credit side of the committee; it was unanimous.

Last year when we asked for the public accounts, we had to ask three times in this House for the disclosure, for the opening of the books. I am hoping this year that the Minister of Finance will not be quite so closed about the opening of the public accounts for the years 1989 and 1990, as he has been about disclosure of the deficit situation we face and about coming forward with a budget this year. It is 11 months since the fiscal year last closed, Mr. Speaker. It is time to open the books.

PETRO-CANADA LAND
NEAR FANTASY GARDENS

MR. SIHOTA: My question is to the Minister of Finance as well. It deals with the sale of the PetroCanada lands which are adjacent to the theme park formerly owned by the Premier. Could the minister advise the House whether his ministry has ascertained whether the Premier, members of his family or

[ Page 11643 ]

any companies related to the Premier earned a commission on the sale of that property?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, I can't advise the House.

MR. SIHOTA: A supplementary to the Minister of Finance. Could he confirm that his ministry, under the provisions of the Real Estate Act, is inquiring into this matter?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, I will not confirm that.

HOUSTON MEDICAL SERVICES

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Health. I've been deluged with more mail on this than on any subject in my short career, from the town of Houston in northern B.C., a place which I know from my personal experience of working there as a physician, and where the citizens are alarmed that they no longer have emergency health services. Houston is a town that has two major sawmills and a major mine, and requires emergency health care 24 hours a day. Yet the citizens of that town no longer are protected. I have a letter, for example, from the Houston Chamber of Commerce asking why, when they pay such high taxes in that area, they get such inadequate service. Will the minister please tell the House what steps he has taken to ensure that there is 24-hour emergency medical service in the town of Houston?

HON. J. JANSEN: Perhaps the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey should be aware that there is indeed 24-hour medical coverage by the physicians in the community. However, the physicians have mandated that the nurses see the patients prior to the physicians seeing the patients. I think the member knows full well the problems of ethics involved, and I'm surprised he has asked the question in the House.

We have asked that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. examine this matter and report back to me as Minister of Health. I will indeed take the report and ensure that the health of the community and of the citizens of the community is not compromised.

Ministerial Statements

COMMONWEALTH DAY

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. Today Canada joins with 48 other member nations of the Commonwealth to observe Commonwealth Day.

The Commonwealth is a free association of sovereign nations spanning the globe and sharing common threads of language, institutions and history. This multi-nation, multi-race and multi-faith organization is truly unique in history. As Canadians we take pride in membership in this family of nations. The Commonwealth theme for 1991 is "Science in the Commonwealth," and this has special significance for British Columbians, as Vancouver is a world centre of Commonwealth learning.

The Commonwealth has a tremendous tradition of quiet cooperation in this and other fields, which is sometimes overlooked on the world stage. This quiet cooperation will be very evident here in Victoria and in our province in 1994 as we host the Commonwealth Games, a project to which this government has committed over $36 million.

Mr. Speaker, at a time of international tensions and national self-examination, I think it is very fitting that we mark this day. I know that all members will join with me in conveying best wishes to Her Majesty the Queen on this her fortieth year as head of the Commonwealth.

MR. D'ARCY: We on this side wish to join with the government side in supporting Commonwealth Day. It is a most important event  — in fact, worldwide. The British Commonwealth often shares nothing other than a common form of acceptance of parliamentary democracy. In this time of difficulties with free trade of goods and services between countries and at the same time maintaining the integrity of borders of individual nations around the world, it is very important that we in Canada join with other members of the Commonwealth in recognizing that peace and freedom of ideas and goods and services moving internationally around the world are some of the most important functions which the Commonwealth nations can give to the world — leading by example.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

HON. MRS. GRAN: On behalf of the government I wish to recognize International Women's Day and pay tribute to the women of British Columbia. This is an opportunity for all of us to celebrate the contributions of women from all walks of life and cultures. The subject most on the minds of women and hopefully the public in general is women and violence. It is finally out in the open, recognized and agonized over.

Newspaper headlines like "Battered Wife Let Go in Ruling," "It Was Either Him or Me," "An Endless Cycle Is a Private Hell" tell us that society has finally tuned in to one of the most troubling issues faced by women. The endless cycle is a private hell, and one that has many innocent victims.

The most tragic result of violence against women involves children. Although we are recognizing International Women's Day, it is most difficult not to examine the lives of children who also live in abusive homes.

Let's take a few moments and imagine ourselves a child, trapped in a home where violence is a way of life. The private hell they live in can hardly be imagined unless one has been there: torn between love and hate for the battering parent; trying desperately in a young mind to understand why; ashamed to bring friends home; terrified of the next time; and longing to see Mommy and Daddy love each other.

[ Page 11644 ]

These children grow up with various problems from excessive fear to the same violent behaviour. The memories of a shattered childhood remain. The guilt, the feeling of responsibility and the scars are there most often throughout all of our lives. The children cannot and should not be forgotten, and as leaders we must demonstrate concern and accept responsibility.

An increase in wife assault, dating violence, child sexual abuse, rape, sexual assault and prostitution tells us that the family is in deep trouble. The acceptance of violence and pornography in our living rooms must be recognized for the sake of children if for no other reason.

Public awareness and education is critical, a role that our government has taken leadership in recently. But we have only begun. Media campaigns will not in themselves solve the problem, but they do serve to increase public attention and mobilize individuals, communities and organizations.

Our government has announced the establishment of a provincial task force on family violence. The task force will develop recommendations on improving government programs for victims of violence; review government programs which address family violence, sexual assault and sexual harassment; and focus in particular on support and counselling services as well as the coordination of services between ministries. The task force will be coordinated and led by Women's Programs.

Mr. Speaker, International Women's Day reminds us that we must all work together for a world free of injustice and intolerance; a world of compassion, unity and grace; a world worth leaving to our children.

MS. MARZARI: I would like to thank the minister for making this statement available before the House opened today, and I am very happy that the minister is making the private hell of many women and children a public issue.

It is wonderful to know that the government side has accepted the statistics on wife assault and child abuse, on battering and on hitting and hurting women. Those statistics now tell us that one in three women are sexually abused or raped or assaulted by their partners, by strangers or by their husbands. The secret has now been named. It has a label, and the statistics are being compiled to tell us that it is now very much a public issue.

