[ Page 11943 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 11945

Oral Questions

Sale of Fantasy Garden World Inc. Mr. Clark –– 11945

Mr. Sihota

Forestry memorandum of understanding. Mr. Vant –– 11946

Sale of Fantasy Garden World Inc. Mr. Sihota –– 11946

Mr. Clark

Points of Privilege

Minister of Environment and conflict-of-interest guidelines.

Ms. Smallwood –– 11947

Mr. Mercier

Former Premier's ownership of Fantasy Garden World Inc.

Ms. A. Hagen –– 11948

Mr. Vander Zalm

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Huberts –– 11949

Mr. Kempf –– 11951

Mr. Harcourt –– 11953

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. S. HAGEN: This afternoon I would like to welcome to the House members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation board of directors with whom I'll be meeting later on today I'd like to introduce and read their names into Hansard: Ken Novakowski, president, from Langley; Alice McQuade, second vice-president, from Delta; David Chudnovsky from Surrey; Maureen McPherson from Cowichan; Linda Watson from North Vancouver; Jan Eastman from Langley; Cathy McGregor from Kamloops; Bob Taverner from Prince George; and Carrol Whitwell from Vernon. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

I'd also like to welcome a constituent from my riding, Mrs. Doreen Gibson from Courtenay, and her friend Mrs. Leah Johnson from Victoria. Would the House please bid them welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: We, the members of the opposition, have spent most of this morning meeting with representatives of the public sector unions in British Columbia. It is my honour to represent all the members on this side in welcoming them today for the talks they had with us.

I would also like to name the four people who came from my riding, because they came from so far: from School District 1, the Fernie District Teachers' Association, President Bill Fite, from the parent advisory committee, Mrs. Nici Blackwell, from the Cranbrook District Teachers' Association, President Doug Hogg; and from the parent advisory group, Ms. Maureen Rae.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It is my pleasure to introduce to you His Excellency Rudolf Schuster, the Ambassador to Canada of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic. Would you please give him a warm British Columbia welcome.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'd like to welcome a group of teachers and parents from the riding of Vancouver South. I saw some of these teachers in my office recently on a Saturday morning, and those two people were Don Reader and Lisa Duprey. With them, of course, are Don Briard, Ken Denike and Sheila Pither.

As you'll notice, we have in the gallery today students from Magee Secondary School. Some 90 of them are here today. About half the class is up here now, and the other half will come in in a few minutes.

These students get involved in a parliamentary session of their own in their school. They have ministers for all sections of the Crown, a Premier and a Leader of the Opposition. They go through the whole parliamentary process, which I think is a wonderful lesson for them in how democracy operates. With that, I wish you would join me in welcoming all these students, teachers and parents.

MR. GABELMANN: In the gallery this afternoon are two visitors, both now from the greater Victoria area and both longtime friends of mine. I don't think they know each other, but one is Betty Donaldson and the other is Kay Ferraro. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. DUECK: Together with the second member for Central Fraser Valley, I would like to recognize Vicki Robinson, president of the Abbotsford District Teachers' Association. Joining her today is Cathy Goodfellow, a co-chairperson of the Matsqui-Abbotsford committee on education. Would the House please make them welcome.

MRS. BOONE: In the public gallery today is someone who helps keep me in line in my constituency, and certainly helps me and many people in Prince George a great deal: my constituency assistant, Sheryl Kosymiak. Would the House please give her greetings.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery there are four legislative interns who are helping our caucus. We've been immensely impressed with their expertise, knowledge and energy, and we're so pleased that they're helping us this session. I would like to introduce them. They are Bryar Smith, Jessica Mathers, Julie Walchli and Jaqueline Versaevel. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. JONES: I see in the gallery today the Social Credit candidate for the constituency of Burnaby North. Would the House please welcome Mrs. Margaret Woods.

MRS. McCARTHY: I want to join with the member opposite in welcoming Mrs. Margaret Woods, as I was going to do, and to say that she is sitting in the gallery with one of the outstanding directors of the Vancouver–Little Mountain constituency, Mrs. Pamela King. I ask the House to welcome them both.

MR. PETERSON: Seated in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, is a good friend and a very hard and strong community worker, Pastor Alex Warneke from the Northwest Langley Baptist Church. Would the House please join me in giving him a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. RABBITT: On behalf of the government and the Ministry of Labour, we wish to acknowledge and welcome representatives of several unions in the health industry: Carmela Allevato, the secretary and business manager of the Hospital Employees' Union, Geraldine McGuire, president of CUPE; Peter Cameron, executive director of the Health Sciences Association; and Debra McPherson, president of the B.C. Nurses' Union.

From my constituency, I have some very good friends and neighbours who joined us for the opening yesterday and are here today to witness question period: George and Josephine Mathieu of the beautiful Nicola Valley. Would you please give them a warm welcome.

[ Page 11944 ]

HON. MR. MERCIER: I would be remiss if I did not recognize and welcome to the Legislature my assistant for the past few years, Brenda Budd, who has been a very helpful person to me. Would you please make her welcome.

[2:15]

MR. SERWA: This afternoon I would like to introduce to the House Monica Rainey, who is here in Victoria representing the Glenrosa Elementary School parents' association. I would also like to acknowledge DeLee Cowan, another constituent from Kelowna, who led a delegation of teachers and public employees that I met with earlier this morning.

MR. CLARK: Yesterday my seatmate, colleague and friend — the first member for Vancouver East — re-signed his seat. I assure you that, unlike the former Minister of Finance, this was voluntary on his part. Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I would personally like to pay tribute to him today.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, hon. members. It's tradition that we extend people the courtesy of silence during the time of honouring members who are no longer serving with us, and I would ask that we continue in that way

MR. CLARK: The main reason that I occupy this seat in this chamber today is because of Bob Williams.

