Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 1992

Volume 5, Number 5

[ Page 3073 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OPERATIONS

On vote 6: office of the Premier and executive council operations, $4,376,000 (continued).

G. Wilson: I had an opportunity to review yesterday's Hansard, and in going through the estimates today, I hope to try to avoid any repetition of questions that were raised yesterday. However, in the interests of trying to get through this in a manner that is speedy and workable, let me suggest that there are three broad areas which I would like to question in these estimates, the first being the office of the Premier; secondly, to get into discussions with respect to the B.C. trade and development section of this expenditure; and finally to work with respect to the office of the Premier and the Premier's direct involvement in matters relating to the constitution of Canada. Constitutional reform may be related. Given the documents from Ottawa that are now available to us for review, there are some obvious areas of overlap on those two matters. Those are the three general headings that I would like to pursue today.

I notice that the leader of the third party has some interest in asking questions today. I would certainly be prepared to defer to the leader of the third party where there is an interest so we can get through this in some order.

In reading the questions that were put forward and answered in yesterday's Hansard, we noticed that there is a proposition with respect to the group account classifications of the office of the Premier in terms of increased expenditures from 1991-92 through to the 1992-93 budget. The increases that we see that are reasonably comparable with respect to last year's dollars in salaries and benefits show two areas where there are some substantial anomalies. One is in the operation cost. We notice in the 1991-92 budget that there was an operating expenditure of $152,746, which has been reduced in this year's expenses to $73,391. I wonder if the Premier might just share with us what has been shifted or moved or where those reductions have been made possible.

Hon. M. Harcourt: You're referring to the operating costs. In the 1991-92 estimates they were $152,746. They were reduced to $73,391, which is a decrease of about 52 percent. That was because the press secretary under the previous administration was on a contract-for-services basis. That was a decrease of the operating cost because the press secretary is now on a regular salaried basis. That would be included in the salary and benefits portion, which is why that was increased 6 percent from $1,457,188 to $1,543,972, which also included the outreach program. Those are the two changes.

G. Wilson: That would explain that reduction in terms of operating cost, but one assumes that if an individual is on salary -- and I understood the Premier to say that it was as a result of change in salary -- that would have been reflected in the salaries and benefits portion of the budget, which we notice from the 1990-91 estimate years to have increased by roughly half a million dollars. I wonder if the Premier can then explain where it is that the increase in salaries has gone up so substantially since 1991 by roughly $500,000, and the operation costs could have been reduced.

Hon. Chairman, I find the ruckus in this House to be very distracting. I notice in fact it's one of the opposition members who is probably causing some of it on the government side of the House. I realize he may have a desire to get over there, but he should wait.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I appreciate the interjection. That's a point well taken. I would ask that all members please remain reasonably quiet during the activities of the committee. If not, it would be of assistance if you would leave the chamber.

G. Wilson: To clarify then again to the Premier, because it was difficult to concentrate on these numbers, what I'm referring to is the 1990-91 estimates. We looked at about $1,071,000 in salaries and benefits that has increased through 1991-92 to $1,457,000, which increased again to $1,543,000 in this year -- the '92-93 estimates which we're debating now -- while we saw the operation costs diminish by roughly 52 percent, as the Premier correctly said. I understood the response to mean it was because of contracted services to the principal secretary. I would have thought that would have been covered as a portion of the salaries package rather than in the operation costs. I wonder if the Premier can clarify that.

Hon. M. Harcourt: The increases and decreases under the salaries and benefits amounts to changes that were recommended in accordance with the comptroller general of what should be included in those estimates and what shouldn't. That's why the figure reads $1,457,188. It was done after a review by the comptroller general. In terms of salaries and benefits, this was increased $328,483, because all contracts were converted to salary positions. As I said, the office restructuring costs were included. Employee benefits of $57,951 were calculated in because of the conversion from a contract to a full-time equivalent. There is not just a salary; there are the benefits that go along with that too.

[10:15]

Professional services were decreased, because the contracts for professional services of the press secretary and the principal secretary were converted to salary

[ Page 3074 ]

positions. There was no contract requirement for a driver security person and the boards and commissions person. That is why there was a decrease in professional services. In vehicles and operating maintenance there was an increase of $2,000; office furniture and equipment, an increase of $2,000; and lease vehicle, an increase of $3,120. Those changes were introduced so that the estimates now read $1,457,188, after review by the comptroller general. The estimates for this year are $1,543,972, an increase of 6 percent to deal with the outreach program personnel -- three people -- and the press secretary position.

G. Wilson: I would like to clarify this in my own mind. Let me not read into this. Let me ask the question directly. The staff that were on contract are now on salary. Let's talk positions. The positions that were formerly contracted out are now on salary. There were three additional people, who are outreach people, plus the principal secretary, who is the component part of that salary increase that would otherwise be reported before, which is now being included in salaries and benefits. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That's the press secretary, not the principal secretary. The principal secretary was converted over in the last fiscal year.

G. Wilson: In reviewing Hansard yesterday.... Again, I really will try not to be repetitious. I realize that there was some discussion with respect to the outreach -- the three new additional people that have been brought on. That has pushed up the cost, at least in part, from the $1.457 million figure to the $1.543 million figure. It isn't exactly clear, even from reading Hansard yesterday, what the functional part of the outreach program is within the Premier's office. I wonder if the Premier might clarify his comments from yesterday when he talked about the need to have outreach in order to have people facilitate their communication with the Premier; if he could explain why we need three and how that program functions in a practical sense.

Hon. M. Harcourt: As I attempted to do when I was the mayor of Vancouver, I try to be as open and as accessible as possible. In Vancouver I was covering 43 square miles. Now I'm Premier of a province that's the size of Washington, Oregon and California combined -- over 360,000 square miles. It's a very large area with 3.3 million people. To be proactive and ensure that we solicit the opinions of the women of this province, multicultural organizations, small businesses, workers, the business community, people involved in environmental issues and a variety of other issues, it requires having three staff to help me carry out that role. The Premier's office is open and accessible to the people of British Columbia and to the various volunteer and trade associations throughout the province.

G. Wilson: I appreciate what the Premier's saying. My confusion lies when we start to look at the delegation of power or authority from the Premier's office. I think it is a hallmark of this administration that there is a movement away from a centralized, rather monolithic -- some might argue sort of.... Well, let's not get back to former premiers, but it's a style that is less authoritarian and autocratic.

If you're dealing with matters respecting women and the multicultural, business and environment communities you've just mentioned, why would those people not be better placed in the Ministry of Women's Equality, with the Deputy Premier who deals with multicultural matters or with the Minister of Environment, who deals with environmental matters? If we are going to decentralize the power from the office of the Premier as a general theme in government, I have difficulty understanding why there is a separate set of doors that individuals can walk through, as opposed to going through the line ministries?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Because they don't; they go to the Premier and to the Premier's office. Sometimes it's because they have been frustrated in their dealings with a particular department, or sometimes it's because they don't know. They just phone up the Premier's office and want to know about a particular grant process or where they can deal with a foreshore lease on some Crown land. Or they're upset about a particularly serious environmental toxic waste problem in their area, so they phone the Premier's office.

Rather than overloading the staff, who are already dealing with the Premier's scheduling, the groups that want the Premier in his ceremonial role and the Premier's social obligations, we have people who are consciously there to deal with those citizens who phone and say: "We're asking the Premier...."

We can then help them meet the right person in the Ministry of Women's Equality or in small business and the small business export loan program. They then guide them to exactly the right person to talk to. They play both roles: to have people who are going to contact the Premier's office in any case, as they do my constituency office, which is that of an MLA. They get in touch with my executive assistant or my constituency office. The same thing applies with my Premier's office here in Victoria.

G. Wilson: I don't want to get into a debate on this question, but it would seem that that function might be performed by somebody who is well trained in reception and who can simply steer those kinds of questions to the ministries. If we use a model that is generally used in the corporate sector, it's unusual for a CEO to have outreach people rather than vice-presidents, directors or, in the case of government, ministers whose staff would handle that. But it is a relatively small cost overall. I would defer to the Premier, but it may be seen to be somewhat duplicative in terms of their demand.

This is a much more important question: do these outreach people have anything to do with the concept of the regions in the province? They were introduced by the former government, and they still exist and have offices. I don't know what they do, but they're out there. These regions are still a functional part of government. Are these outreach people actually working with region

[ Page 3075 ]

1 through to however many they eroded to before the government fell?

Hon. M. Harcourt: No, they're not working directly with them. Those particular offices are under the Ministry of Economic Development.

G. Wilson: As I say, these regional offices are still on the books; the government hasn't withdrawn them. They are still out there doing some things, whatever that may be. The outreach personnel would not have any contact if, for example, people in the Kootenays or the Cariboo may want to deal with interministerial matters that affect their region, and they would not use that door to get the kind of solutions to the questions that they have.

Hon. M. Harcourt: They might.

G. Wilson: I suspect that they may very well do that, because it would seem to be a way around it, given that some of these offices appear to be funded but are not functioning. I'd like to ask the Premier what the government is doing about that, although that may be outside the purview of these estimates. Clearly, if there is a need to have regional outreach, does the Premier see that to be a function of the Premier's office? Should it be an expanded function of some other ministry? In the light of the moneys that have been committed into these programs, would the Premier expand a little on how he sees the decentralization of the power and authority that lies within the Premier's office developed through these outreach people?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's not their role to be regional facilitators. The Minister of Economic Development and his new deputy, Ian McKinnon, are very conscious of the imbalances in this province -- imbalance in growth and economic activity -- and the minister, coming from the Cariboo and from the northern interior, is fully aware of the need to have a better balance of economic activity and a fair sharing of the growth and benefits in British Columbia. He's very actively working on that as the lead minister in starting to develop regional economic strategies, working with the mayors and councils, the lumber manufacturers and others throughout the regions. The three-person office could not possibly perform that role, nor should they.

G. Wilson: Will the Premier then provide us assurance that the outreach people are not functioning in the Premier's office in order to involve themselves in what might be considered more partisan organization, development, preparedness or growth? It's something I think has come to the forefront with respect to the public's desire and certainly the Liberal opposition's desire to draw very clear lines between the function of people within government on government salary and those who may be actively involved or engaged in activities that might more clearly be defined as party business. I wonder if the Premier might comment on that and give us some assurance that these outreach people are not in any way engaged in business that might be seen to be more directly related to the evolution and function of an evolving political party as opposed to a Premier's office.