The foundations upon which misogyny and hatred of women and girls exist are secrecy, institutionalization of that secrecy, and neglect. But we have to know at the same time that simple information programs about wife assault and abuse don't work unless there is somebody at the other end of the phone. In fact, the TV advertisements which are presently going out over our airwaves give women cause to think that there may be help there.

It is my suspicion, and it is information that has come to me, that the help is not often there and won't be there, because the larger issues facing abused women and children are not being dealt with by this government because of its inability to understand the systemic nature of discrimination and where wife assault comes from.

[2:45]

Sending out information in small education packages will not help unless we deal with the very foundations; unless we deal with the causes; unless there are more women judges — trained judges in the courts — to deal with the cases; unless there are police in the field who understand the nature of wife assault; unless we do something about the welfare rate so that single mothers can feed their children; unless we give income security to women so that when they leave an abusive home they know they can step into a job — or at least training — that can support their children and themselves with some integrity. Unless we give women and families child care in this province, something to reflect the real needs that we have — 300,000 children could use safe licensed care; 20,000 safe licensed spaces exist in this province — unless we understand that there is a system of justice and choice and income security and child care that we must be responsible for and begin to develop, then women will be no further ahead than they are now.

I would ask, on the celebration of International Women's Day, that we give some thought to the overall picture, the causes of the abuse and neglect, and deal with them on a larger cultural, socioeconomic basis rather than with a few TV ads and the occasional committee.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, with leave of this House, I would like to move a resolution of appreciation for our Armed Forces.

Leave granted.

APPRECIATION OF
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Be it resolved that this Legislative Assembly expresses its sincere appreciation to the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces who served with such honour and distinction during the successful multinational effort to enforce United Nations Security Council resolution No. 660 and others with respect to Iraqi aggression against Kuwait, and whose efforts in this regard made a significant contribution to upholding the vital principles that such aggression must not go unchallenged; and that the moral authority that the international community has expressed through the United Nations offers the most appropriate vehicle and the best hope for maintaining peace and security in the world.

[Interruption.]

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we can now return to the business of the House.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to return to the motion that was introduced by the government House Leader. I don't think any of us will ever forget where we were

[ Page 11645 ]

on the evening of January 15, as we were all mesmerized by the television coverage of the war that broke out in Kuwait and Iraq. I think all of us will remember for as long as we live the events of that evening and the way they touched and gripped each and every one of us.

As the member representing the riding of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, Mr. Speaker, it is a special privilege to speak in the House with respect to this matter. Our troops served in the Persian Gulf; they represented this country with distinction and with valour. They were asked to perform a very difficult task in a very difficult part of the world. We are proud of their service and dedication in upholding the principles found in UN resolution 660. We're also thankful for the fact that they are now beginning to return to Canada, and that they are returning without casualty.

In addition to that, I think we would be remiss if we did not reflect in commenting on this matter on the families and others that remained here in Canada while our men and women were serving abroad. The families here in Canada, specifically in Esquimalt, found themselves facing some very difficult times as they anguished over the future of the events in the Persian Gulf and of their loved ones overseas. Again, I know they more than anyone share the great sense of relief in knowing that our troops are returning to Canada without casualty.

In addition, I think we would be remiss if we did not honour and pay tribute to those who remained here in Canada but who provided much in the form of support services to our troops. I think we need not look any further than the dockyard here in Esquimalt, where our people worked feverishly to make sure that the ships and the material that we sent over to the Persian Gulf were capable of doing the job that our troops were asked to do.

Canada has a proud and honourable tradition of peacekeeping. Now that the war is over, Canada must do whatever it can to ensure and enhance that tradition. We can play a vital role in monitoring the troop withdrawals as they occur over the next few weeks. We can play a vital role in reordering and restructuring the societies that have been affected and touched by the war in the Middle East, and we can play a vital role with respect to arms control and arms reduction.

There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that we as an international community face a very difficult future. Charting a peaceful path will take courage and strength. Together Canadians will — and I have no doubt that we will — work as diligently as we can to ensure that we find a peaceful resolution to the dispute in the Middle East.

HON. J. JANSEN: I too am pleased to support the government resolution on this matter. I come from a community which I had the opportunity to be mayor of. As you know, it has CFB Chilliwack, a base that I and many members of the community take so much for granted. It brings it home when we have an honourable initiative such as this; it brings home the awesome commitment that those women and men of that base have in terms of supporting our nation.

Canada supported the UN resolution, and I'm proud of that, Mr. Speaker. I'm proud of the women and men who stood up and were counted, as our country was. I am indeed pleased to support this resolution and to offer my vote of thanks to those women and men who served so proudly in our armed forces.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I know that television activity is new in the House. During the unexpected altercation in the galleries, I noticed one of the cameras in the House pointing up taking.... And the light on that camera was on. I wonder if this is going to be photographed, and if it would encourage other such activities. If that is the case, then it would certainly impinge on the privileges of the members of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: On the matter raised by the member for North Peace River, the television of the House was left in the hands of Mr. Speaker. I can assure members that if you see the signal that is transmitted as opposed to the actions that necessarily take place in this House.... I should remind you that it's in the capable hands of the people who record Hansard. I think that that should answer the question for you entirely. But you may wish to review it and see it for yourself. I can assure you that your rights have not been in any way offended.

[3:00]

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, all members would be comforted by the Speaker producing for each member a copy of the very stringent guidelines which guide the nature and focus of the cameramen in this House at this time and for the future.... Whenever that will be; we don't know.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is bound by the decision of the Board of Internal Economy, which left the Chair with the strict instructions that we were to follow the Ottawa rules. Therefore I shall produce for each and every member a copy of the Ottawa rules, which we were able to obtain from my colleague the member for Vancouver South, who is also the Speaker in Ottawa.

Ministerial Statements

NATIVE LAND CLAIMS

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Speaker, the judgment of Chief Justice Allan McEachern, combined with recent decisions and actions taken by this government with respect to the negotiation of native land claims, will significantly change the province's relationship with aboriginal people. In light of that decision, I would like to read the following ministerial statement.

[ Page 11646 ]

In a long-awaited decision released on March 8, 1991, some of the difficult questions surrounding aboriginal issues in British Columbia were addressed. While the judgment of the Chief Justice in the case of Delgam Uukw v. Attorney-General provides us with a legal guide for interpreting many of these issues, there remains a fundamental dilemma confronting both sides of this House.