He may live to regret that; I certainly hope that members opposite live to regret that.

Bob Williams is an exceptional British Columbian who has served this province with distinction. As a cabinet minister in the Barrett government, he had a tremendous impact on public policy. As a minister responsible for recreation, he doubled the acreage preserved as parkland. He was and is a genuine entrepreneur. He is a successful businessman, but in the public sector he was an entrepreneur as well.

In the great tradition of western Canada, he believed in province-building — in the tradition of Tommy Douglas, Allan Blakeney, Peter Lougheed and, yes, even W.A.C. Bennett. The province can be a powerful force for economic development.

Most of all, I will miss his passion in this chamber.

Too often, politics in the 1990s is sanitized and homogenized, and I don't think those words apply to the former first member for Vancouver East.

Bob had deep convictions, and expressed them forcefully and articulately. We certainly could do with more of his kind. I know, however, this is not a eulogy, and he will continue to play a role in building British Columbia, but outside this chamber.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I really hadn't planned on making any remarks today regarding the member for Vancouver East, because for most of what I have to say about the member, I'd rather he were here in the House.

But I find it a little bit ludicrous that the other member would stand up and heap praise on that member. When you look at the record of his performance in this House.... It's not as though the member has departed this earth, and we're speaking of someone who has gone on to better things. If he has gone on to better things, it's because the party opposite is glad that he is no longer occupying the seat opposite.

I know that I speak for many members in this House when I can honestly say that, yes, we will miss the debating skills of the member for Vancouver East. He was an excellent debater. He always did his homework; he came into this House prepared. He wasn't always concerned whether what he said was the truth, and he used to hide behind that sometimes in this House. So it is with mixed emotions that I say we will miss the member for Vancouver East, because it's the second time he has departed voluntarily from this House. I think people should remember that.

When the member opposite says he was an entrepreneur, I guess he probably was. Maybe we should examine his record as an entrepreneur and the kickstart he got in 1975 that made him an entrepreneur.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would say the same if he were sitting in this House, Mr. Speaker. I have no qualms about saying some of these things about the member for Vancouver East, because I remember some of things that he said and that he hid behind the immunity of this chamber — something that I would refuse ever to do, and most of us on this side I'm sure would.

But I wish him well in his future endeavours. I have no doubt that he will surface one day soon. I'll leave it at that, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to respond to the comments that have been made by the first member for Vancouver East about the departed member for Vancouver East. I came to this House at the same time as Bob Williams, and I want to pay tribute to him today as man who came to this House, as all members have, to serve the province of British Columbia in the very best way he knew how.

Today is a very good day: the beginning of another session, with the throne speech yesterday. It's a good time to remember people like Bob Williams and other people on the opposition side, as well as on the government side of the House, who give up very many hours, days, months and years of the their personal life to serve. We don't talk about that very much, but it is a sacrifice that is made by each and every one who serves in this House, no matter which side of the House they serve.

I think that we can remember Bob Williams for a tremendous amount of very aggressive debate in this House. But we also must remember that this is the lace that aggressive and enthusiastic debate should make place, and also give thanks for the fact that we ave that freedom of speech in this parliament.

[ Page 11945 ]

I think the creativity of Bob Williams in the time that he served in the House as a member of the government was in many ways a great service to our province. I also want to say that as a member of the opposition, he kept the government side on its toes. Although this may seem a very interesting person to be giving an accolade to the former member for Vancouver East, I think that since we both came as green as grass to this chamber in 1966, we have both learned a great deal. I like to think that — in the last session particularly — Bob Williams and I have learned that there has been a great conviviality of friendship on both sides of the House that we treasure. I'm sure he will never forget it, and I know that I never will. I do wish him very well in the years to come.

MR. ROSE: I'll be very brief. I'd like to thank the hon. lady from Little Mountain for her gracious remarks towards an old adversary by the name of Bob Williams. We on this side of the House really appreciate that at least some members feel that although we have tough debates and tough-minded debates in here, those don't carry over into our personal reflections on people.

The hon. House Leader suggested that he wasn't really prepared for today, and I think he proved it.

Bob Williams was a tough-minded debater, and when he was here, everybody listened. This House and the people of British Columbia are going to miss him.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we are joined on the floor today by Mr. Lo Chun Yin, also known as Allan Roger, who was the senior legislative draftsman for the province of British Columbia for many years and is now the senior assistant law draftsman for the Crown Colony of Hong Kong. He is a long-term member there, and we wish him well in his visit to British Columbia.

Hon. Mrs. Gran tabled the fifty-first annual report of the Pension (Municipal) Act.

Oral Questions

SALE OF FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier — a very simple question. Who directed Mr. David Emerson, the senior public official in the government, to investigate aspects of the Fantasy Gardens sale?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The short answer to that question would be that, under direction of cabinet, Mr Emerson sought out certain information.

MR. CLARK: Was that the full cabinet or a committee of cabinet?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm at a loss to be more precise in answering that particular question. If it wasn't the full cabinet, it was a committee, but I can't be specific. I believe it was the entire cabinet.

MR. CLARK: Does the Premier consider it appropriate for the deputy minister in the Premier's office to undertake such an investigation?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It was a fact-finding mission.

MR. CLARK: Can the Premier inform the House why Mr. Emerson was directed to investigate the sale of Fantasy Gardens, what facts were asked to be looked into and whether those were reported?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It was for the purpose of clarification.