Hon. M. Harcourt: As I stated, the purpose of the outreach department is to facilitate my proactive relations with the various groups and individuals throughout this province. Sometimes citizens get frustrated trying to deal with red tape and bureaucracy. They feel they're not being listened to and not having their particular proposals addressed; they're not having their licences processed quickly enough. So they go to the top, to the Premier's office. The role of the three very skilled people in the outreach department is to help those particular citizens and make sure that the ministries they're dealing with actually do that, or to receive information and briefs around grants and lotteries that we can get to the relevant minister or ministry staff in Environment or Transportation or Government Services. So that is the role. They are to play the same role as the staff that I had when I was mayor.

I had one staff person whose job was to help in the two days a month that I had as citizens' days in the mayor's office. First come, first served. Anybody could come in and see me. A lot of citizens came in with genuine frustration about dealing with permits and licences or the planning or police or fire departments. I had a troubleshooter in every department who was on line that day to deal directly with that person. Instead of memos having to pass backward and forward and having all kinds of time take place, the citizen had their concerns dealt with right then and there. I'm trying to do that every day.

The role of the outreach department is to help our citizens to get the service that they need and to be listened to. It is to make sure that they meet with the right ministerial or executive assistant or staff person in each of the ministries. Each of these outreach officers has a responsibility when dealing with the ministerial and executive assistants to make sure that they're carrying out my instructions by being open and accessible. They at least have a liaison with our caucus to make sure that there is good communication with the MLAs and staff of the New Democrat government caucus, plus all of the other various interest groups and individuals in British Columbia. That is their function. It's an extension of a successful program that I introduced when I was the mayor of Vancouver.

[10:30]

G. Wilson: I'm sure the Premier will agree, though, that there's a substantive difference in the role of Premier and the role of mayor of Vancouver. In the role of mayor of Vancouver, while there are councillors -- as they are now called -- those councillors are elected somewhat at large. It's quite different than having a cabinet, which essentially, I would assume, were the troubleshooters in the areas that needed troubleshooting. I'm prepared to take the Premier's word that he needs three full-time troubleshooters on staff to handle the citizens' inability to get through line ministries to the minister. I would think that that would reflect some

[ Page 3076 ]

problems in the way the cabinet's working, but that's up to the Premier to decide.

It would seem to me that we have to try to clarify.... I'll come directly to the point, because I think it's one that needs to be clarified. A perception has been provided to the Liberal opposition, at least, and I've undertaken, on behalf of those people who have suggested this, to ask the Premier directly. I would hope that the Premier would give me a forthright answer on this so we can allay the fears of people who are communicating to me. The outreach personnel, the three full-time people who are working there, are at no time engaged in or involved with direct party function, party matters that should more properly and more correctly be financed by the political party rather than the taxpayers of the province?

Hon. M. Harcourt: They are engaged in political activity as part of the New Democrat government. They are not paid for, nor are they involved with the New Democratic Party. What they do as individuals on their own time is their own business. I don't ask them. It's up to them, just as I don't ask what your staff do on their own time when they're not being paid to serve your particular opposition caucus or your office.

Their role, as I said, is an extension of the one that I experimented with when I was the mayor. We had only one person then. I have three now. I think you'll agree that the scale and scope of the activities of a Premier are a thousand times more complex and difficult. The scale of the province is quite different: the number of citizens we have, the range of problems, the number of people who are employed in the provincial government and Crown corporations. The range of activities that these three people would be dealing with and the scale of the province are much more significant. Therefore I have three people doing that instead of the one I had when I was the mayor of Vancouver.

G. Wilson: I'll take the Premier's word, then, to suggest that there is no overt political activity, and I think that we in the opposition will be vigilant to make sure that's so.

If we could move on a little more directly to the ideological framework within which the Premier's office is functioning.... My question has to do somewhat with the decentralization of government and the support for the initiative of regionalization -- which was, I guess, a hallmark of the former government -- that seemed to have never got off the ground successfully. In terms of this set of estimates and of the kind of obvious concern the Premier has for the economic well-being of the province -- demonstrated by the fact that the Premier has kept B.C. Trade Development as a functioning part of his portfolio -- I wonder if the Premier would tell us what we're doing with those regional entities. They are obviously still operating, but doing very little. They were formally involved in the promotion and development of the regions of the province which now, it would appear, is being centralized into either the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, which is obviously outside the purview of my question, or, more specifically, into B.C. Trade Development, which clearly does lie within these estimates. I wonder if the Premier could comment on what's happening in those offices.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Those offices are not in the Premier's estimates, the Premier's jurisdiction, the Premier's responsibilities. As the Leader of the Opposition noted, and as I stated earlier, they are within the responsibility of the Minister of Economic Development. The Minister of Economic Development is carrying out a series of regionally-based economic initiatives and will be working with the people in the Cariboo, in the north-central area, east and west Kootenays -- the various regions of British Columbia. I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree that the decentralization approach of the previous government and the offices were from mixed success-failure to abject failures, and they didn't work.

I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity during the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trades estimates to canvass this with him. As I've noted, they do not fit within the jurisdiction of the Premier's office.

G. Wilson: I can appreciate that, and we did in fact take it to the minister. Unfortunately, we didn't get a very successful answer. These offices are still there -- granted that they are an abject failure. In some instances I think they were, and in others I think they functioned quite well. But for the most part they were.

I'm shifting more into my second line of questioning. It has to do not only with the Premier's organization of not only his own portfolio in office, but with the government generally. I think the people of the province are anxious to know whether or not we're looking at greater centralization of government, greater decentralization of government or some combination of the two.

This being one of final estimates to come before the House, we now have a fairly clear and good picture of how this government is approaching the business of governing in B.C. If we look at the estimates, it would appear that there is still some discussion as to whether or not we really are going to large and somewhat intrusive government that is centrally controlled and maintained, or whether we're in the first steps of trying to decentralize. We're not clear on that matter. I wonder if the Premier might not only provide us some insight into what approach we're likely to see within his own office but also -- if he would be prepared, realizing the strict rules of the House -- give us an idea of how his government might more generally approach that.

Hon. M. Harcourt: The government laid out its session platform in the throne speech. I think that was a very clear message to the people of British Columbia that our priority was going to be bringing about fair, open and balanced government; that we had great concern about the financial situation the province was in; that we were going to get the financial house in order for British Columbians. We moved to do that with our budget. We did that, at the same time showing great compassion for the people of British Columbia in

[ Page 3077 ]

maintaining and increasing the funding for health, education and social services far more successfully than any other government in this country.

Maintaining that balance of fiscal prudence and services for people, particularly in these difficult times, is a very important priority for this government. We also wanted to move beyond the short term to make sure that our children had a hopeful future. That's why we have initiated a series of initiatives such as the summit, which the Leader of the Opposition just mentioned -- the meeting of business and labour, learning institute and government leaders -- to talk about where this province is going and how we can increase the job and enterprise opportunities for British Columbians. That is very clearly a central message and commitment of this government, and it was laid out in our throne speech and in the budget presented by the Minister of Finance.

We are proceeding on that mandate that we were given by the people of British Columbia. We have introduced a series of bills, as you have seen through the various ministers who have tabled the Freedom of Information Act, the tough conflicts laws and the changes to the Election Act.... If we have a referendum this fall on the constitution -- as I hope we will, and I'm sure the leader of the opposition does too -- 18-year-old British Columbians can vote, as can people who were previously excluded because they couldn't register and vote on election day.

That is a central thrust of all this government -- not just the Premier's office, but every member of this government. I have a commitment and New Democrats have a commitment to government at the local level, that, more importantly, citizens in each community and region be empowered to plan their community's future, and what they would like to see -- the West Kootenays, the East Kootenays, the Charlottes or the Cariboo -- for their children, and to have a far greater chance to do that. You are going to see continuing initiatives to have local communities with the resources to be able to plan their future. That's why we appointed Stephen Owen and established the Commission on Resources and Environment to do a land use plan for the whole province region by region, starting with Vancouver Island, the Kootenays, and the Cariboo. There are many conflicts and serious issues that had to be addressed immediately. That's why I have been working with the mayors, the communities and the Governor of Washington State to deal with the huge growth of the urban basin called the Georgia basin in northwest Washington State and southwest British Columbia.

To answer your question, there is a central, clear commitment of our government to some basic themes that we have laid out in our budget and throne speech, as we said we would do in the election. There is a strong commitment to practical, effective regional participation by our citizens, so they can have a far greater say in where their communities are headed.

G. Wilson: That does take us partway to getting to the answer to the question that I put forward. The reason I asked this is that within all the estimates we reviewed one of the themes that we have been pressing is to try to get a much clearer handle on this question of governance of British Columbia in terms of the amount of money that is being committed into line staff people, commissions, councils and Crown corporations -- which, of course, lie under a different ministry. I wonder if the Premier can comment on this. In much the same way that the contracting services have increased the account classification up to $1.5 million in the Premier's office, it would appear that the thrust is for this government to employ, appoint or in some way commission much of government at the hands of a very tightly controlled central authority.

While this government talks a lot about consultation, the Premier has just alluded to increased expenditures in health care; yet we know what's going on in another set of estimates and a bill that is quite contentious in this House. He mentioned education; yet we know what has happened with respect to teacher layoffs and so on. It would seem that the thrust of government is very much towards centralization of authority, with a great deal of lip service to consultation but a much tighter control of authority and decision-making in the hands of appointed boards, commissioners and personnel who are prepared to do the bidding of the Premier and a centrally controlled group of decision-makers in the province. If that is inaccurate, then perhaps the Premier can explain where it's inaccurate.

Hon. M. Harcourt: It is inaccurate. Our decisions are not based on an ideological fixation for centralization-decentralization. Our concern is that we want to develop practical structures that work for communities and regions so that citizens can have a far greater say in what happens. It's not an ideological decision. It's how can we make sure that our citizens can have good access. If they phone the Premier's office they should be able to get access to services or to particular public employees. That's why we have the outreach department: to go out and seek opinions and to solicit meetings with citizens. That is the role of the outreach department.