There is a long-standing, profound sense of grievance on the part of native people, who feel they have not been fairly treated through history. This government wants to remove this sense of injustice. The Chief Justice clearly issues an invitation to this government to reach a new arrangement. He provides us with a specific guide as a result of his three-year review of this complex case. It makes sense for British Columbia to accept this invitation and to respond quickly, fairly and honourably.

Some months ago the Premier's Council on Native Affairs completed a series of meetings with many tribal councils and aboriginal groups in the province. The interim report and recommendations of the council, accepted in their entirety by the cabinet, noted that the outstanding land question was without doubt the overriding concern of the aboriginal people of British Columbia.

In response to that report and outside the context of litigation, cabinet made a decision that British Columbia was prepared to assist in resolving this and other long-standing disputes between aboriginal peoples and governments. This decision was based largely on a recognition that the vast majority of British Columbians believe that justice has not been done in a moral, political or economic sense. Whatever the narrow view the courts must take in serving the law, the decision of the Chief Justice sets aside for now the need to debate the legal and constitutional fine points of the issue.

After $25 million and almost four years, the fact remains that the fundamental needs of aboriginal British Columbians remain unmet. The aboriginal people of this province continue to be outsiders looking in at the economic prosperity of British Columbia. As citizens, they remain in need of specific social services, while as communities they lack the tools they need for self-sufficiency.

Whether our response to this condition of people isolated by social and economic inequity is based on the platform of land claims negotiations or on the new arrangement and reasonable accommodations recommended by the Chief Justice is not, in the final analysis, of critical importance. What is important is that the province assure Indian people and all British Columbians that we intend to continue and indeed accelerate our efforts to change the fundamental conditions which have led to this present state. We must do this in cooperation with the government of Canada. We must recognize that as a society we have failed to address the special needs of aboriginal people and to find ways in which they could more fairly share in the benefits of our natural and economic resources.

The Chief Justice has suggested that the lack of economic opportunities and the appalling state of native health and social conditions are some of the fundamental factors which must be addressed.

The Chief Justice declares, and this government agrees, that the time has come for a new arrangement to be negotiated between both levels of government and the aboriginal people. We intend to continue to seek that new arrangement through negotiations with Indian representatives and Canada. The government will continue on its course of negotiating with B.C. Indian groups to reach a resolution of the issues before us. We will pursue an agreement with the Nisga'a Tribal Council, as we announced several months ago. We will continue to work in the tripartite task force with Canada and the aboriginal representatives. We will also continue to be guided by our recently announced guiding principles for negotiations.

For the first time in history, a court has assigned a fiduciary responsibility for aboriginal people to a Crown provincial. This decision has done so in a manner which will remind each member of this government of our unique responsibility toward the Indian people of British Columbia. The Chief Justice indicates that this government must always keep the honour and the obligations of the Crown in mind in directing the development of the province. This government intends to take its responsibility seriously. The obligations outlined in the statement of the Chief Justice include keeping aboriginal interests in mind throughout the development and implementation of policies, and engaging in reasonable consultation with aboriginal people regarding policies which could affect traditional activities. Where aboriginal activities are impaired by development, the Chief Justice indicates that suitable alternative arrangements should be made. To address these responsibilities, new mechanisms will be required.

The overriding obligation indicated by this decision, however, is for government to develop new initiatives directed at eliminating the social and economic disadvantages of aboriginal people in British Columbia. A new arrangement is clearly required, and I call on the government of Canada to join us quickly and decisively in seeking such an arrangement with first citizens.

The paternalistic and regulatory structure of the federal Indian Act, which governs Indian lives, is not compatible with the type of new relationship toward which we must work. We call on the government of Canada to address with aboriginal communities in British Columbia the creation of new federal legislation which will provide the basis for the self-sufficiency and self-reliance which Indian leaders demand, and rightly so.

In closing, I think it is important to mention that the Chief Justice has noted that superimposed upon the clear economic inequity there is a growing sense of impatience and frustration on the part of native people throughout the province. We intend to move quickly and decisively to address the economic and social challenges which the Chief Justice has noted. I

[ Page 11647 ]

am hopeful that we can work together to create a new partnership in the days ahead.

Today I am giving notice that I will introduce a motion that the House endorse the province's guiding principles for negotiations.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to thank the minister for making available the ministerial statement that he has just presented to this Legislature.

As I said on Friday, what I would like to do is review the decision by the Chief Justice, and I have had a chance to do so.

In keeping with the tone of the ministerial statement by the minister, I would like to stress the comments that cried out through the judgment to deal with this matter in terms of the economic and social changes that need to take place to bring stability to this province.

The minister in his statement quite rightly points to the Chief Justice's remarks over and over again that the aboriginal land question will not be determined in the courts — judges cannot do that — that it can only take place through negotiations, that the province has a role, that the federal government has the primary role and that we must start that process of negotiating with aboriginal people as soon as possible.

The minister very rightly pointed out that whether you proceed from a narrow legal base or through the broader base.... The Chief Justice pointed out in his judgment that what we have to do is accelerate the process that has dragged on far too long. The province has not played the active role it should have played, has denied responsibility for any of the costs for years and years, has refused to sit at the negotiating table and has refused to sit down with the federal government.

Finally, the Chief Justice said not only to those who were suggesting that aboriginal title and aboriginal rights meant that the plaintiffs in this case had absolute ownership and jurisdiction.... The Chief Justice made it very clear that they don't, as did the Sparrow decision, as have the courts for 160 years and as I have pointed out many times.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the government treats this matter with such ridicule and guffaws. I think they should listen to the Attorney-General, who made it very clear that this is a time for caution and a time to not politicize this issue. I think it's unfortunate that some members of the Social Credit government are attempting to do that here today. I think it's unfortunate for the aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people of British Columbia. I would hope that they would follow the minister's approach and that which the Attorney-General has suggested, and that they're not giving us two different standards here by which they're going to conduct this matter.

I would also like to say that the agreement we have to continue and accelerate the negotiations with the aboriginal people — particularly the Nisga'a people, who have been wanting to negotiate for 15 long years under this government.... It has just started that process; that will accelerate. I think that is a very important statement that the minister has made here today — as well as the continuation of the tripartite task force with Canada and aboriginal representatives to develop a framework for negotiations with aboriginal people throughout this province.