MR. SIHOTA: In response to the first question asked by my colleague, the Premier said that Mr. Emerson was asked to look up certain information. Can the Premier confirm that Mr. Emerson was asked to inform cabinet to the fullest extent possible of the particulars relating to the Fantasy Gardens sale?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: What was the question?

MR. SIHOTA: Again, if the Premier didn't hear, could she confirm that Mr. Emerson was asked to inform cabinet to the fullest extent possible about the particulars of the Fantasy Gardens sale?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, no.

MR. SIHOTA: Did Mr. Emerson advise the government as to the nature of the vendor financing as it related to Fantasy Gardens?

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew continues.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I hear the Premier saying she doesn't remember.

[2:30]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I didn't say that at all.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sorry, maybe I didn't hear the Premier. I'll ask the Premier to answer then. Did Mr. Emerson advise cabinet of the nature of the vendor financing in relation to Fantasy Gardens?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the information given to cabinet is not for discussion in this chamber.

MR. SIHOTA: I note that yesterday the Premier said in this House that she had nothing to hide — that the government had nothing to hide — about these types of matters. My question to the Premier, or the acting Premier, is this: when were you advised... ? Indeed, were you advised as to the nature of the ownership structure of Fantasy Gardens prior to its sale?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't know whether this question is being put to me personally or as Premier.

[ Page 11946 ]

I'm rather at a loss to properly respond. But I guess I can answer in this way: I don't recall the date on the newspaper which provided me with that information.

MR. SIHOTA: The acting Premier was then Deputy Premier. I'm not asking about the dates with respect to the newspaper stories; rather, I'm asking about the discussion and the information that Mr. Emerson forwarded to you as Deputy Premier in your capacity as a cabinet member. In that regard, were you provided with information as to the nature of the ownership structure of Fantasy Gardens prior to its sale?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIHOTA: I have in my possession a letter dated May 7, 1991, in which Mr. Emerson, through his counsel, advises:

"At the direction of cabinet, our client reviewed documents relating to the sale of Fantasy Gardens in order to ascertain and inform the members of cabinet to the fullest intent possible of the facts regarding the transaction, including in particular the nature of the vendor financing, the nature of the ownership structure to the sale, and the reasonableness of the sale price of the property and the business."

Does the acting Premier have any reason to deny the facts laid out in this letter?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'd like to clarify that there is no such thing as an acting Premier, and I have no knowledge of the letter.

MR. SIHOTA: I will be happy to table the letter at this time, Mr. Speaker, if I can give it to one of the Clerks. But let me put this question again to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You mustn't table the letter first. Hold onto the letter until you have leave. You may wish to do it, but I must ask leave of the House.

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA: Does the Premier deny the fact that cabinet was given information with respect to the nature of the vendor financing, the ownership structure prior to the sale and the reasonableness of the sale price? As a cabinet member, were you or were you not provided with those facts by Mr. Emerson?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Possibly the member opposite is not aware of the oath of confidentiality that we swear as members of cabinet. I would suggest that his question is out of order.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. Your current deputy minister has released a letter to the media detailing his involvement in the sale of Fantasy Gardens at the direction of cabinet. Have you discussed this matter with your deputy minister? I'll remind you that on numerous occasions you have cleared Mr. Emerson of any wrongdoing, because he was acting on the instructions of cabinet. We now have a letter which details exactly — in Mr. Emerson's words — what he did and what those instructions were from cabinet. We're asking you to confirm that what Mr. Emerson says is the case.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As I said earlier, I have not seen this letter.

MR. SIHOTA: Apart from the letter, will the Premier confirm that there were dozens of discussions in cabinet surrounding the Fantasy Gardens matter prior to October 1990?

FORESTRY MEMORANDUM
OF UNDERSTANDING

MR. VANT: My question is to the Minister of Forests. In view of the very major problems now being faced by our forest industry — particularly by the interior softwood lumber manufacturers — what steps is the Minister of Forests taking to alleviate the tremendous damage being imposed by the MOU?

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests can perhaps keep the answer brief.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As the member will know, for some time I've been concerned about the memorandum of understanding with the United States and the hardships it is imposing on this administration and the industry. Suffice it to say we are pushing that matter as hard as we can with the federal government. I have spoken with the Deputy Prime Minister as late as this morning. My deputy minister will be in Ottawa tomorrow to further discussions. Beyond that, because of other political considerations at the federal and American levels, I would rather not speak any more of it, because every word that we say, Mr. Member, is reported to Washington and may distort what we are indeed endeavouring to do with this MOU.

SALE OF FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier has indicated that Mr. Emerson provided certain information to cabinet. I'm not asking about cabinet discussions.

Does the Premier deny that Mr. Emerson provided to cabinet information relating to the nature of the vendor financing around Fantasy Gardens, the reasonableness of the sale price and the nature of the ownership structure? Mr. Emerson says, as a fact, he provided that information to cabinet. Do you deny that?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by the line of questioning. I have attempted in a number of ways to explain that discussions at cabinet are not going to be brought to these chambers. I find it strange in the extreme that the public statements made by the member for Vancouver East as well as the questioner have been quoted extensively in the local

[ Page 11947 ]

papers. It would suggest to everybody and sundry that they have all of this information.

I can tell you now — and I don't know how I can make it any clearer — that we will not discuss any part of our cabinet function in this room.

MR. SIHOTA: When the Premier was not so troubled yesterday, she said she had nothing to hide. Today she's troubled, and she's trying to stonewall and hide.

Were instructions given to Mr. Emerson to secure details around Fantasy Gardens? In particular, were instructions given to him to secure details around vendor financing, the price and the ownership structure?