[10:45]

We also have a commitment to process and to citizens having the chance to have a say and to have full participation, if we have the time before decisions have to be made for financial or other reasons. We established the Commission on Resources and Environment for Stephen Owen and his staff, with the people of British Columbia, to come back with a land use plan for the whole province. Of course, cabinet will make the final decision; that is why there is an accountability built in. We are elected and are accountable to the electors of this province. It's not appointed boards or commissions that make those decisions ultimately; it's the Premier, the cabinet and the government that will make those decisions.

So it's not an ideologically driven issue at all; it's not either-or. It is what works best for our citizens, and we're looking for practical ways for greater citizen involvement. If the Leader of the Opposition has some ideas, we're open to them.

[ Page 3078 ]

G. Wilson: We certainly do have a commitment in the Liberal opposition to a greater decentralization and a greater degree of decision-making being done in the province of British Columbia outside of a highly centralized government, and to not advance the notion that government knows best for the people -- rather, to let the people have an opportunity to decide what is best for themselves.

The reason I ask this question in a somewhat pointed manner is that I think it has become a central question that many British Columbians really want to hear from the Premier on. It has to do with this notion of the power base in government, the functioning operation of the Premier's office, the operations generally of the Premier and the executive council and the extent to which that is a tied part of.... I'm going to try not to be inflammatory in my remarks, because that's not my intention. But I think there is a general perception that we have seen patronage in appointment-making -- through this government and through the Premier, as the Premier suggests that he is the ultimate decision-maker -- at a record level in the province of British Columbia. The promise of no friends and insiders has not materialized. Indeed, I would argue that not only has it not materialized, but in fact we've gone 180 degrees in the opposite direction. There has been an inordinate number of party faithful, if I can put it that way, who have been appointed to very key commissions -- for example, transit boards, Crown corporations and decision-making authorities. On top of that, right now in the province of British Columbia, I understand that there's roughly $45 million -- some of which is contributed by the federal government -- provided to agencies to provide advice and decision-making to the government. The members on those commissions are largely appointed through the Premier and the executive council.

It would seem that this flies in the face of what the Premier has just said they want to do: have open, honest and more consultative government. In fact, we've seen a government that is engaged in.... I would even argue it has redefined the term "patronage." We spell it a different way now; we spell it NDP. That has caused a great deal of concern among British Columbians. I think British Columbians want to hear from the Premier on this matter, so that they can be assured this is not going to be something that will be a repetition and a hallmark of this regime.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Mr. Chair, I think we're straying a long way from the Premier's office estimates. I will say, though, that the people that I or other ministers have chosen for order-in-council appointments are going to support the government's election document, which gives the priorities and the directions that our government intends to take. I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition is not referring to the order-in-council appointments we have made, just as I have never referred in any negative way to the fact that he has appointed to his caucus two ex-candidates and a campaign manager of the House Leader of the Liberal Party. Of course you're going to want to have people who work closely with you, who are going to carry out the political goals and values you are committed to, be people you trust -- just as I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition would not be critical if I was to have some of my staff, who are order-in-council appointments, be sympathetic to our goals and values, just as the previous government did. I'm sure that's not what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about.

As well, the Leader of the Opposition would confuse friends and insiders in the sense that we both spoke about with the previous government, where we had cabinet ministers and friends of cabinet ministers lining their own pockets.... They were caught in friends-and-insiders conflicts, where they resigned or were convicted. I'm sure that's not what he's referring to, because if he has an allegation that any staff member or minister is involved in that sort of conflict or those sorts of friends-and-insiders activities, then I'd like to hear about it. If he has any evidence of that, he should place it before this House rather than deal with vague descriptions of friends and insiders.

I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition would agree that the process by which the people of British Columbia are more represented on the boards, commissions and agencies than they have ever been before is correct too. We have far more women. As a matter of fact, more women than men have been appointed so far to the boards, commissions and agencies of the province. We have far more people from the visible-minority communities and the multicultural communities of British Columbia. We have made sure that the regions of British Columbia are represented and that the appointments are open not just to the government members, but that the MLAs on the opposition benches have put forward suggestions and ideas. We welcome those suggestions and ideas. I would think that the Leader of the Opposition would be saying that that process is a definite improvement on what we had previously in this province in the way that people were appointed to those boards and commissions.

G. Wilson: I'm sensitive that we do want to stick with these estimates. We don't want to drift too far. I'm cautious that the Chair is listening carefully to this line of questioning. Let me say in relation to that that what we are talking about here is the executive council operations and the office of the Premier. Decisions are taken within the budgets that are established that are going to define and direct the way the government proceeds. To go into and clarify the matter that the Premier suggested with respect to people that are engaged in conflict of interest and that are friends and insiders.... Clearly that is indeed separate and distinct from the matter of patronage appointments. The Premier would surely have to admit that this regime, through the office of the Premier and the executive council appointments, has engaged in appointment of political partisans in record numbers in the province. I believe that the vast majority of British Columbians expected that there would be a different approach. When I'm suggesting the question of friends and insiders -- which was the term that was used -- I'm talking about people who seem to have a fast-track ticket for appointments on boards and commissions

[ Page 3079 ]

and who have greater favour within the office of the Premier and the executive council operation because of party affiliation. I don't deny that the appointment of women is important, in relation to women who are competent and able to do the work. I don't deny that we want to include all people, including those who may be from a visible minority.

Surely the real desire here is to get the very best minds in British Columbia at work for British Columbians. I would trust that the Premier agrees with the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal opposition caucus that every Canadian is equal to every other Canadian regardless of their gender, race, colour or creed. Therefore we must have equal competition and access in an open, tendered process to bring the very best minds to work on behalf of British Columbians. We must recognize that almost 60 percent of the population, a majority of British Columbians, voted for a party other than the one that now sits in government. What I'm coming to here is philosophical and, I think, ideological, in the sense that the operation of the Premier's office and the executive council, in the way they have made appointments, has shifted to what I think is an old style of politics.

Within the proposition of the continued functioning of his government and the direction and operation of this set of estimates, I wonder if the Premier can tell us whether or not we can expect to see a continued line of patronage appointments for these commissions, Crown corporations, agencies and groups that are hired with taxpayers' money to provide advice to the government on everything from health care right through to the environment.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I hope the Leader of the Opposition realizes that he's talking about citizens who are volunteering their time and services -- that's what we're talking about. He seems to leave the impression that these people are making vast sums of money, when what they are receiving is expense money for attending meetings of the board of B.C. Ferries or for, I would think, pretty non-controversial activities such as assessment appeal boards. We should recognize that we're talking about volunteers: British Columbians who are volunteering to serve on these boards and commissions, by and large, without any significant remuneration -- as a matter of fact, at a significant loss in a number of cases in time away from their professional offices and businesses.

These appointments are taken by citizens volunteering to participate in their community, as they do when they join the board of the Family Services centre or participate in the United Way, in Boy Scouts or Girl Guides or in their church activities. I hope that the people who are watching understand that when we talk about these so-called patronage appointments, we're really talking about citizens who volunteer to serve on these boards and commissions. They basically receive some expense money, but in most instances that does not compensate for the time that they're taking away from their businesses.

I want to get back to my estimates, which we are on, and also the Crown corporation for which I have direct responsibility. The promotion of B.C. exports is a major commitment that I have made. As Premier, I want to show the importance of exports to the province's economy, and that's why the B.C. Trade Development Corporation is under my jurisdiction. I would like to say that the Leader of the Opposition is right: there are many talented British Columbians who come from many different political viewpoints, and there are some whose political viewpoints we don't know. If you would like to look at the new board of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation that we have recently appointed, which just held its first meeting on June 12, I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition would agree that it's a significant representation of the best leadership in the province.

We have people like Helmut Eppich, one of the Eppich brothers who have made Ebco Industries one of the great successes in British Columbia; I've never seen them at a New Democrat meeting in my life. We have people like Jamie Kidston, the president of B.C. Tree Fruits Ltd. in the Okanagan; I haven't seen him at a New Democrat meeting at any time. I don't even know what his politics are, but I do know that he represents B.C. Tree Fruits Ltd. We have Tom Locke, the president and CEO of Gastown Post and Transfer, who is one of the great pioneers in bringing B.C. up to being the number three film production centre in North America. Darcy Rezac -- I can assure you that he has not attended a New Democrat meeting; he has probably attended far more Liberal and Conservative meetings in his time, and probably more Conservative meetings than Liberal meetings -- is the very well-respected managing director of the Vancouver Board of Trade and has worked with me for years on trade and trade-related matters. We have Win Stothert, the chairman of Stothert Engineering Ltd., one of the world's most renowned consulting engineers. I have been involved with him at the business prayer breakfast, which takes place in April, every year for the last 17 years, and he's a very fine person. These are some of the existing directors that we reappointed because of their skill and the range that they represent.

[11:00]

We have appointed new members such as Chief Wilf Adam, who is the chairman of the Burns Lake Native Development Corporation, which is one of the flagships and successes of how we can have joint-venture economic activities between the aboriginal people and the non-aboriginal people of this province; Marianne Bond, who is involved as the economic development officer in Nelson; Mabel Cornwall, who is from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association; David Emerson, the ex-deputy minister to the previous Premier of British Columbia, who is now the CEO of the Vancouver International Airport Authority; Michael Francis, who I think has been, in his time, a Conservative, is the chairman of Modatech Systems Inc. and Dilor Industries and president of Science World and the Vancouver International Film Festival -- a very well-respected B.C. business person. We have Gordon Gibson, and I think the Leader of the Opposition is familiar with Mr. Gibson and his family's contributions to British Columbia. He's been an active Liberal in his time, a Liberal MLA, and he is a director

[ Page 3080 ]

of the Westar Group and the Canada West Foundation. Donald Krusel is the general manager and CEO of the Prince Rupert Port Corporation. Douglas Guild is general manager and vice-president of Highland Valley Copper. Eva Kwok is a former vice-president of the Asia Pacific Foundation and a former president of the Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science and Technology.