I think the province has also received a very important statement from the Chief Justice which they have denied for too long when they said that the provincial government has no responsibility for aboriginal people. Mr. Speaker, the Chief Justice made it very clear that that position just doesn't stand up and hasn't stood up since colonial times. Indeed, the provincial government has a fiduciary responsibility for the aboriginal people — at a minimum.

The minister also outlines the importance of aboriginal usage for sustenance of Crown lands. Any decision by the government about the usage of forests and fisheries, mining, oil and gas exploration and tourism activities on unoccupied Crown lands has to be sensitive to the aboriginal people. That is why I put forward an environment and jobs accord, so that there is one process for citizens to meet to deal with aboriginal issues, parkland and the forests that are being harvested and to do it all at once instead of the 20 different processes that have been established and that are exhausting the people of this province. There needs to be a process that's sensitive not only to the aboriginal people but to other users. That's why we have put forward an environment and jobs accord to do just that.

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker, the stress of the minister was on an overriding obligation for new initiatives and new arrangements between the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people of British Columbia. That is the key. There is a need to move on quickly, as the minister said. He is unfortunately going to have to drag, kicking and screaming, a large part of his caucus with him. I would hope that he would be able to do that a lot quicker than is being demonstrated here today with the performance of large numbers of his caucus who laugh and ridicule this very important initiative that needs to be taking place.

I think it's unfortunate, Mr. Minister, that your caucus members have still not caught on to what the Chief Justice, aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, and the vast majority of British Columbians want, which is negotiations — not the politicizing of this very important issue, as has happened far too often.

The stress that the minister has placed here on the goals, however we reach them.... We should be open to new approaches towards the aboriginal people of this province being self-sufficient and self-reliant. Those are the goals, whatever our politics, that we want to see happen.

So we on this side of the House are looking forward to seeing the details of the motion that the minister will be putting before this House on guiding

[ Page 11648 ]

principles for negotiations — not litigation, not confrontation, but negotiation.

McEACHERN DECISION ON
GITKSAN-WET'SUWET'EN LAND CLAIM

HON. MR. FRASER: Perhaps just to preface the statement, I would say from this side of the House that we are in no way making light of this particular issue, and I know that is shared by all members on this side of the House. We may have been taking some interest in the comments from the Leader of the Opposition, but that is where it ended.

The judgment of Chief Justice McEachern handed down Friday in the landmark decision of Delgam Uukw v. the Queen should be considered and reflected upon by all members, and indeed all British Columbians. It provides a basis upon which the resolution of the grievances of aboriginal people can continue.

Perhaps the Chief Justice's most compelling observation to be borne in mind by members of the House was this:

"...the difficulties facing the Indian populations...will not be solved in the context of legal rights. Legal proceedings have been useful in raising awareness levels about a serious national problem. New initiatives, which may extend for years or generations, and directed at reducing and eliminating the social and economic disadvantages of Indians are now required. It must always be remembered, however, that it is for elected officials, not judges, to establish priorities for the amelioration of disadvantaged members of society."

We are hopeful the problems will not take generations or indeed too many years to solve.

On a number of legal issues raised in the case, the Chief Justice has accepted the position advanced consistently by the government of British Columbia, regardless of political stripe, from the time the province joined Confederation to the present. I quote again from his judgment:

"I also understand the reasons why some aboriginal persons have spoken in strident and exaggerated terms about aboriginal ownership and sovereignty, and why they have asserted exemption from the laws of Canada and the province. The plaintiffs must understand that Canada and the provinces, as a matter of law, are sovereign, each in their own jurisdictions, which makes it impossible for aboriginal peoples unilaterally to achieve the independent or separate status that some seek. In the language of the street and in the contemplation of the law, the plaintiffs are subject to the same law and the same constitution as everyone else.

"The constitution can only be changed in the manner provided in the constitution itself. This is not to say that some form of self-government for aboriginal persons cannot be arranged. That, however, is possible only with the agreement of both levels of government under appropriate, lawful legislation. It cannot be achieved by litigation."

The government of British Columbia, in cooperation with the government of Canada and the Sechelt people, recognized this and responded by enacting legislation in 1989 to provide self-government for that band. That pioneering legislation relieved the Sechelt people from the constraints of the Indian Act which for too long have inhibited Indian people from achieving their aspirations for self-sufficiency and better economic circumstances. The government reiterates a commitment to negotiate similar arrangements together with Canada for any other bands in the province who wish to embark on the road to self-government and self-reliance.

The unrealistic expectation of some people that the court would overturn the legal regime of land ownership and government jurisdiction, upon which the government has developed for nearly 140 years, and thereby rectify Indians' problems and grievances at a stroke, must now be re-examined in the light of historical and legal findings of the court. Neither the Indian people nor the province will be well served by continued uncertainty over constitutional and legal issues while appeals are pursued, which would take years. As Chief Justice McEachern has pointed out: "Answers to these questions by the courts will not ultimately do anything to ameliorate the problems Indian peoples face.

We believe the interest of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia would be better served by continuing the negotiating process in which the government agreed to participate last year and which my colleague the Minister of Native Affairs spoke about, rather than by continuing to assert positions in the courts, which have so far done nothing to improve the economic and social well-being of Indian people.

The judgment of the court clearly imposes a fiduciary duty on the province to accommodate Indians' use of vacant Crown land for subsistence purposes. The province accepts that duty and invites Indian people to cooperate in establishing workable means for the accommodation of their rights to the use of these lands.

Last year, before the judgment in this case was delivered, the government recognized that whatever the outcome, a better means of resolving aboriginal concerns had to be found. A forum has been established and principles for negotiation of settlements have been articulated by the government, which is committed to continuing that process.

In conclusion, I wish to state that while this case served the necessary and useful purpose of clearing the air where a good deal of rhetorical fog had previously obscured legal issues relating to Indian grievances, it did not resolve those grievances. That will be done only by pursuing the dialogue the government has sought to open with Indian people and which we hope will be embraced by them as a more productive means of solving problems all British Columbians want to see resolved.

MR. HARCOURT: I would like to thank the Attorney-General for making available to me earlier his ministerial statement which deals in more detail with the judgment that is very thick and well presented by the Chief Justice in this court case.

I want to review a couple of the points that the Attorney-General made. The first point was to stress

[ Page 11649 ]

the Chief Justice's most compelling observation, which is that the difficulties facing the aboriginal people will not be solved in the context of legal rights and in the process of legal proceedings.