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. We're not asking you to confirm what happened in cabinet. The question is what cabinet's instructions to Mr. Emerson were, not what was reported back or what you discussed about it, not how you arrived at it. Mr. Emerson has put out a version of those events. We're asking you to clarify the record. The people have a right to know. They have a right to get to the bottom of the Fantasy Gardens scandal. You have said you have nothing to hide. Mr. Emerson has put the details into the public domain, and we're asking you to confirm or deny them.

MR. SIHOTA: Let's go back a bit, then. Will the Premier confirm that Mr. Emerson was acting at the direction of cabinet to secure information as it related to the sale of Fantasy Gardens?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has to answer the question. Let me ask....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, don't answer the question, and your words yesterday that you have nothing to hide ring hollow. Could you advise the House, then — I'm not asking about the content of the discussions — whether cabinet discussed on several occasions prior to October 1990 the details of the Fantasy Gardens sale?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the date that has been mentioned, October, doesn't have any significance in my mind. The significance of all this questioning, in my mind, is an attempt by members of the opposition to somehow require me to break the oath that I swore when I went into cabinet, and I will not do that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Having been given notice of the matter, the Chair would appreciate it and it would assist the Chair if we could have silence during this portion of today's proceedings, because it's important that the Chair be able to clearly hear everything that is said.

Point of Privilege

MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my rising on this occasion is threefold: one, to tender material in support of a motion of privilege; two, to outline why, in my view, these materials establish a prima facie case that the Minister of Environment demonstrated a contempt for the rights and privileges of members of this assembly; and three, to indicate that I am prepared to tender a motion for your consideration should you find that a prima facie case has been made.

On July 26, 1990, the Minister of Environment stood in this assembly and supported the government's conflict-of-interest bill, Bill 66. Hansard, at pages 11583 and 11584, records his contribution to the assembly's debate in principle at second reading.

This is part of what he said on that occasion: "This bill respects the individual property rights and privacy of individuals who serve, while still providing for penalties in cases where there has been a violation of matters considered to be the public trust." He concluded his remarks with the unequivocal declaration: "So I think this bill will move a long way in the direction that the public wants us to move and still allow us the privacy rights. I support this bill."

As everyone is aware, Bill 66, with certain amendments, was passed by this assembly and was proclaimed in force late last year.

Under cover of a letter dated December 21, 1990, the minister, like all other members of this assembly, received from the acting conflict-of-interest commissioner a copy of the act, copies of the regulations that had been made pursuant to that act, four financial disclosure forms requiring completion and an overview guide prepared by the commissioner for the assistance of members. In this covering letter the acting commissioner spelled out when those disclosure forms had to be filed. The 60-day period referred to in section 32(2) expired on February 19, 1991.

[2:45]

Later in that same letter the acting commissioner added these words: "Prior to filing your statement, I will be available to be of assistance to you should the need arise."

Mr. Speaker, section 32(2) is very clear and admits no exceptions and says: "Members who are in office when this act comes into force shall file the disclosure statement required by section 12 within 60 days after this Act comes into force...."

By a letter dated January 24, 1991, the acting commissioner updated all members with respect to current matters pertaining to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. This letter also contained a second warning to members of this assembly. The letter reads: "The forms that I sent to you with my letter of December 21, 1990, are to be completed and returned to me at this office by February 19."

Once again, the acting commissioner offered help to any member who, for whatever reason, might be

[ Page 11948 ]

struggling with the disclosure requirements. The letter says this: "Some members have completed and filed their forms. Some have made contact with me seeking information and guidance. If you have any questions or believe I can assist, please call me."

On Friday, February 15, 1991, the minister addressed a letter to the acting commissioner and subsequently delivered a copy of that letter, to all members of the assembly. The minister's letter is striking for the following reasons: (1) the minister openly and arrogantly refused to obey the financial reporting requirements that this assembly had imposed on all sitting members; (2) the minister thought it appropriate to decide for himself that he was not, and would not be, in any conflict of interest; (3) the minister suggested that the disclosure requirements were unfair and should be revised by this Legislature; (4) the minister said nothing that would suggest that he took advantage of the acting commissioner's repeated invitation to discuss his concerns; and (5) the minister totally ignored the only honourable course left for a member in such circumstances. If he was not prepared to obey the law and honour his oath of office, he could have, and should have, resigned.

As he was required by the legislation, the acting commissioner reported to the Clerk of this assembly on March 21, 1991. He filed 68 public disclosure statements that day. Except for the Minister of Environment, every member of this assembly obeyed the law. A number of those members, for a variety of reasons, understood that they would not be returning to this assembly. Yet they understood their duty and saw to it.

It was not until April 15, 1991, when the acting commissioner delivered a second report to the Clerk of this assembly, that we learned that the minister had changed his mind. This is therefore the first opportunity I have had to raise this matter.

Why did the minister change his mind? Not because it was the right and proper thing to do — not at all. It was because the new Premier wanted the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to join her cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. First of all, I would ask the members to restrain themselves from interrupting.

I would remind the member that when a matter of privilege is being brought to the House, the matter must be stated as succinctly and briefly as possible, merely stating the facts. A debate around those facts will only ensue if in fact the Chair finds a prima facie case. Now is not the time to argue the case; now is merely the time to present the facts. I would ask members to bear that in mind and avoid anything other than stating facts so that the Chair can make a decision, without the editorial comment.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I suggest that the minister's conduct constitutes a flagrant and deliberate disregard for the authority and dignity of this assembly. It is, Mr. Speaker, contempt. As well, his conduct falls far short of the highest standards of personal and public conduct which the interim Premier says she expects from all members of cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, I would tender my materials for your consideration and would gratefully wait for your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has the motion?