We have a number of members on the board of B.C. Trade who represent the best in British Columbia and represent all the political viewpoints -- or I don't even know what their political viewpoints are. But they are just what the Leader of the Opposition has described: the best that we have to offer to carry out an absolutely fundamentally important role in B.C., and that's to help expand our exports. We have people like Lucy Roschat, who is president and CEO of Cathay International and president of the Hong Kong-Canada Business Association; Heather Shannon, who is a partner in Ernst and Young and the first female president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants; and Beverly Trifonidis, who is the associate dean of professional programs in the UBC school of commerce.

If we want to go to the estimates for which I am responsible, I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree that the kind of appointments that he would like to see happen have occurred. That board is one that does represent the best in British Columbia.

G. Wilson: I thank the Premier for the list and the background of some very fine British Columbians. I would certainly concur that they are a very fine set of British Columbians, who, I am sure, have a tremendous amount to offer. Could the Premier tell us if it was this fine list of British Columbians who advised him to write to the Prime Minister of Canada asking us to withdraw from NAFTA, abandon the NAFTA talks and rip up the free trade agreement with the United States?

Hon. M. Harcourt: No, they didn't.

I'd like to know if the Leader of the Opposition would carry forward and initial the North American free trade agreement?

G. Wilson: There's something in the rules about hypothetical questions on the government side. Maybe we should plead the fifth on the opposition side on that question.

Quite clearly the question that comes forward....

I'd be happy to get into a discourse with the Premier on NAFTA. It seems to us that we would certainly have our members there. We would be negotiating as strongly as possible to look after the interests of British Columbians. NAFTA is likely to happen, whether or not the government of British Columbia wishes for it to go forward or not.

It comes back again, if I can come back to this matter with respect to trade, to consultation and allowing a decentralization of decision-making. The Premier has just listed a lot of very prominent British Columbians who have a great deal of expertise in business and industry and trade. I question if there has been consultation. If he didn't talk to any of the members on the British Columbia Trade Corporation with respect to his position on withdrawing from NAFTA and ripping up the free trade agreement with the United States, who did he talk to to get that advice?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As I said, these board members were just appointed and met for the first time on June 12. Our decision to write to the Prime Minister and say that we should withdraw from the North American free trade agreement because it's part of a severely flawed trade philosophy.... That trade philosophy is tied to being a branch plant to the American hub-and-spoke theory of trade in the Americas. I and our government are much more firmly committed to a more egalitarian and fairer form of trade that goes from the tip of Chile to the top of Canada on the Arctic Ocean -- a hemispheric trade relationship rather than one that's dominated by one particular nation. That decision was made before the board was appointed. It was made by the government after looking at the text of the proposed North American free trade agreement, which we unfortunately couldn't make available to the people of British Columbia to have a look at because of the secrecy requirements of the federal government.

We are at the table, I can assure you. The British Columbia representatives are at the table saying to the Prime Minister of Canada and to the other negotiators that B.C. is not well served in the provisions that deal with textiles, that deal with agriculture. We are not assured of the commitment to proper health and environment and employment standards for the workers in Mexico.

The letter I wrote to the Prime Minister was dated June 4, well before the new board was appointed in B.C. Trade. The Leader of the Opposition is well aware that we have not said rip up the free trade agreement. We've said that if the United States is committed to the free trade agreement, then we want to see if the dispute resolution mechanism is going to be of any value, which is about all we can see in the free trade agreement as having any value, because the United States has shown over the last three or four years that it's not going to live by the letter or the spirit of that naive free trade agreement.

I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition has expressed his negative feelings about that free trade agreement and would agree that what provoked our reaction was the unjustified, unconscionable, hypocritical, unfair attack on British Columbia's softwood lumber -- our log export restrictions in particular. It was a totally unfounded attack on our forest industry. We are waiting to see if one of the few so-called benefits of the free trade agreement actually works when it has a chance to look at that unfair countervail action by the United States.

G. Wilson: There are three questions that come out of the answer that the Premier just gave. I think there is some insight into the direction this government is taking with respect to trade. We notice that the B.C. Trade Development Corporation has in fact had a reduction in its budget from $11,179,000 to $9,580,000, and we might get into some reasons why that's been the

[ Page 3081 ]

case in a minute. But what I'm hearing is a major divergence between the view of the NDP government in British Columbia and that which is being put forward by the federal leader, Ms. McLaughlin, with her Members of Parliament, many of whom come from British Columbia and represent citizens in British Columbia. They have taken an unequivocal position with respect to the ripping up of the free trade agreement and intend to take that and launch that forward in the next federal election. I wonder if the Premier is going to campaign against that position and speak in favour of simply amending it to provide for a tougher dispute resolution mechanism.

Hon. M. Harcourt: As the Leader of the Opposition is probably aware, I did campaign against the free trade agreement in 1988. My worst fears have proven to be true. It was a naive trade agreement. It didn't cover countervail. It didn't cover the misuse of GATT. It didn't cover the bureaucratic meddling and interfering in fair trade that's gone on in Washington and along the border. So the worst fears that I campaigned on in 1988, as did the then leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.... Two-thirds of the people in British Columbia voted against that free trade agreement, voted against the GST, and I would be curious as to what the Leader of the Opposition's position is now on that free trade agreement, given that position and given the position of the present leader of the Liberal Party federally, who is saying that we have to renegotiate, it's a bad deal, and it's not working for Canada.

I would also be curious as to what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about Paul Martin, a very prominent Liberal MP who ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party nationally, who is also calling for the same hemispheric trade relationship that our government is calling for, which is to move into the very exciting trade opportunities that our government is going to pursue, I can assure you -- expanded trade with Mexico, Central America and into South America. Those countries are becoming democracies once again or for the first time, and they are reaching trade agreements among themselves. There has been a recent trade agreement between Argentina and Brazil and Uruguay and Paraguay. There are trade relationships and free trade activities between four Central American countries. There is a free trade zone between Colombia and Venezuela and there are free trade relations between Mexico and Chile. I would like to see that expanded into a hemispheric trade relationship of the Americas. That is the first stage of expanded free trade throughout the world, through GATT, which would hopefully be the final stage so that we can have trade without barriers.

I would be curious as to what the Leader of the Opposition thinks of his party's national leaders's position -- which is critical of the free trade agreement -- and of the position that Paul Martin is taking, which basically backs the approach that I'm taking to a hemispheric trade relationship from the tip of Chile to the top of Canada.

G. Wilson: As the Premier well knows, the Liberal Party of British Columbia is a made-in-British-Columbia party that is not affiliated with any national party. Therefore the propositions and policies that are put forward by national parties are going to be subject to the scrutiny of this party. In direct response to the Premier's question, I have no hesitation in saying that the Liberal Party of British Columbia believes in free trade. We believe that free trade is an inevitable part of the globalization of our economy. What we need to do is work out the very best mechanism and best deal we can for British Columbians, and through British Columbia for Canadians. That's what we would like to do, which is why we're saying, with respect to the FTE with the United States, that there needs to be renegotiation, especially on matters in relation to the dispute resolution mechanism.

[11:15]

Before I get too far off on that, I don't want to lose sight of the original question, which the Premier so artfully dodged and which I want to come back to. Let me be very specific, and the Premier can then give me a specific yes or no, and we can get on with it. Will the Premier campaign against the position of the federal New Democrats to rip up the FTE -- which is their stated position -- when that position is brought to and debated in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: When we get to that election, I hope that every party in this country would see the damage that the free trade agreement has brought to this country: the 500,000 manufacturing jobs that have been lost; the terrible tragedy of whole communities in central Canada going down the tube; workers who have been set adrift at the ages of 45 and 50; and the lack of resources to help those single-industry towns that are now collapsing. That has come from the present federal government. I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition is making sure that the present trading relationship with the United States -- the status quo of this free trade agreement -- does not remain. That's the issue.

The issue isn't whether I'm going to be campaigning with Audrey McLaughlin in the next federal election. The answer is yes, I will be, as I'm sure the Liberal Leader of the Opposition will be campaigning with Jean Chrétien, just as I'm sure he'd be willing to repay Jean Chrétien and Sheila Copps coming out to campaign for him in the last provincial election. I didn't see many Tories or Reformers coming out and campaigning with you in the last provincial election. They all looked like Liberals to me. A Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal, even if you want to have some little artificial distinction in your constitution.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I'm looking forward to this debate in the next federal election, but we're talking about my estimates right now. I'd like to get back to the B.C. Trade Development

[ Page 3082 ]

Corporation and to the change in my office from 67 to 70 people since the last time we looked at my estimates in March of this year.

G. Wilson: I agree that we should try to focus on these estimates, rather than get into a lot of discussion. It's interesting, however, because the question of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation and the direction it is taking that lies within these estimates is obviously going to be affected by the matters of the FTA.

I think I should correct myself perhaps for Hansard's benefit; I think I referred to FTEs, which is a part of the problem with dealing with provincial budgets, where everything seems to be measured in FTEs. The free trade agreement with the United States -- the FTA -- is what I am talking about. Clearly the question that I put was: do we rip it up or do we renegotiate it? I'm hearing the Premier say that he will campaign with Audrey McLaughlin to rip it up. We differ on that; we say we should renegotiate.

However, having said that, I wonder if we could focus for a moment on the reduction from $11,179,000 to $9,580,000 with respect to the B.C. Trade Development Corporation in the 1992-93 estimates as opposed to the 1991-92 estimates. Why is that so?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure after you read the Hansard Blues.... You saw my answers yesterday, because I did answer that. The member for Langley asked me about that yesterday, and I did show where there had been cuts in the Trade Development Corporation budget. I'll just recapitulate those for the Leader of the Opposition, as he was away yesterday.

I'll just let you know that we did cut the budget by about $1.6 million or 14.3 percent. That was to show our commitment to fiscal prudence and to make sure that every agency and department of government played its part to help us get our financial house in order.

What we did to cut down the duplication of government was to cut $820,000 from the corporation's operating expenses through many efficiencies and voluntary expense cuts without affecting the integrity of the basic operating divisions in the corporation. To cut down on duplication of government services we cut $1.06 million from the B.C. Business Network contract services and marketing programs, because the federal government has an excellent similar program. Rather than duplicate that, we cut out a program that was providing the same service.