I think it is very important that the Attorney-General recognized and made that point, because the obduracy that we have seen all too often in denying the fiduciary relationship, in denying the aboriginal people, has been very harmful to that process of negotiations.

So to have the Attorney-General now say that we have to proceed with the negotiations through elected officials, not through $25 million of fees to lawyers and a court case that has gone on for four years... Just think of what that $25 million could have done other than giving $200 an hour to lawyers in downtown Vancouver. It could have gone to young aboriginal people going to college and university, getting skilled trades and training. It could have gone into reforestation programs. It could have gone into economic development, into winding down the Indian Affairs department and having aboriginal people running their own affairs, and to the goals of economic self-reliance and self-sufficiency.

I think that the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General discussed the issue of self-government and gave one of the models that has been put forward into legislation, which we supported. The Sechelt people have taken advantage of that municipal model. I'm pleased that the Attorney-General says that the government is committed to negotiating similar arrangements — he doesn't say "same, " but similar" — so that other forms of self-government that suit particular aboriginal peoples can be negotiated.

I also think that the comment about the court finding that the aboriginal people do not have absolute ownership and jurisdiction reiterates the position that Chief Justice Marshall took in the United States in the 1830's, Chief Justice Hall took in the Calder decision and the judges of our Supreme Court unanimously took in the Sparrow decision when they said that the underlying title — and indeed the sovereignty of British Columbia, of Canada — rests with the Crown; but since the time of the British, they recognized the use and occupation by the aboriginal people of their traditional territories for sustenance.

That is the fiduciary responsibility that the province has denied for so long, and I think it is clearly where the province's counterclaim was dismissed. It said that the responsibility for aboriginal people is solely federal; that was dismissed by the Chief Justice. The province has some responsibility. I have been saying for a long time, and so have members of this caucus, that we should have started negotiations with the federal government well before this lawsuit. I urge you now to do just that. The Attorney-General says that the province now accepts that duty and that it is prepared to sit down and negotiate what "some responsibility" means — the federal government, of course, having the primary responsibility.

I think that was an important part of this judgment. The province has finally admitted some responsibility, because the courts have so ordered. It's unfortunate that it took our Chief Justice to tell this provincial government that it has some responsibility in this matter.

I said from the beginning that if we take the government's statements today at face value, there will be an acceleration of negotiations on economic and social matters. The Attorney-General has not told us today what the government's position is on appealing this matter. He has not told us yet what negotiations are going to take place with the federal government on the sharing of this fiduciary responsibility. We look forward to hearing from this government, so that as the Attorney-General says in his statement, we will be pursuing the dialogue that the government has sought to open with the Indian people. I hope that that is said in good faith and that the political will is here now to carry on with these statements. These words are fine. Now we have to do what the Chief Justice asked us to do: bring about the economic and social stability that all British Columbians want to, see.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

[3:30]

MR. SPEAKER: I believe there's another matter of business to be dealt with prior to that, and I have indication of that.

Points of Privilege

PREMIER'S OWNERSHIP OF
FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, you have had notice that I will be rising on this occasion, and the purpose is threefold. At this time I want to tender with you material to support a motion of privilege to outline as succinctly as possible why, in my view, these materials establish a prima facie case that the Premier deliberately and wilfully misled this assembly, and to indicate that I am prepared to tender a motion for your consideration should you find that a prima facie case has been made out.

At the outset I wish to make clear that I am very mindful of the conflict-of-interest question currently under investigation by Mr. Ted Hughes — that is, the Premier's role, if any, in the recent sale of Fantasy Gardens. I have made every effort to ensure that I do not transgress into that territory, and my motion in fact is directed to a different issue.

The issue that I am addressing this afternoon is limited to the Premier's ownership of the company, Fantasy Garden World Inc., more commonly known as Fantasy Gardens, and the truthfulness of the representations made to this assembly in this regard. The issue is whether the people of British Columbia can trust the Premier and take him at his word.

Mr. Speaker, my concerns today result from a number of statements made by the Premier in this assembly and a series of related events that occurred

[ Page 11650 ]

during September and October 1990, several weeks after the adjournment of the last sitting of this assembly. This is my first opportunity to raise this matter with you. While I appreciate the need for brevity, the history of this matter is complex, and in order to be accurate, I must spend some time to put these materials in their proper context. I will deal first with the events of September and October 1990 before turning to the Premier's statements to this assembly.

On September 22, 1990, the Vancouver Sun carried an article concerning the Premier's ownership of Fantasy Gardens. I quote the opening paragraph:

"Premier Bill Vander Zalm continues to own a majority share of Fantasy Garden World Inc.....”

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, before I listen to the point of order, might I remind everyone that this particular subject is going to require the utmost attention of the Speaker. I would appreciate it if members other than the member who has been recognized and has the floor would restrain themselves when a matter of privilege is raised, so that the Speaker and Hansard can record exactly what is being said. When I weigh the matters presented to me for my decision, I would like to have them as clear as possible.

The government House Leader rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, I submit to you that a point of privilege should, as the member said in her preamble, relate to statements made in this assembly, not to articles carried in the Vancouver Sun.

MR. SPEAKER: In order for the Chair to be able to ascertain whether or not a matter of privilege does in fact exist, the Chair is duty-bound to listen to the evidence presented by people on both sides of the House. If other members wish to contribute to this debate after the member for New Westminster has made her statement, I'd be delighted and would be prepared to listen.

The member for New Westminster continues.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, so that you may be clear — because I was interrupted in mid-sentence by the point of order — I will just go back and note that I'm quoting from the opening paragraph of the September 22, 1990, Vancouver Sun story regarding ownership of Fantasy Gardens: "Premier Bill Vander Zalm continues to own a majority share of Fantasy Garden World Inc. — 83 percent, according to the company's own records — contrary to his repeated claims that the business actually belongs to his wife Lillian."

That article then went on to report that the Premier, as late as Thursday, September 20, 1990, claimed that Fantasy Gardens was his wife's business and that she was the majority owner, and that a search of the company's own records disclosed that the Premier, not his wife, owned the majority of voting shares and in addition had received 75 percent of 90,000 non-voting redeemable shares — "thus" — as the Sun put it — "ensuring the Premier has not only control but a majority stake in the company."