MS. SMALLWOOD: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: If you would just retain the motion with you and table the information, the Chair would proceed with it after that matter.

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a few moments to assist in your consideration of this matter. The times referred to.... The House should be aware that I found some 17 deficiencies in the regulations that would only become evident with people who own something. I later reviewed those deficiencies with Commissioner Hughes. Mr. Hughes was quite busy during this intervening period working on other things; I think the House might remember that. I did meet with the commissioner, and I did file the required forms. I apologize now for the delay in filing same, and I hope you'll take those matters into consideration.

Point of Privilege

FORMER PREMIER'S OWNERSHIP OF
FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising on this second occasion is again threefold: to tender material in support of a motion of privilege; to outline why in my view these materials establish a prima facie case that the first member for Richmond (Mr. Vander Zalm) displayed a contempt for the rights and privileges of members of this assembly; and to indicate that I am prepared to tender a motion for your consideration should you find a prima facie case has been made out.

Mr. Speaker, the issue I am raising today relates to the conduct of the first member for Richmond when he rose in this assembly on March 11, 1991. I wish to make clear that it does not relate to any legal issues of either a criminal or civil nature that may be currently the subject of any judicial or quasi-judicial review.

Let me now come to the issue. There appears to have been a deliberate attempt by that member to suppress information concerning a reorganization of the shares of Fantasy Gardens, thus obstructing and impeding your parliamentary duty as Speaker in relation to the motion of privilege I made that day. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to the section beginning at page 192 of Mr. Maingot's treatise, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, a copy of which rests in the Clerk's chambers.

As you are already aware, the first member for Richmond, while still Premier, published an open letter to the people of the province on October 5, 1990. In that letter he said the purpose was "to clear up, once and for all, the facts about the Fantasy Gardens." In that letter the first member for Richmond made no refer-

[ Page 11949 ]

ence of any kind to the April 1989 reorganization of the shareholdings of Fantasy Gardens.

On March 11, when the first member for Richmond stood in this assembly "to explain a little bit about how it might have been that I" — referring to the member — "could have been mistaken about the shares" in Fantasy Gardens, he again made no mention whatsoever of that April 1989 share reorganization. Instead, he repeated what he had said in the letter of October 5: that he simply had been mistaken about what had happened to his shareholdings when he became Premier in 1986.

Let me come to new information as a result of documents and transcripts that became publicly avail able for the first time last week. It was very clear from those documents that the first member for Richmond was thoroughly briefed immediately to and for the purpose of preparing his letter of October 5. He was cautioned about the need for a complete and unequivocal explanation of his shareholdings.

Mr. Speaker, I will describe very briefly what emerges from this material, and I will be tabling it with you in detail. The member for Richmond was re minded by his lawyer, Michael Kendler, that in 1986 Mr. Kendler had advised against any share transfer and received no instructions to effect a share transfer.

This was confirmed by a letter from Mr. Kendler to the member on September 28, 1990. Mr. Kendler's explanation was that he "wanted to be sure that before the member gave a public explanation, the member had my recollection and my file notes about what had been discussed in 1986."

On October 5, 1990, the day the letter was actually released, the accountant for Fantasy Gardens, John Vegt, prepared a two-page memorandum for the first member for Richmond. He and the member then met to discuss both the events of 1986 and the 1989 reorganization of shares. In that memorandum the April 1989 reorganization was outlined and detailed. It was designed, said Mr. Vegt, "to crystallize $400,000 of capital gains" for the member and his wife.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, both the deputy minister of the Premier, David Emerson, and the Premier's principal secretary, Jerry Lampert, were asked by the first member for Richmond to review his October 1990 letter before it was made public. Both did. Emerson — and I'm quoting from the transcript — "found some weakness in the letter when it came to the question of ownership of Fantasy Gardens" and "found it hard to explain the discrepancies in the letter on that issue."

However, Mr. Emerson recalls that the only changes made to the letter were "largely cosmetic."

When the first member for Richmond stood in this assembly just two months ago, all of this must have been within his memory, yet it appears that he chose to withhold this important and relevant information from you. He omitted to tell you the whole truth as he knew it. Mr. Speaker, such conduct offends the dignity of this chamber, and it deprives you of important facts crucial to your coming to a just decision. You, sir, must be able to rely on the complete candour of those who speak and seek your guidance.

That, I submit, is the nature of the trust that members of this assembly have placed in the office. If we in this assembly deny the need to speak all of the truth, we re not only committing a grave contempt of the privileges that we enjoy in this assembly, we endanger he democratic institution itself.

I file with you, sir, the documents on which I have based my comments today. I have a motion for your consideration, and I look forward to your ruling on his matter.

MR. SPEAKER: It's appropriate. I was in error earlier. It's appropriate to file the motion and the information at the same time.

MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm not prepared now to respond to this motion. It comes as a surprise. I've not been provided with the material in advance, and I would therefore ask the opportunity to consider this motion and the material that she is submitting to support it, and for the opportunity to respond, preferably early next week, since I will be attending to family matters in the next several days.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Such agreement is normal in situations like this, if that's agreeable to the House. It's also incumbent upon the speaker to remind members that when matters of privilege are brought forward, the Speaker will take hose matters under consideration and bring back a decision at the earliest possible occasion.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

MR. HUBERTS: It's with great pleasure that I rise in he House today and present the following motion, seconded by my colleague for Omineca, on behalf of he people of British Columbia and the government of our province: "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and royal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in session assembled, beg leave to thank His Honour for the gracious speech which His Honour addressed to us at the opening of the present session."