We also cut $750,000 in funding for the reserve fund of the export loan guarantee program, because we think the $3 million reserve that's there now is more than satisfactory to provide a reserve for the $29.3 million in loan guarantees that we have outstanding for the 55 loan guarantees made to date. We've had only one call on that fund for about $294,000, and only two have some concerns. All the rest of the 55 loans have been a big success in helping our B.C. business community to expand B.C. exports. So those are some of the cuts; there were a few others. Some amounts were added to the budget, but the overall in net was to cut the budget by $1.6 million.

G. Wilson: I wonder if we could move forward with respect to what we're going to be doing with some of that $9.5 million. I recognize now, as I go back through the Blues, that I missed that question. I apologize for the repetition. I said I wouldn't be repetitious, and I don't intend to be.

With respect to the $9.5 million.... The Premier has said that he has taken a page from Paul Martin's book with respect to hemispheric trade. In taking advice from Mr. Paul Martin, I wonder if the Premier might explain the function that we're going to see the B.C. Trade Development Corporation undertake to start to advance that proposition. Are we going to do that? If we're talking hemispheric, I assume we mean between the northern and southern hemispheres, given that you can't divide the world any other way, at least not yet. Can the Premier tell us what we are doing to try to promote and enhance that?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I want to emphasize that the advantage we have in British Columbia is that we are open free-traders already. Our problem is not barriers inside British Columbia; it's barriers outside British Columbia, whether it be the countervail and the other problems we're having in the United States, the 8 percent tariff on softwood lumber in Japan, some of the barriers into the European Community or the decreasing barriers in Central and South America. Our emphasis is Asia-Pacific. That's why over the last while I have made that my major priority, because British Columbia is the front door to the Asia-Pacific for Canada. We're going to be very aggressive in expanding our market opportunities into a number of Asia-Pacific countries.

We're also placing increasing emphasis on trade with Mexico, which is modest at the present time. It's about $130 million between B.C. and Mexico. I talked to the Mexican Trade minister when I was in Davos and assured him that we wanted to expand, whether the North American free trade agreement goes ahead or not. I've talked to our business community, who are already active and want to become more active in Mexico. We are going to do that. I have talked with the consul generals and the trade and finance ministers, in a variety of circumstances, for Central and South American countries and assured them that we are looking forward to expanding our trade initiatives and economic initiatives into their countries.

One of the major tasks of the new board and the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade is to work in practical, concrete ways on where those market opportunities are for B.C. to export, not just our goods but our services. We have among the best consulting engineering, transportation, satellite communications, subsea experts in the world. Those services will also be exported. I can assure you that we are going to be putting forward some very specific, targeted export programs into Mexico, Central and South America.

As well, we are putting some focus into Europe. Unlike some people in Canada who think that the European Community coming together this year and next is going to close the borders to those outside, we don't think so. We think there are tremendous opportu-

[ Page 3083 ]

nities to expand strategic alliances, partnerships both in Europe and here in British Columbia with European business interests. Those are the priorities: Asia-Pacific; Mexico, Central and South America; Europe; as well as our traditional market in the United States.

G. Wilson: This tends to be somewhat confusing. On the one hand I'm hearing the Premier say that he wants to expand the proposition for free trade; on the other hand he's writing letters to the Prime Minister saying we should pull out of the talks: "Let's not talk about free trade." Can the Premier explain? If we were to have -- as I think you've suggested -- free trade from the tip of Chile to Alaska, how would the dominance of the United States economy be any different than if we simply have a free trade agreement between Mexico, the United States and Canada? The dominant player in both North and South America, given the debt relationship between the South American countries and the United States, and given who holds the markers on most of the loans, would still be the United States. So I don't understand. If we agree with that -- and I'm not sure that I disagree with the Premier that we have to have expanded free trade arrangements outside British Columbia with our principal trading partners, both in North and South America well as in the Pacific Rim -- how can we do that if we don't start to knock down the barriers and participate in these trade talks, and get out and become aggressive free-traders?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's very simple. I can use the analogy of the Belgians entering into a trading relationship bilaterally with Germany. Would they be wise to do that, or would they be wiser to be part of a European economic union? Instead of entering into a hub-and-spoke trading relationship with Germany, then sign a similar relationship with Czechoslovakia, and then a similar relationship with Greece, I think they'd be far wiser and far better off to enter into a more egalitarian, less-dominated-by-one-partner, European economic union.

I see the same thing in the Americas. Instead of being patched off one against the other by the United States -- the United States hub-and-spoke policy -- we would be far better off to enter into negotiations with all of the 17 countries in the Americas, rather than individually sign trade relationships with the United States. I think it is self-evident that is the preferred way to go, and I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition would agree with that.

G. Wilson: I don't disagree that it is the preferred way to go, but I also think that there's a reality that suggests that the Germans -- if I can use the Belgian-German model that was discussed -- are still going to be the dominant economy in Europe. Just the fact that they have a Europe 1992 proposition and there's going to be integration doesn't mean that the dominant economy isn't going to be there. That is why there was some considerable opposition by one European country to entry into it; they recognized that despite the more egalitarian -- if I can use that term.... I don't think there is such a thing in pure economics as a truly egalitarian system; I think that's a myth -- if it was ever there. There are still going to be dominant economies.

My question becomes much more specific on the question of NAFTA and where we are provincially with NAFTA. It links into the agreements that were made in Ottawa with respect to the Canadian constitution and the transfer of rights on job training and creation to the provinces, because part of the NAFTA agreement is going to be some mechanism for the three countries involved, Mexico, the United States and Canada, to come to an agreement on the question of job creation and training. If those interests are divested to the provinces, the provinces are going to have to work out some kind of deal with Ottawa. Where does this province stand with respect to that question? We have the Premier of this province saying he wants out of NAFTA; he doesn't want to get involved in that; he doesn't like the American dominance in the negotiations. We hear the B.C. Federation of Labour -- which is a close adviser to this government, it would appear -- saying they have some serious reservations about NAFTA. I think there's some legitimacy to some of their comment. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that they don't have some legitimate concerns. Where do we stand with respect to that, given that we have just talked about the need to have a reduction of barriers and a greater degree of free trade? Are we going to go along with it, or are we going to use that as a mechanism to try to stop it?

[11:30]

Hon. M. Harcourt: Let's be quite clear. We are going to be very aggressive traders. We're very enthusiastic and optimistic about expanding trade and reducing trade barriers. That's not the issue. The issue is: do you agree with the present Tory government's acceptance of the U.S.-dominated, hub-and-spoke trade theory, between Canada and the United States and between the United States and Mexico, with Canada desperately saying: "We've got to be involved because if we don't, something nasty is going to happen to us"? It's because it's dominated by the United States. That's where I agree to disagree with the Prime Minister. I don't agree with his basic trade policy; it's not to the advantage of Canada.

I think it's far more to the advantage of Canada to be part of a hemispheric trade relationship of the Americas, where you have 900 million people in fast-growing economies throughout Mexico and Central and South America. Very exciting! There are great opportunities for British Columbia.

We are free-traders. But we agree to disagree, and I hope that the Leader of the Opposition would add his voice to the critics of the fundamentally flawed policy of this Tory government. It is a bad trade strategy. It has not advanced Canada or British Columbia's trade interests or the ability of British Columbians to move in the economic direction that we want to move, which is to a more value-added economy. The log export countervail goes fundamentally against that and is harmful to the major industry for most of this province, the forest industry.

[ Page 3084 ]

So I would hope that is the direction the Leader of the Opposition is going to go, which is to express his disagreement with the hub-and-spoke trade theory and strategy of the present Tory government and agree that we would be far better off in a hemispheric trade relationship of 900 million people. Just think of the market potential there, albeit with a very strong economy in the United States of 270 million people, many trillions of dollars of economic activity and a world leader in many areas of economic activity -- even with the cries of the doomsayers about the economy of the United States. It's still an extremely strong economy, and it's one we're going to be trading with for many decades to come. Our government maintains that a hemispheric trade relationship with all of the countries of the hemisphere coming together is a far better approach than signing individual trade relationships with the United States.

G. Wilson: I want to come back to my question and rephrase it. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, "hub-and-spoke" wasn't in any economic text that I read; I don't know where that's generated from. But let's not get into the clichés; let's get down to the realities of the situation.

First of all, we're dealing with 900 million people. If you look at the per capita income of a very substantial portion of those 900 million people in the South and Central American countries in comparison to the potentials in some Southeast Asian nations and in Europe, there is a great distinction between them. Not only is there a market potential.... But here is the root of the question I just asked before, and I think it's a fundamentally important question with respect to the position we're going to be taking in this government through B.C. Trade Development initiatives. What does the Premier have to say when those 900 million people will not only provide potential markets, but will also be able to provide potential labour at a cost that's one-third of that in British Columbia? Do we enter into an agreement that says we can have capital free of flight, and manufacturers and investors who currently would look at labour costs in the province that may be anywhere from a low of $7.50 to $8 an hour to a high of $26 to $28 an hour? What does the Premier say, when he suggests that we should enter into this hemispheric -- if I can use that term; the northern and southern hemisphere or North American and South American -- trade agreement, with respect to the potential for a flight of capital that's going to leave the province of British Columbia and the pressure that's going to be brought to bear by members of organized labour in the province, who will undoubtedly start to pressure the Premier that that is not a good move to protect those people in B.C.? One of the ways the government can deal with that would be if this constitutional agreement goes through and provides for job creation and training and a greater degree of powers to lie in the hands of the province. That's a stick that the province will be given that they right now don't have. My question is: how are you going to use it?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Those are two very good points. First of all, we're not in competition with those low-wage economies -- and we wouldn't want to be. We are in the higher-value-added, high-wage, highly skilled economic path. That is the unanimous consensus of the summit that we just completed. The business, labour, government and university leadership of this province made it very clear that what British Columbia has -- and even more, where we're headed -- is a high-wage, high-salary, highly skilled industrial economy; that we're not in competition with the Mexicos and the Chinas, the developing countries of the world. There isn't a competition. We have tremendous services to offer to the developing countries, to deal with the modernizing that they're going to have to go through -- that Canada has gone through very successfully over the last 60 or 70 years. That's the advantage: to help Mexico deal with the terrible urbanization problems around Mexico City, or Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. Canadians are among the best in the world -- if not the best in the world -- in urban growth and urban growth management. That is an area where I think we can be of tremendous assistance.