On October 5, 1990, the Premier released a lengthy statement prepared by him on his official letterhead to "clear up once and for all the facts about Fantasy Gardens." It was obvious that the Premier intended that his statement be spread far and wide throughout the province.

I want to refer specifically to one section of the Premier's letter, eight paragraphs which begin with these words; "When I returned to politics in 1986, Lillian and I met a number of times to seek legal and accounting advice to ensure our affairs were properly structured and in compliance with the Financial Disclosure Act."

In those paragraphs, the Premier told us that he looked at the possibility of a share transfer during the summer of 1986 and resigned as a director of Fantasy Gardens on August 5. He led us to believe that thereafter he left everything concerning Fantasy Gardens in the hands of his wife Lillian, and didn't pay any attention to how the matter of share transfer was ultimately resolved. He led us to believe that it was only as a result of being confronted by a Vancouver Sun reporter on Thursday, September 20, 1990, that he discovered nothing had been done about his shares in Fantasy Gardens.

The next point is an important, one. Nowhere in those eight paragraphs — indeed, nowhere in his lengthy prepared statement — does the Premier make any mention of a share agreement or any restructuring of the shares of Fantasy Gardens in April 1989. Quite to the contrary, the Premier's carefully crafted words conveyed the unmistakable impression that nothing significant with respect to his shareholdings occurred between the summer of 1986 and the fall of 1990.

I will shortly return to what did occur in April 1989, but first I wish to review what has taken place in this assembly. On May 12, 1987, on page 1089, Hansard records an exchange between the member for Nanaimo and the Premier. At issue were the activities of the government's liquor review commission with respect to Fantasy Gardens.

The Premier's response was typical. In effect, he asked the people of the province and the members of this assembly to trust him and to believe that he was telling us the truth. This is what he said on that occasion: "I can assure the hon. member that I have no fear of conflict." The Premier did not take any steps on that occasion to demonstrate that the hon. member's concern was not justified, but he was to have that opportunity a few months later on March 23, 1988.

Hansard on page 3615 records the Premier suggesting that Fantasy Gardens is — and again I quote the Premier's words in this House —"the business that Lillian has and that I'm involved with."

[ Page 11651 ]

On April 26, 1988, Hansard, page 4067, records the Leader of the Opposition giving a notice of motion of privilege "subject to the Premier having a chance to clear the air when he returns to the Legislature." At issue were answers given by the Premier to questions in this assembly the previous day concerning Mr. Peter Toigo, the lease of a restaurant in Fantasy Gardens and the corporate obligations created between Mr. Toigo, the Premier, or their respective companies as a consequence of that lease.

Once again the Premier had the opportunity to clarify the extent of his ownership of Fantasy Gardens and to ensure that this assembly was not being misled. However, when he returned to the Legislature on May 2, 1988, this is what the Premier chose to say: "With respect to the question of whether I'm prepared to make a statement on what I consider to be a very frivolous notice of motion, the answer is no.”

Although you, sir, were not Speaker when this was going on, you may nevertheless recall that the Leader of the Opposition then proceeded with his motion of privilege. After reviewing "the possible merits of the material tendered” the then government House Leader, Minister of Environment and Parks, replied on May 5, 1988, to the concerns raised by the Leader of the Opposition. In the course of the government House Leader's reply he said this: "It has also been publicly stated, with no thought of misleading anyone, that the Premier has a 30 percent minority position in Fantasy Gardens. That quote is attributed to the Premier in a newspaper story dated April 27."

Mr. Speaker, your predecessor ruled later that day and relied upon those representations of the government House Leader, lent even more credence then to what the Premier had led us to believe. Hansard records a portion of the Speaker's ruling on page 4308 as follows: "What emerges from the material before me is that apparently a leasing arrangement exists between a company owned or controlled by Mr. Toigo and the company known as Fantasy Gardens, in which the Premier is a minority shareholder."

It is very clear that both the then Minister of Environment and Parks and the then Speaker relied upon the Premier's word. As we now know, both had in fact been misled. Since then the Premier has had numerous opportunities to confirm whether or not this assembly had been told the truth. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped, and thought, that the Premier would have been eager to put this particular matter to rest as quickly and unequivocally as possible. He seemed to indicate that in the conclusion of his October 1990 letter where he says, and I quote in part: "I...feel an obligation...to set the record straight."

I suggest that the events of April 1989, to which I briefly alluded a moment ago, may offer the reason why the Premier has never set the record straight, why he has never cleared up the facts about Fantasy Gardens once and for all.

Prompted by the Vancouver Sun article dated September 22, 1990, members of our staff looked for a 1989 agreement concerning the shares of Fantasy Gardens. What was found was a series of five documents, and they are in the material I have tabled with you, Mr. Speaker. I want to refer to the first and the last of these documents: the first one, a special resolution passed by Fantasy Garden World on April 21, 1989, and signed by the company's solicitor, and the fifth document, entitled "Waiver, " also dated April 21, 1989, and signed by William N. Vander Zalm and Lillian B. Vander Zalm.

[3:45]

Having regard to the other materials that I have disclosed, what does this series of documents mean? This is my understanding, Mr. Speaker. Such documents are the result of a lengthy and complex process of consultation involving a company's officers and shareholders, together with their lawyers, and in all probability their accountants as well. These documents enabled the majority of common shares, previously issued and held by the Premier, to be converted into a majority of new class A voting shares. In other words, the Premier retained his voting control over the affairs of Fantasy Gardens. The document enabled the company to then issue, in the Premier's name, a block of 75,000 class B non-voting redeemable shares, with Lillian Vander Zalm being issued 15,000 of these new redeemable shares.

Mr. Speaker, these class B shares represented a brand new way for shareholders to take money out of the company. Because these shares were each given a redemption value of $109, the Premier's personal financial stake in the company was thus secured to a total of $7.5 million. I repeat: what occurred had significant legal and business consequences. It was something that would be of major importance to the company and to all the individuals having an interest in it.

It is therefore highly unlikely, if not inconceivable, that the company's solicitor would have permitted the restructuring to take place without ensuring that the Premier, as the majority shareholder and the major stakeholder, was fully apprised of what was taking place, perhaps to the extent of receiving independent legal advice. The waiver document was signed by the Premier and his wife on April 21, 1989, and this document constitutes an express acknowledgment of and a consent to that restructuring of shares.