Mr. Speaker, we've assembled today to once again conduct the people's business, and we've assembled at time when governments are called upon by citizens everywhere to show leadership, fiscal responsibility and a committed, caring response to the needs which ace families, women and men in our society.

[3:00]

As British Columbians, we have been truly blessed n our resources, our people and the natural heritage which we enjoy. But with blessings such as these come responsibilities — responsibilities which this government has taken seriously and which we heard outlined n the Speech from the Throne read in this chamber Yesterday.

As I listened to that throne speech, I was struck by he many new and ongoing initiatives this government has committed to the betterment of our province. As a caring and responsible government, we have tackled many problems and made great advances in meeting

[ Page 11950 ]

the needs of the citizens of this province. No govern ment anywhere has gone to the extent that this government has in order to consult and to act upon the advice the citizens have given.

We have had a Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. We have had the Environment 2000 planning process, the Parks Plan '90 process, the Forest Resources Commission, the Johnstone Strait killer whale committee, the Municipal Solid Waste Management Task Force and the Special Waste Advisory Committee.

Unlike the NDP, who use consultation and commit tees and who often use them to avoid making tough decisions, we in the Social Credit government have listened to the people and have responded with positive initiatives and timely decisions. We're not afraid to make tough decisions. That's what this government is elected to do: face the issues and show leadership.

We — not the members of the opposition — have reversed the province's historic position on native land claims. They had every opportunity to do that between 1972 and 1975. We are opting to negotiate and to settle this longstanding issue fairly, equitably and with finality. We are doing this by participating in honest, hard-nosed negotiations that will result in timely and affordable agreements that all parties can accept.

It is our Social Credit government that has acted to reform and to improve the education, health care and justice systems. It is our Social Credit government that was the first to appoint a minister responsible for women's programs and families. Our government — I not the NDP — produced pay equity programs for the public sector and a B.C. Retirement Savings Plan Act, and we will soon be implementing a comprehensive child care strategy. These are actions, not just words and empty promises.

I respect the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in our parliamentary system, but I must say with all candour that I have little respect for those who believe that partisan politics come before the people's best interests. Integrity and people's trust are earned; they're not taken from a party platform. None of us has a monopoly on truth, and no one party has a monopoly on virtue. Let it never be said that the members opposite are the only ones who care for the people of this province, for the single mother trying to provide for her family or for the abused spouse in need of shelter and a person to talk to. We care and I care, and I was instrumental in being part of building and assisting with the Transition House in Victoria.

Let it never be said that we don't care about the children in the province of British Columbia and do not make every effort to give them the finest education I that money can buy.

This government also has a tremendous care and feeling for the safe environment of this society so that we may have an even better society. It is our government that has replaced words with action and rhetoric with programs to assist those in need.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to examine the policies of the only NDP government currently in power in the country and see how the socialists measure up to people's trust. It's always interesting to sit in the House and to have them come to us: we're the bad guys, and hey're the good guys; they would do it so wonderfully, and they have such talent and trustworthiness. We just need to look at Ontario today.

During their short few months in office, we have seen eight major scandals in Ontario, including two ministers who have been fired and forced to resign. I was talking to my brother-in-law on the phone a couple of days ago, and it looks like a couple more may be on their way out. The NDP in this province would say: "But that's in Ontario." When I was Minister of Parks, I coined a phrase: "A park is a park." I'll coin a phrase today: "A socialist is a socialist, whether he's in B.C., Ontario or Europe."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We see in Ontario that 26 of 76 promises made by he NDP during the election campaign have been broken in a period of four months. I think that's something the people of British Columbia will want to remember when we get on the election trail. I hope hey remember that on the day we come to an election. That's despite increases which put Ontario deeper in debt in one year than the total direct government debt accumulated in British Columbia since Confederation. Can you believe it? So much for the model of trust the NDP would have the people of the province admire and follow.

My hon. colleague wishes to interrupt me and introduce a class from his area. Would that be possible?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member seeks leave to make an introduction.

MR. HUBERTS: That is correct. As I said, we care or the children in British Columbia. Go ahead.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like to thank my colleague or his indulgence. I ask the House to welcome the grade 8 class from Chandler Park Middle School in Smithers. The students are under the direction of their teacher, Mrs. Maureen Stuart, aided by a colleague and several parents. Would the House make them welcome, please.

MR. HUBERTS: Let me also welcome those students, since I was minister of state in that area in the last. It's good to see you here.

Mr. Speaker, what the people of this province want, what they deserve, is a government that is fiscally responsible and able to manage the people's business in a responsible and caring manner. On this, no government in Canada has even come close to what as been accomplished in British Columbia. Fiscal responsibility means a system that is financially solvent. It means not leaving a legacy of ever-increasing debt to our children and grandchildren that will ultimately mean unbearable taxes and a reduction in social services.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think we can brag a little about our government's fiscal responsibility. It's a matter of public record, as reflected in the facts outlined in the

[ Page 11951 ]

Dominion Bond Rating Service's report of February 25. It showed that B.C. spends more of its budget on education at all levels than any other province. It showed B.C.'s education expenditures rising over the last four years, from 23 percent of the budget to 27.4 percent, while Ontario's have consistently dropped to just 19.8 percent.

How about the Lehman Bros. report, which found that B.C. spends far more on social programs as a percentage of total spending than any other province in Canada? We spend 70 percent on social programs, while the closest province in terms of spending accounts for only 62 percent — all of this while providing responsible management of the province's affairs.