On the question of the constitutional changes, again the Leader of the Opposition has brought forward one of the major requirements that British Columbia has put forward in the constitutional package; that is, the division of powers, and the federal occupancy of provincial jurisdiction over training with their spending power. The first ministers' meeting that I helped organize in March agreed that there's terrible wastage of people and money and a lack of skilled people available for employers. This area needs a lot of work. In Canada we now have 1.5 million people unemployed, yet there are 300,000 jobs in Canada that employers can't fill because they can't find people with the skills to fill them. We're spending $35 billion a year on unemployment insurance and income support programs. There's obviously something seriously wrong in the way that money is utilized. I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition would agree that it would be far better applied if the province was applying it, or if there wasn't a duplication of a plethora of programs that never seem to lead anywhere, or lead somewhere unsuccessfully. Part of the division-of-powers constitutional reform package involves the federal government passing to the provinces, through tax points or financial agreements, the ability to carry out training programs so we can fill those positions and get people off welfare and off unemployment insurance and working at highly skilled jobs.

G. Wilson: In terms of the direction and commitment of dollars that are going to be put into the matter of job training and creation, I would like the Premier to expand a bit more on how sending.... What are we going to do? You talk about teaching Mexicans how to plan urban development in Mexico. It's not going to create very many jobs in British Columbia, unless you bring all the Mexicans here and teach them how to live in Vancouver and provide them with some kind of job and skill. Are we going to send down some urban planners to give them an idea of how they're going to deal with that? British Columbia's economy....

[ Page 3085 ]

    Interjection.

G. Wilson: I recognize the Minister of Finance is anxious to have more planners. We might discuss that at some later date.

The point that I'm coming to is that British Columbia's economy is dependent today and probably will be over the next decade on primary extraction and putting a value-added component to the materials that we extract, be it lumber, timber, minerals or agricultural products. We are primarily an extractive economy, like it or not. Tourism, which is seen to be an area where there can be some economic growth and development, is certainly there to be enhanced. I would hope the Premier would agree that we have to recognize that the strength of the provincial economy lies in its primary industries and our ability to put manufacturing and processing in place to provide a value-added component to those products that will allow us the potential to enter into markets where there is enough capital to participate in trade. Given that that's the case, I would argue that we perhaps are not in competition today in this hemispheric trading concept because there is a lack of skilled and trained workers. In the proposition that those workers will quickly become trained, with very specific reference to the production of value-added component goods, we are going to be in competition.

What are we doing vis-�-vis our trade relationship with these nations to try to secure the best return for British Columbia? One looks at the way the budget prioritized expenditures and took away from things like economic development, trade, the Ministry of Forests and virtually -- not only through the budget that was provided for Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in this province but from the strategy that's put forward -- and has decimated those particular areas. If we are going to be more fiscally prudent and responsible, which we would accept and agree is the correct and proper way to go, notwithstanding what the Minister of Finance might accuse us of, how do we become an effective trading partner, recognizing the differences in terms of labour costs and potential labour markets, if we don't become aggressive and bullish on a free trade agreement that recognizes the rising continental nature of the economy? If in fact we don't move more quickly into development and the trading of value-added components manufactured in British Columbia.... Rather than talking about these high-tech industries that I think in the long-term have great value but in the short-term simply are not there....

Hon. M. Harcourt: This is wandering quite a way away from my estimates. I will repeat what I said the last time I was asked this question. We are not in competition with these developing countries. We are in competition with Japan, Washington State, Massachusetts, Ontario and Alberta. That's our competition, and anybody who thinks otherwise is missing the whole point of the B.C. economy that was expressed very clearly at the summit we held last week. We are after a high-wage, high-skilled, higher value-added economy whether or not it's in our natural resources, which is still the engine that drives our economic activities.

[11:45]

I think the Leader of the Opposition is underplaying the growth and excitement of the high-tech knowledge-based industries in British Columbia, some of them growing 20 percent a year in electronic manufacturing. We have an opportunity to do both. It's not an either/or. We can take our natural resources and go to the next stage, which is to add more value to our natural resources -- whether it be here in British Columbia -- and not be forced to ship our logs down to the United States, as the U.S. is trying to do now with that totally unfair, hypocritical countervail on our log exports. We want to keep those logs here. We want to process them beyond pulp bales and 2-by-4s into a whole house that can be shipped to an address in Osaka. There are some Japanese companies that are looking at doing just that here in British Columbia. We can do the same thing in mining by processing beyond refineries. We can do the same thing in agriculture and fisheries. That's where are our economy is going.

The issue isn't wage costs; it's the efficiency of the employees. They can be making $20 an hour and produce at a much higher efficiency and be more competitive than an employee in a developing country working at $2 an hour. It's the unit cost that is the issue here, not the $20 or $30 an hour that a very skilled biologist or a very skilled operator of a computerized saw in a sawmill in Williams Lake is making. I hope I've been very clear that that is the kind of economy that we have, and we're moving toward that even more so.

Secondly, I don't think there's a more aggressive Premier in the country in terms of exports and trade than I. I have put the Trade Development Corporation under my jurisdiction. One of my first initiatives was to go to our largest partner in Asia, who had not been visited by a Premier in four years under the previous administration and had not been visited by a cabinet minister for two years. I went to Japan, Hong Kong and into Guangdong province to Guangzhou within ten days of becoming Premier. I went very quickly after that to New York to talk to the financial and investment communities. I received a very good response there. I went to London and then to Davos to the World Economic Forum to get the message out concerning where the B.C. economy is going and how we're getting our financial house in order.

I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree that we as a government and I as Premier have certainly placed a very high priority on going to the next stages in the development of our economy to higher value-added in the natural resource sectors and to expanding the base of the rapidly growing knowledge-based industries in telecommunications, satellite and space technologies, and subsea submersibles and diving suits. We're the best in the world. That's the dual track that our economy has to go down.

The importance of exports to the B.C. economy is demonstrated by the fact that one out of every three jobs is based on exports. I understand that. That's why I as Premier have taken the B.C. Trade Development Corporation under my jurisdiction -- to push up our exports as much as we can.

[ Page 3086 ]

G. Wilson: I acknowledge that the Premier has travelled overseas considerably since taking office a short few months ago. How much discussion about the corporation capital tax does the Premier engage in when he's talking to potential investors?

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to get into the discussion, particularly considering that the Premier has come around again to his management of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation and rightfully recognizes that trade accounts for one-third of the jobs in British Columbia. In recognizing also from the Trade Development Corporation Act.... I'm sure the Premier is familiar with its mandate, which is to encourage and facilitate the export of British Columbia goods and services and to promote the sale of British Columbia goods and services to markets outside British Columbia. The Premier clearly appears to recognize that as part of the mandate of the corporation and as part of his responsibilities.

Given those kinds of responsibilities for the corporation, I'd like to question some further appointments to the corporation. I'm particularly interested in a couple of appointments, the first being the appointment of Johanna den Hertog. We are all well aware of her political qualifications, or perhaps lack of them, the fact that she has sought election on many occasions but so far, to my knowledge, has been relatively or almost completely unsuccessful. I'm wondering if, as a start, the Premier could tell us what other qualifications she may have beyond her political qualifications, or if in fact those are her only qualifications for the job.

The Chair: Before I recognize the Premier, I just want to clarify for the benefit of the committee that it was my understanding the leader of the third party was rising to perhaps make an introduction. As all members know, it's customary to allow the dialogue between parties until they've concluded before we recognize another member. However, the member was particularly in order to rise, but, as I say, it does change the pattern that we had established in the committee.

The problem was that I thought he was rising to make an introduction, but actually he interrupted the leader of the official opposition. Proceed.

J. Weisgerber: I'm quite prepared to allow members to pursue their questions in considerable detail...

The Chair: I understand that, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: ...but it seemed to me that we had been on the B.C. Trade Development Corporation yesterday, we came back to it again today, and it seemed like an appropriate point for me. I certainly don't want to interrupt the flow of proceedings, but there are a couple of questions, and this seemed the appropriate place to interject.

The Chair: Unfortunately, the standing orders don't cover this. This is a matter of custom and practice, and you're certainly within your rights to rise. The Chair recognizes the first person on their feet. But that does change the pattern. This is all that I'm saying.

Hon. G. Clark: I apologize as well, and I know things are confusing here. But in order to allow us to continue sitting, I think it would be appropriate to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. G. Clark: I move that the House continue to sit from 12 p.m. until 1:50 p.m.

That's a debatable motion. If I could, I'll just explain to the House and try to accommodate all members. We can, of course, adjourn earlier than that, but this is to make sure that we have ample time for both parties to debate the Premier's estimates. If we complete at 1 o'clock, we can adjourn at that time, but this gives us more flexibility.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OPERATIONS

On vote 6: office of the Premier and executive council operations, $4,376,000 (continued).

G. Wilson: In order to get back on track here, and recognizing that the leader of the third party has some questions, I'll just simply restate my question, if I could have the Premier respond. Then I would yield for some time to the leader of the third party, and come back in with my concluding questions.

My question was with respect to the travel. I recognize that the Premier had done some substantial travel in the months since he has taken office. How much discussion has the Premier had with our trading partners with respect to the corporate capital tax?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I haven't had a great deal of discussion with them. What I have talked to them about is that this is a jurisdiction that is going to get its financial house in order, is going to address the mess that we inherited, deal with the federal off-loading, and do it. And we have. That has shown up in our bond rating agency reconfirming our financial status. Not only that, as the Minister of Finance has probably pointed out previously to you, they didn't send their audit teams to British Columbia after our budget. They saw that we did what we said we were going to do, which is to cap and reduce the deficit.

Even though some people don't like the capital corporate tax.... I don't particularly like it myself, and

[ Page 3087 ]

if I had not inherited a $2.5 billion deficit headed for $3.3 billion this year and $4 billion next year, we would have liked to not have brought in that tax. But we had to find revenue sources to reduce the deficit, as the business community and others have asked us to do, and we've done it.