Mr. Speaker, what are we to make of all this in this assembly and in this province? There is little doubt that we have all been misled by what the Premier has said concerning his ownership of Fantasy Gardens. The only question is whether he did so deliberately and wilfully.

The Premier would have this assembly and the people of the province believe that he didn't appreciate the importance of the matter; that his actions and his statements were those of a careless man; and that our misconceptions were a result of what he called his stupidity. He has to this very day said nothing about the events of April 1989. Yet, I suggest, Mr.

[ Page 11652 ]

Speaker, that no reasonable person can believe he didn't know what took place on that occasion.

The English poet and critic John Dryden once wrote: "Secret guilt by silence is betrayed." Mr. Speaker, the Premier said nothing because he knew what was going on. He always knew, but he had decided from the outset to create a quite different appearance. He therefore made a series of statements in this assembly and elsewhere that were deliberately calculated to lead us astray and to lead us away from the truth. The word "prevarication" comes to mind. Such actions are totally unacceptable to me and I believe to every member of this Legislative Assembly and to the people of British Columbia.

It would therefore appear that a breach of privilege has been caused in this assembly, and that the Premier deliberately and wilfully misled the Legislative Assembly with respect to his own ownership of Fantasy Gardens. Perhaps more importantly, the people of British Columbia can't count on this Premier to tell the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I have tendered documents to you for your consideration. I would be very grateful for your ruling. Also, I have prepared the motion I would present to this House should you make a decision that a prima facie case exists that the House was deliberately misled. At your direction, I would be prepared to table that motion with you now.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, there are times when I'm proud to be Canadian. There are times when I'm proud to be a British Columbian. There are times when I'm really sad as I listen to those who would take what we ought to treasure most in this country and use it and abuse it for political purpose.

Mr. Speaker, in the opening prayer today you mentioned that we should strive for peace and happiness, truth and justice. As I listen to the opposition member speak out on this today, I wonder what they see to be truthful and just, when they can make serious allegations impinging upon the rights and the reputation of an individual and his family based on quotes from the Vancouver Sun newspaper.

I can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, why the Leader of the Opposition, who has been saying publicly out there to the media all along that he would be putting this motion and seeing this debate in the House.... I can see why today, as this debate is being televised, he would not want to be associated with it and would push it off to a backbencher who is seldom heard from and have this member speak out and make this presentation. I can understand the problem that the Leader of the Opposition must be having with this, because if we really believe in truth and justice, would we have a member present a statement such as she did with all of that detail, those times, those dates, those incidents and those quotes from newspapers without so much as having made available to this member — the Premier against whom the accusation is made — even a little piece of this?

Had this member come to me and said, "Today we're going to charge you with some serious offence of having lied to or misled — or whatever it is — the House, and it's based on these allegations, and you'll be expected to respond in order that justice might be seen to be done, " I could understand perhaps then that she might be sincere and truthful in her effort, and that it was something less than some political ploy as I see it. But no, she did not make me aware of one thing. I didn't know this motion was coming forth or what might be said or what the charge could be based on. Even a court of law anywhere in this land or any other land would not deny the individual that. But, Mr. Speaker.... I'm going to get to the point.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that finally the Premier is going to get to the point, because he spent about the first five minutes imputing motives to this side of the House and launching a series of insults towards my colleague, who is a very responsible member. Would the Premier give us a break and respond to the points raised? He's entitled, if he's not prepared, to save his reply until a later date. If he asks that, I'm sure the House would grant it, because he's obviously, as he admitted himself, not prepared right now.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I was only suggesting that this was trial by ambush. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam says: "You could leave the charge standing and respond some other day." I wonder how they see that to be justice: to have a charge reported in the Vancouver Sun, which they love to quote, or in the other papers or on television — to have it out there, and I might respond some other day. Frankly, that's what I've been going through for the last year: a lot of allegations by those across the way and the people in the gallery who report for the media — unfounded charges, but out there time and time again.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll not take any more time in responding than the member did. I didn't interfere with the member; please let me have my say. That's fair enough.

Mr. Speaker, the charge is that the Premier deliberately and wilfully misled this assembly. Then the member went on to quote some newspaper articles.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Hansard?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member went on to quote Hansard but did not relate ownership to business or what the quote might have been or how one relates to the other.

I don't deny, and never have I that my wife and children owned and operated the business. It was their business. I did not interfere in that business. They have a right, as capable women, to run that business without anyone's interference — including

[ Page 11653 ]

the NDP, as individuals or as a party. They have that right. I've said it in this House, and I've said it out there: "It's my wife's business." Business is the running of an operation that provides goods or services, and they've done it very effectively with enormous interference and against horrendous pressures. My wife and my children went on employing people and running a business despite the protests which some of you encouraged. That was her business. She had every right to run it; she ran it very effectively. I'm proud of my wife and my children for having done so.

Mr. Speaker, I did not mention the share ownership in this House. No reference, I would agree, was made by the member to that. She made references to some newspaper article. I'll admit, as I did after I was again suddenly ambushed by a media person — and that's fine; I'm used to that in this business — that I made a mistake. I said so following that, because I definitely was under the impression that something had occurred that obviously hadn't taken place. I was under the impression....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps the same courtesy can be extended to the Premier that we extended to the member for New Westminster. The Chair would like to hear all the evidence, because this will be a very difficult decision to weigh in bringing a decision in. Frivolity could perhaps be postponed to another occasion.

[4:00]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I admit that on the particular occasion when the person from the Vancouver Sun put the question, I was incorrect in my response. But if being incorrect is somehow an infraction worthy of condemnation, then every member on the other side of the House is guilty — and certainly not only once, but time and time again. But lie? I have not — never have. I wanted to make that very clear.

I also want to explain a little bit about how it might have been that I could have been mistaken about the shares. Let me say again that they were also reported according to the legislation which governed this Legislature. The reports were made. If anyone opposite, media or otherwise, wanted to have details with respect to who owned what shares in a particular company, all they need do on any day at any time is go to that company's registered office and find out which shares are where. There's no hiding. There's no secret. It's public information.

There was no need on my part or anyone else's part to do anything with respect to shares. You are required by legislation to give up directorship and your officer's positions in a particular company, but that's the extent of it. There's no other legal requirement of me or anyone to do anything beyond that. The business and the shareholdings must be and should be separated, as I think most would agree. It is with many people who have shares in many different companies but the businesses are run by that board or those directors in charge of running the businesses.