Where are the integrity and public trust in the NDP policies being put forward by their government in Ontario? A government that has sold out to future generations to finance its massive spending increases today. A $10 billion deficit in one year. Where is the integrity in their policies? A government that is proud to double its debt in just four years. A government that could have reduced its current debt to $2 billion from nearly $10 billion if it had only maintained its revenue projections while keeping spending increases to the rate of inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you why our government is succeeding while the NDP will fail: fiscal integrity and sound management, not spending beyond our means. It's so basic that every one of us can learn that little lesson at home in our own families. Not spending beyond our means. Not doing what the NDP is doing or what our members opposite would be doing if they were in power — increasing expenditures at three times the inflation rate while revenues are projected to shrink.

The Social Credit government has been able to afford substantial increases for education, health care, social services and the environment without raising taxes for two years. We have made tough choices, and we've shown strong leadership. This throne speech continues to put forward to the people of this province the sound management policies of the government, policies which meet public needs while protecting the taxpayer's ability to pay.

While sound fiscal management is key to the ability of government to deliver on social programs, it is important not to forget the quality of life which British Columbians have come to enjoy and expect. I've already mentioned some of the numerous initiatives and programs which our government has acted upon to preserve the quality of life that we enjoy in this great province: initiatives to ensure a healthy economy and a healthy environment; initiatives to ensure that environmental needs are balanced with the needs of families and communities which rely upon the resources of the land; programs which respect the beauty of our natural heritage and make it accessible to people everywhere while preserving the integrity of our wilderness areas, initiatives which show a commitment to the value of family life — something dear to me and certainly very dear to my constituents.

The family truly is the centre of our society, a fact which I was pleased to hear affirmed in the Speech from the Throne. I was also pleased to hear of our government's intention to develop a comprehensive child care program and to work in partnership with business and community leaders to provide quality child care services. Women, children, seniors and families — the very fabric of our province — are all recognized and all listened to, with programs that respond to their needs. These are the policies of a caring government. These are the policies of a Social Credit government.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but I'd like to give an opportunity to my colleague to continue. Before I do, let me say that I'm proud to be a member of this government, a government made up of human beings making human decisions and, yes, from time to time human errors. But we are not afraid of tough decisions or consultation. We consult to provide better government, not to avoid decision-making. We respect the taxpayers' ability to pay while providing social services to the people of this province which are the envy of others across the country. We are committed to prudent financial management and a caring, compassionate society.

[3:15]

These are the hallmarks of a government that has earned the people's trust time after time. I am confident that our programs and our policies will continue to earn that trust and that we will be elected as the government of the province for many years to come.

On a final note, it might also be appropriate at the beginning of this fifth session of the thirty-fourth parliament to encourage each of us to work together and to lift ourselves out of this room where sometimes politics clouds our thinking, where sometimes rhetoric and scoring political points are so important to us. And maybe it would be wise at this time for us to look at what is happening internationally and to think about thousands of people dying in Bangladesh, the Kurdish refugees, and maybe those having difficult times in the Horn of Africa because of famines — and even closer to home, to think about Mr. and Mrs. Dunahee as they are wondering where Michael is. When we sit here, maybe sometimes we should think a little bit more of serving the people and working together so that we will build a better tomorrow in all nations, in all of a united Canada, and in British Columbia.

MR. KEMPF: It feels very good to stand once again in this House and speak on behalf of those whom I represent in this province. And it gives me a great deal of pleasure, after having done so for the first time in this chamber in my inaugural speech here some 15 years ago, to once again stand and very proudly second His Honour's speech — and to do so from a point one seat away from where I then sat in this chamber and one seat closer to the back door. Perhaps there's a hidden message in that. We'll find out some day.

I wish to begin by quoting Woody Allen from his speech to the graduates: "More than at any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."

[ Page 11952 ]

British Columbians today are on the horns of a dilemma. They are surely at a crossroads — or will be in a very few weeks when they once again go to the polls to elect a new government. And yes, I pray, particularly on behalf of northerners, most of whom depend for their very livelihoods on an individual enterprise system, that they have the wisdom to choose correctly. There is no doubt that the present government has been plagued with personal problems — some small, some larger — all of which have been amply portrayed on our television sets each evening or in our newspapers each morning. And I harbour no malice toward the media for that. It's their job, after all; they are the watchdog. There is no doubt that because we in this administration are human beings and because of our second-to-none news-reporting system, we have been seen from time to time to stub our toe. But what makes the official opposition believe that they would be any different or that they would be immune? What has given them the licence to sit back, say nothing and stand for very little, allowing the hard-working news media to do their work while they themselves led the people of this province to believe they stand for very little? That's the message out there, by those who would aspire to be the next government in British Columbia. They've told the people of British Columbia little, allowing the media to do their job. Hiding out for the last four and a half years — hoping that no one would notice their absence and hoping no one would notice what's happening in other jurisdictions all over the world, and now even here in our own country, where administrations of a like philosophy have failed. It certainly adds meaning to the old saying: "No one shoots at a dead duck." No one has shot at the official opposition lately, and it's absolutely no wonder. Yes, we've made mistakes. Let us all be large enough to admit that and accept it. But some very good things were done also, and our economy shows that. Our economy is second only to that of our neighbours in Alberta, in all of Canada. That is what is important to British Columbians, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to read from His Honour's speech. I think it's worth repeating.

"People in all parts of, the country have come to the realization that the growth of government debt at all levels in Canada has reached crisis proportions. Uncorrected, the burden of this growing debt inhibits the ability of governments to deliver universal social pro grams to the national standards which have become a hallmark of our Canadian life. Changes to eliminate this problem are pressing and urgent, but solutions a will require sacrifices."