If we had been able to bring in a minimum capital tax on profits, we would have much preferred to have done that. We weren't able to do that. If people can come up with ideas as to how we could have located $300 million in revenue, where there was a chance to do that, we're certainly open to suggestions, but we are not going to waver from the commitment that I made throughout Asia, in New York, in London, in Davos and in other centres to cap and reduce our deficit while maintaining basic services to people. We are going to continue to do that.

G. Wilson: I have a final question on this, and then I would yield to the leader of the third party. What happened to your commitment that you made in B.C. to no introduction of new taxes? It's all very well to make commitments in Japan and Asia and New York and Davos, but you made a commitment in British Columbia to no new taxes. I've consulted widely with people who are trading partners in the Asia-Pacific region, in the United States and elsewhere, and one of the single greatest impediments to investment is the perception that investors have on the corporate capital tax, because it is tantamount to theft. They don't understand how you can say that we're open for business, we want you to bring your capital assets into British Columbia, we want you to establish it here, we want you to do business here, we want you to work here, but whether or not you make a profit, we're going to take from you that which we need. They don't understand that.

I would like the Premier to explain how he explains the fairness of what, in the judgment of many of those trading partners who've talked to me, is nothing short of government theft of their asset.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I've been listening to the Leader of the Opposition say that we should be spending more in energy, we should be spending more in economic development, we should be spending more in all the other ministries. Yet at the same time, he wants us to cut out the corporate tax and he wants us to cut the deficit. I would like to know what economic universe he's operating in, to be able to do all three of those things with those kinds of suggestions. If he thinks that economically you can raise the spending of all those ministries, cut out the corporation capital tax -- and he still hasn't given me an answer as to what he would replace it with -- and reduce the deficit, then I'd like to read the economic texts that he's been referring to to be able to do all three of those things. Because in the real world of government finances I don't think it's possible. I don't think it's physically possible to be able to do all three of those things.

[12:00]

G. Wilson: I did say I'd let the leader of the third party get in, but I have to respond to that, with a question at the end. First of all, the Liberal opposition has never said we should be increasing expenditures in all of these areas. We didn't say it during the campaign, and we haven't said it since the campaign. We are not suggesting that there should be widespread increases in government expenditures despite the line that is being spun by members opposite in government.

What we have said is that we need comprehensive tax reform. We have said that we need to reduce the cost of government by reducing the size of government and by removing duplication in government. We have a model by which that can be accomplished. We have suggested that we would be happy to share that with the government opposite so that they can, in fact, take an approach to reducing the demand on the tax base so that we can stimulate economic growth and development through trade. We respect that our principal trading partner, notwithstanding the hopes and wishes and desires of the Premier opposite, is the United States of America, whether we like it or not.

Whether we like the trade agreement that we have or not, the fact is that we have it, and we need to amend it. The problem that we have in softwood lumber was not the product of the FTA; it happened prior to the FTA. The difficulty in resolving it is with respect to the dispute mechanism.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask of the Premier that he recognize that we are not saying that we have to increase expenditures; we are saying we have to be more focused on how we do expend our dollars, and in recognizing that we need to build trading alliances between those partners we traditionally trade with. The United States is the number one partner.

My question -- and then I will let the leader of the third party come back -- is: how can the Premier honestly expect to attract capital investment when he has introduced a corporate capital tax? Because those who are investing in the province of British Columbia may only be peripherally concerned about the deficit of government. They are far more interested in their ability to realize and generate profit. If they recognize that they are going to be hampered with a tax that is unfair and is not paralleled by our immediate trading partners, can the Premier tell us how it is that he is going to attract it here and not allow that investment to go elsewhere in the Pacific Rim region?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As the Leader of the Opposition is probably aware, the corporate capital tax is not unique to British Columbia. A number of jurisdictions in Canada have a corporate capital tax, whether they're Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat. It's not unique to Canada. What is unique is the exclusion from the tax for the first two years of any capital investment in British Columbia. That is the difference between our corporate capital tax and anyone else's anywhere in Canada.

We faced a shocking financial situation in this province, and we dealt with it in a very short period of time after receiving an independent financial audit in mid February. We reduced, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, the spending of the estimates by $850 million in three weeks and raised $670 million of

[ Page 3088 ]

revenues, all of it -- every penny -- applied against the deficit to reduce it to $1.79 billion, which was very well received in those centres that I visited in Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York, London and Davos. This was a government that said it was going to do something about the deficit, and we have.

You're right, people do not like the corporate capital tax. We didn't particularly like it. But we certainly didn't want to go down the slippery slope that this country has gone down and not do anything about the deficit. We didn't want to get into the mess we are in now with a deficit of $400 billion where 35 percent of the federal budget is taken up in paying off the interest on the debt and the federal government has been less than forthright with many of us in this Legislature. They've off-loaded over $10 billion of that debt onto the provinces so that three-quarters of our debt this year -- $1.4 billion of the $1.79 billion -- is federal off-loading.

We made some tough decisions. We had some tough choices to make, and one of those was to cap and reduce the deficit. One of the taxes we brought in, which is not a preferred tax, is to deal in as fair a way as possible with everybody sharing the burden of getting the deficit down so that everybody benefits in the future. That is the corporate capital tax, as well as other taxes that were balanced between business and consumers. I think that everybody in this House agrees that we have to face the financial music now rather than go down the slippery slope that we are nationally.

J. Weisgerber: I can't resist suggesting that the one thing the Premier did about the deficit was to add $1.8 billion to it when he tabled a budget this spring that had the largest deficit ever in this province. If that's his idea of getting the budget deficit under control, I would be aghast to think of what he would do if he was going to let it run. Clearly the budget we are working under today has the largest deficit ever in British Columbia.

The Premier asks what text you would look in to deal with the hypothetical situation that the leader of the official opposition party questioned about. The Premier says that he didn't know of any text in which you could look and find a recipe to increase spending and cap taxes. I would refer him, perhaps, to his own 48-point election promises. If you look in that, the exact formula in the election promises of the NDP was clearly that. The NDP and the Premier promised a whole series of spending increases and to cap taxation during the election. There aren't many texts, I would agree, that are written with that premise in mind, yours being one of the very few. I would welcome the Premier's comments on that as well.

However, I did ask a question before we adjourned regarding the qualifications of Johanna den Hertog. In response to my questions, could the Premier elaborate on that as well.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can only say very briefly to the leader of the third party that it would have helped the people of British Columbia, I am sure, in the election campaign -- the figure that the leader of the third party was using at that time was a $400 million deficit -- if he had been more forthright and said that it wasn't, having on his desk the August financial review of the province, which clearly said the deficit was going to be at least $1.7 billion. If he had made that known to the people of British Columbia, I'm sure he wouldn't even be here as the leader of the third party. I think it would have helped all of us if the previous government had been honest with the people of British Columbia about the true state of the finances of this province.

I think it would have helped us to reduce the deficit considerably if the previous government hadn't run up increases in operating budgets of 12 or 13 percent -- almost as bad as the Liberal government in Ontario with a 12 and 13 percent increase in operating budgets every year. That's totally unsustainable. We had to bring down the spending rate, and we did: from 12 or 13 percent a year down to 6.8 percent this year, cutting it almost in half. We'll bring it down again next year to deal with that huge increase in spending and the misleading state of the finances that the previous government left us with before the election.

I'm pleased that the leader of the third party brought up that matter, because he points very clearly to the reason we're in the financial mess we're in and the fact that we're not using that as an excuse at all. We are dealing with it in a fair and effective way by maintaining the basic services to our citizens.

One of the questions the leader of the third party asked was about the choice of Johanna den Hertog as an employee of B.C. Trade. She assists me in my duties as the minister responsible for B.C. Trade. Her responsibilities include coordinating my contact with business, labour, academic, research and community groups as they relate to trade and economic development. She works out of the Vancouver executive council offices to coordinate those various roles. She was one of a number of people who were considered for that by the chair and the president of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, and she was considered to be the most suitable to carry out that role.

If the leader of the third party would like to know her background, she has a considerable interest and knowledge of international trade and was a national spokesperson on the issue of trade and trade policy. She has extensive experience in the private sector as a member of an industry that is very knowledge-intensive and high tech: the telecommunications industry, where she was the assistant to the president of the telecommunication workers' union for 11 years and served very ably through three or four presidents. She was in a senior staff position with one of the largest unions in the province, numbering 11,000 people, and assisting the two or three presidents. My knowledge of those presidents and her work with them is that they speak very highly of her.

In terms of analytical skills, she was a director of legislation and research for the B.C. Federation of Labour. Her ability to relate to the international community is very substantial. Her Dutch heritage allows her to speak not only Dutch, but French and German as well. She has been great assistance to me in the last few months. She has come to work for the last seven or eight

[ Page 3089 ]

weeks and helped me with 52 different events, including putting the very successful summit together.

Just to give you an idea of the range of activities she's been involved in on my behalf, she arranged my participation in the Pacific Basin Economic Council meetings that took place here; meetings with Governor Hickel of Alaska and the Belgian ambassador; the value-added wood resources and UBC meeting; the Hubei trade exposition from the People's Republic of China; my participation in Independence '92; the U.S. ambassadors meeting that I had recently; meetings with a number of different Japanese investors. I had very encouraging meetings with those investors. So you can see there is a whole range of other meetings: the Canadian Export Association; with bankers; the Canadian Advanced Technology Association conference; and C.D. Howe Institute policy conference. There are a number of those sorts of activities that she coordinates and directs on my behalf. The appointment of Ms. den Hertog was made after the evaluation of the various people who had applied by the executive at the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, and I accepted their recommendation.

J. Weisgerber: I think the answer was very appropriate. It certainly answered the questions I had and confirmed and reinforced all the thoughts I had about the appointment, so thank you. And I suppose reinforced them for most British Columbians. We appear to be almost at the point of seeing the Premier filibuster his own estimates. If we're going to start reading long lists of items, we will be delighted to extend whatever time the Premier might see necessary to accommodate his estimates. They can last for a considerable length of time if that's the way we want to go. We certainly have the time.