Having said that, let me get back to why I might have been mistaken. It is on the forms that are prepared either by myself, yourselves, or by your accountants or my accountant. These forms are submitted annually and require that you report those companies in which you have 30 percent interest or greater. I guess some took it to be that 30 percent or more meant 30 percent. Again, that's understandable, and I don't fault people for having thought so. But the information was still there at the company office.

You know, if I were in a partnership with anyone on the other side, I might want to know exactly each and every day of the week, week of the year or month of the year where it is my shares or somebody else's shares. My partnership was with my wife, and I have been married to my wife for 35 years. I know some people — the Leader of the Opposition is an example of that — have an annual contract with their spouse that is renewed and reviewed and all things are brought up to date and accounted for as to what one does or another does, who owns what or doesn't own what or who drives which car. That's not uncommon, I gather; it's done. But it's uncommon for me.

I have been married 35 years. It's a lifetime contract. I don't have to check on my wife; my wife doesn't have to check on me. It doesn't matter what you put to paper, the fact remains that when you're married for 35 years — and I would suggest for a whole lot less, for that matter — whatever is yours is your wife's, and vice versa. That's how I've always gone through life, and that's how I intend to continue going through life. I hope to be married to Lillian for another 35 years, and I'm not going to be checking contracts or be worried about what perhaps might have been signed by one or the other.

Mr. Speaker, the business in Richmond dealt with a number of people. There were people with restaurants; there were people with gift shops; there were people who perhaps contracted to do particular things — fair and good, and why not? This business was welcomed by the community and received considerable cooperation from the neighbourhood and all concerned because they found it to be an asset to the community. This business certainly suffered because of the sort of thing that was publicly...accusations thrown out or charges made time and time again. It was difficult for my wife and for my children, and the pressure was on.

Even the second member for Vancouver East, when he was debating the conflict-of-interest legislation, criticized the legislation because it would, he said, have allowed the Premier to retain ownership of Fantasy Gardens — as though there is some sinful thing about people owning a business; as though everyone entering political life must be bankrupt in every respect, not only in mind but body and soul and what you own. Why must this be a criterion for people getting into business?

[ Page 11654 ]

As I listen to the opposition members and as I read some of those newspaper columnists, it seems that people who have anything at all or who have achieved anything in life are somehow sinister. They're not to be trusted; they don't fit into today's society. I don't believe that. I don't believe that the people out there see society that way. I don't think they mind people accomplishing something in life and perhaps the family retaining something. I don't think the people out there believe that my wife and my children, who worked hard at a business, have to somehow dispose of this at any cost because they believe there would otherwise be some sort of a conflict between growing geraniums and showing them to people and someone being in government.

I can appreciate, perhaps, the Leader of the Opposition.... If you're a lawyer and considering the government does a great deal of legal business, maybe there's potentially some conflict. But what's the conflict between what my wife and children are doing and what perhaps one might do in government?

So I would suggest that already from day one it was totally and grossly unfair. We've gone through this process, but today I have heard mentioned truth and justice. I heard the Leader of the Opposition, when he was responding to our Minister of Native Affairs, talk about legal rights and fair play as they apply to a group. If you believe, Leader of the Opposition, that legal rights and fair play apply to a group, why would you not believe that the same might apply to an individual?

I regret this matter was raised on no evidence whatsoever, except some reading from a Vancouver Sun newspaper story. When this was presented, based on statements made in this House with respect to a business — ownership of a business, running of a business, responsibility for a business — and somehow tying this into share ownership.... I regret that it was raised, because I have to stand up here and explain it again as I've done so many times.

Frankly, that's one of the reasons I referred this to the commissioner for a review. You called it an investigation because that suits your terminology and your purposes far better, I suppose. I was the one who referred it for a review because, frankly, I could not get fair coverage any other way, nor could my wife or children. We have to see it dealt with independently, because somehow the opposition members are determined to sacrifice anything, anyone and everything in the hope that through that process they may attain some political advantage. I can’t buy into that and I don't need that.

I say again that I have never misled this House. I have not lied to this House. I have made no statements in this House that are in any way a conflict or that in any way, as the member would suggest, deliberately and wilfully misled the assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you will review the material presented to you by the other side, which undoubtedly was prepared over a long period of time, because it's been mentioned over the last number of months that the opposition would somehow get the Premier and that the opposition would do whatever they could in the House in order to perhaps accomplish or achieve that which they're trying to achieve now. I know that you will review all of this material. It's a lot of material that's been prepared and gathered, over a long time from newspapers, etc. But, Mr. Speaker, I would again ask that this be fairly considered and that perhaps it be clearly told to the opposition — and for that matter, I guess, to the Legislature — that to make a charge of someone deliberately and wilfully misleading is a serious thing. I have never — I repeat, never — wilfully, deliberately or otherwise misled the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it's normal in a case such as this, when a matter of privilege is brought before the Chair, that the Chair would take the evidence tabled by the member bringing the matter before the House and the information provided to the Speaker by members in the chamber and bring forward a decision at the earliest possible opportunity. I undertake to do that on your behalf.

MR. ROSE: Just before this matter was raised, the hon. House Leader of the government was about to move adjournment. He didn't say to what date or time, because I presume he knows that that would have been debatable. But it would be kind of nice to know, as is customary... Usually we find out at the conclusion of a day what is going to be the House business for the morrow.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's unfortunate that given a break from the assembly we have to retrain the opposition, but if it suits him, then I will move that the House stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have another point of order that should be brought forward.

TAPING OF MEMBERS'
TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.

My question of privilege deals with the illegal wiretapping of a member or members of this House and the distribution of these illegally obtained phone conversations. My question of privilege relates to the involvement of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew in these illegal activities.

In view of the fact that the Law Society is presently investigating the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew for these illegal activities, I would ask that I be allowed to defer my arguments until after the Law Society reports.

MR. SPEAKER: That would be the normal procedure. The member has raised the matter at the first opportunity.

[ Page 11655 ]

Member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, the matter has been deferred until such time as a decision is brought forward. If you wish to speak to it, please go ahead.

MR. SIHOTA: That's fair enough, Mr. Speaker. I will be quite happy to respond to it when the former minister has an opportunity to deal with it. There's no evidence that I'm aware of that there have been illegal wiretaps of members. I'm not too sure of what the member speaks, but we'll look forward to what he has to say.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:14 p.m.