"The government of British Columbia has a long standing commitment to responsible management of provincial affairs."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, this throne speech is the most explicit, straightforward, clear and meaningful throne speech I've heard in this House — and I've heard many in the 15-plus years I've been here. It's a throne speech for British Columbians: their communities, their families, a the women, the children and, yes, the wage-earners of this province. It's a throne speech which will surely go down in history as the first of its kind.

I'd like to read from His Honour's speech once again:

"My Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations will present to you a budget appropriate to the difficult economic climate we now face. It will be a responsible budget, and those who can afford to do so may be asked to contribute a little more so that vital and essential programs can be maintained and improved."

That's what the people of British Columbia want, as my colleague just said a few minutes ago: fiscal responsibility. Certainly we've stubbed our toe, and we've seen that happen very quickly in other jurisdictions of late. Financial stability, financial responsibility — you simply can't overshadow that fact in British Columbia by innuendo; it can't be done.

British Columbians would have us actually legislate annual growth in spending. I support that. I read from a recent poll. The question was asked: "Should there be legislation to limit the annual growth of spending by he government of British Columbia?" The response was that 64 percent of those polled would have this Legislature do that, Mr. Speaker — 64 percent as compared to 28 percent against.

And what do we see in jurisdictions with philosophies similar to those of the members opposite? Let's look at our friends in Ontario. What has it been? About 270 days or thereabouts that we've had a government in the province of Ontario having a philosophy similar to that of the official opposition in British Columbia — about that time. The deficit comes in at a staggering $9.7 billion, representing nearly one-quarter of all income. Overall spending is up 13.4 percent or $6.2 billion. The $9.7 billion debt represents 23 percent of income in the province of Ontario. This one year's deficit is twice as high as B.C.'s total accumulated debt.

[3:30]

The budget in Ontario is so bad that it's going to adversely affect the whole of Canada to a point where he experts are now saying that it may even halt the downward trend of the interest rate. We will all pay for he Ontario experiment. They chose the wrong path at he crossroads.

I would read again from His Honour's speech....

MR. ZIRNHELT: From Ontario?

MR. KEMPF: I don't think the members opposite would want me to read from the Ontario throne speech and then compare it to what's happened. I don't think so, but if they would like, at a later date we can probably do that and probably will, time after time, as we meet the people of British Columbia on the campaign trail.

They chose the wrong path at the crossroads. There re problems, yes, but good fiscal management. No ne can deny that, not even the official opposition. A throne speech for the future of British Columbia and its people....

I think we have to repeat a number of things that re said in this throne speech. I quote: "The Forest resources Commission was established to advise on

[ Page 11953 ]

my government's approach to sustaining and enriching our forest base as we enter the twenty-first century"

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Leader of the Opposition, you'll have your opportunity to debate this throne speech. Just be very patient. You'll have your opportunity as well, and we'll listen with open ears and bated breath.

His Honour's speech goes on to say: "My Minister of Forests has now received and released the report of the commissioner. The minister will initiate a process for public review and comment to guide further action on the report's recommendations."

The members opposite make fun of me relating that to this chamber, and I can understand why. I would at this point suggest to the chamber that this province and that committee could have saved much time, effort and taxpayers' money had a certain previous Minister of Forests been allowed to complete a job once started.

This is a throne speech with much emphasis on the environment — a topic very high in the vocabulary of British Columbians today — a throne speech which very clearly talks about health care and improvements to what is now the best health care system in the world today.

It talks about social housing, and we clearly see the right of every individual to have a roof over his or her head. It talks about education; and of particular importance to the people of the north, it talks about the development of the University of Northern British Columbia. That is now a reality. We will be soon laying foundations for the University of Northern British Columbia, something our young people in the north are eager to see.

The throne speech talks about our aboriginal peoples and the initiative of this government to negotiate alongside these British Columbians with the federal government, to rectify longstanding grievances and to genuinely assist our native communities; not to accept on behalf of British Columbians the responsibility of land claims or aboriginal title, as some in this chamber would have us do — a promise which if kept would tie the taxpayer of British Columbia to an absolutely impossible debt, or see land of which there is not one spare hectare not presently utilized for the benefit of all British Columbians, all our people, promised to one particular user or another.

We on this side of the House realize that to simply throw land or money at the native problem in this province is not the answer at all. The answer is to help our aboriginal people, who have met their fate, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, under a repressive, archaic and unacceptable Indian Act — to help those people out from under that dilemma.

Again I say that in my 15-plus years in this chamber, I have not seen a document entered as a throne speech more attuned to the concerns and aspirations of British Columbians. It's a breath of fresh air, and I'm proud, on behalf of those whom I represent, to second this speech.

MR. HARCOURT: Yesterday, on the same day that this government tabled a throne speech that tried to give the appearance of embracing integrity, the Finance minister was forced to resign for breaking the law. The current government continues to have the worst record of scandals anywhere in Canada. As a matter of fact, in the last nine months alone, the Premier; the province's chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney-General; and now the chief financial manager, the Minister of Finance, have all been forced to resign.

Yesterday's throne speech was at best a list of recycled and unkept promises and hypocrisy about government ethics. Yesterday's events showed that it's time for a change in British Columbia. I'll have more to say tomorrow morning on the need to change how this province of ours is governed and for whom it's governed. I'll be speaking about the positive alternative the people of British Columbia can expect from the New Democratic caucus in this legislative session, and about the many positive initiatives we have put forward for quite a few months now, as this government has been embroiled in scandal after scandal, in coverups and in trying to survive — doing everything it can except looking after the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 3:40 p.m.