[12:15]

I have one other appointment that I'd like to ask the Premier about, because I think there is a politicization within this corporation, with all respect to the chairman who's president, from him downward. The organization for one whose mandate is trade appears to have a great deal of political overtones to it. That brings me to the appointment of Mr. Bob Adams, who we understand has come to the Trade Corporation by way of the NDP Howard Pawley administration, the group in which Mr. Parasiuk served as a minister. I'm wondering if the Premier could, first of all, confirm for me that the Bob Adams who is employed now with the Trade Development Corporation is the same Bob Adams who was employed by the Pawley administration in Manitoba.

Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is yes. The answer, though, to your question about him being employed is that he is not employed. He was retained as a consultant to help organize the summit, and he is completing that task. I think everybody will agree that it was a very successful summit. He has experience in Canada in similar sorts of meetings. He and other people out of Ontario who are not in politically motivated organizations, the Public Policy Forum for example, which is retained by a number of different organizations and governments, were asked to help. So that was what he was asked to do as a consultant. He's completing that task, and that is his association with the B.C. Trade Development Corporation.

J. Weisgerber: I understand that the summit was in fact a success. If he organized it, I would give him credit for doing that. The purpose for my questioning was that Mr. Adams has been widely reported as being quite an outspoken critic of the free trade agreement and of free trade generally.

It seems to me that the Premier and his government are free to take any position they want on free trade. If they want to be anti-traders in British Columbia, recognizing, as the Premier did, that one job in three in this province is created directly as a result of trade.... If the government wants to decide not to be free-traders, so be it. But I don't believe that in the Trade Development Corporation there is either room or a mandate for that kind of philosophizing. It seems to me that the Trade Development Corporation has a mandate to expand trade from British Columbia to purchasers, whether they be the United States or whether they be other offshore buyers or, I suppose, whether or not they'd be other provinces in this country.

I would be concerned if there was a philosophical bent within the corporation itself, not the government, that was anti-free trade. Can the Premier give us assurance that within the management structure of this corporation there is a philosophy that is absolutely and unreservedly pro trade?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can give that assurance. There is a commitment of the corporation and the board of directors unreservedly to free trade. I have that commitment too. I think where the member and I disagree is on the merits of the free trade agreement, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. We can agree to disagree on that. If you accept that the free trade agreement and NAFTA would be good for British Columbia and Canada, then we can obviously agree to disagree on that. It's not a question of whether we're free-traders or not; it's whether you agree that those particular trade deals are beneficial to Canada and British Columbia. Obviously the leader of the third party things that the FTA has been a blazing success and that NAFTA will be a good deal. We just disagree on that. I think all parties in this House share a commitment through the B.C. Trade Development Corporation to free trade and to expanding trade, and that should be their role, and that will be the role of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation.

L. Stephens: I have a few questions for the Premier this morning. They're rather nuts-and-bolts questions to do with the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. Yesterday we briefly discussed loans, loan guarantees and so on. I would like to know if the budget for the B.C. Trade Development Corporation has been increased and in what areas in the loans or loan guarantees or bonding for exporters there has been any increase or decrease in funds that are available.

[ Page 3090 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: It has not been increased. It's the same amount as last year. The anticipation is that that will be a sufficient amount for British Columbia business people who are going to apply for it.

L. Stephens: Also in debate yesterday we were talking about the corporation pursuing a very tight, clearly focused plan with very specific goals. I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit on that this morning and let us know what the focus is for those goals and the clearly focused plan.

Hon. M. Harcourt: There are specific goals for each of the operating divisions: the marketing division, the export advisory services and also the corporate services, which is the support division for the two operating divisions.

Just briefly, I can tell you that the marketing division will be providing a broad range of marketing advice programs to meet the needs of small and medium-sized exporters. The larger exporters usually have the resources to do that. They will be organizing participation in trade shows, missions and incoming buyer activities. In particular, they will be involved, in total, in approximately 200 events and projects during 1992-93. If you want information on those particular 200 events and projects, I can certainly get you that information. I would be more than pleased to do that.

The export advisory services is there to increase awareness among British Columbia businesses of the advantages and benefits of exports. To do that, they're going to hold a series of training and information sessions -- approximately 40 training events across British Columbia -- that will help small and first-time businesses to be aware of the markets, to be aware of the market opportunities for them throughout Asia-Pacific, Europe, the U.S. and down into Central and South America.

The export counsellors will also be visiting approximately 200 firms in the lower mainland and spending approximately 150 days counselling exporters in regions across the province. As well, it's forecast that a total of about $33 million in loan guarantees will take place this year.

So those are the kind of specific activities that those two operating divisions will be carrying out. Of course, the corporate services division is there to serve those activities -- in legal, financial, marketing and policy ways. If you would like more information about the specific events, I could get that to you.

L. Stephens: I apologize -- I didn't make myself quite clear. What I was asking was what specific areas are targeted for exporting. I'm thinking primarily of value-added high-tech -- that sort of area. Perhaps biotechnology or computer technology and things like that was what I was asking -- and whether or not there were some specific areas, a very narrow focus of businesses that were at the top of the list for export.

Hon. M. Harcourt: There are seven divisions in the marketing division that are sectoral, that we think are the ones which have the greatest promise for British Columbians: agriculture, fisheries and food; general manufacturing; government marketing; high technology; natural resources, forestry, forest sector development; service industries; and the B.C. Film Commission. Those are the active areas that we are pursuing.

There are specific industries in each of those, and if you would like that information I would be prepared to make that available to you also.

L. Stephens: Thank you, Mr. Premier. I would be very interested in receiving that information.

I have one last question here, and it's to do with interprovincial trade barriers. I would like to know what your thoughts are on interprovincial trade with British Columbia, the flow of goods and services, and what the policy would be in regard to that.

Hon. M. Harcourt: At my request and the other first ministers, the Minister of Trade and the other ministers of trade are meeting on that very issue, which is to reduce the barriers to the flow of goods and services and capital across provincial boundaries. That was reinforced at the recent meetings in March of first ministers in Toronto and also the meetings of the western Premiers that took place last month. There is an agreement that by 1995 those barriers will be reduced as much as possible. So we're actively participating in bringing that about.

There are some nuances of differences among the various provinces about that. In Saskatchewan, for example, their economic situation requires the use of regional economic incentives or the use of Crown corporations to do more purchasing within that province. Alberta is loath to sign an investment incentive agreement because of the huge incentives they make available, which distorts the market and turns into a bidding war to bribe industries to come. It's very self-defeating, and I think all British Columbians feel that it's a distortion of the market.

So there are some different nuances. In British Columbia we hope to be able to utilize our Crown corporations as engines to drive economic development, as they were intended to in the 1950s and 1960s by W.A.C. Bennett. We're skeptical to give carte blanche to us not being able as a province to utilize the Crown corporations in that way, particularly to bring about a fairer sharing of the growth in the interior and the north of this province.

G. Wilson: To follow up on that, I come to a question that I directed to the Premier in question period and received, with all due respect, a less than satisfactory answer. Perhaps it was because I didn't ask the question clearly enough. Let me also suggest that I did put the question to the minister responsible for the constitution in his estimates with respect to the constitutional aspect of this, and I received a very good debate on this one, but not a final resolution as to the position of this government.

It has to do specifically with the removal of barriers between the provinces, and what the provincial government's position will be with respect to an agreement on the removal of interprovincial trade barriers. Is it the

[ Page 3091 ]

Premier's view that in the removal of those trade barriers, they should be as an individual right? Or is it his view that it should be as part of an agreement between governments?

There is a very real distinction to be made here, because if it is a functional part of an individual right as a Canadian to have interprovincial trade without restriction, that's quite a different proposition than if the government set up interprovincial trade agreements that allow for a reduction or removal of some trade enhancements.

[12:30]

Just to let the Premier know that I'm not trying to trick him on this question or entrap him, the problem we have is that if it is not an individual right to trade, it will allow for governments to put in place regulations that affect the operation of the economy of a province that may de facto make a free trade agreement less than operational -- for example, a fair wage policy could be put in place, or the proposition of protection of union wage rates, or certain labour legislation, or those kinds of things. My question is: which does the Premier believe it should be -- an individual right or through agreements?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I was curious as to what that meant the last time the Leader of the Opposition brought it forward. I think he's made it a little clearer now as to exactly what he was getting at. I think the difference in what the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party stand for is that they want to have it almost enshrined in the economic union, in the constitution, that there should be an unfettered free flow of goods, capital and services. If that doesn't happen, an individual -- i.e., a major corporation from the U.S. or from eastern Canada -- could go to court and litigate and eliminate programs like pay equity, fair wages and the use of Crown corporations to influence a fairer distribution of economic activity in the province's northern, interior and Kootenay areas. They would be able to do that. Large multinational corporations would, as individuals, be able to litigate that.

I can tell you that this government does not agree with that approach, now that I understand your question. We want to make sure that there is equality between women and men, and that large corporations with male-dominated boards of directors cannot go to court and stop this government's policy, and what we think most British Columbians want to see happen, from happening: that workers are treated fairly and that there are minimum wage laws, minimum employment standards and fair wage laws in the province. If the Leader of the Opposition is implying that we would be in agreement with the economic union proposals that are presently on the table, the answer is no. We believe that those values and the way people are treated, whether they're women, workers or people living in interior and in northern communities, are too important to leave to litigation in courts by large corporations, taking away those values and rights that British Columbians think are important.

G. Wilson: I'm not trying to imply that we should be doing one or the other, and I'm certainly not promoting or putting forward the Liberal position in my question. I'm simply trying to question where the Premier's coming from, and I think he's made it very clear.

There is an agreement, however, on national standards with respect to matters that are gender-driven, for equity between men and women. There is a proposition whereby we can protect working conditions and rights in terms of minimum income through national standards. I think it is a little bit misleading to suggest that by having individual rights with respect to trade -- bringing this more specifically to the last couple of questions I have on trade with respect to your estimates -- and that if in fact the right runs with the individual and it's a part of the constitutional package, somehow that's going to provide for corporations that, in the words of the Premier, are male-dominant to come in and discriminate against women. I think that's a little misleading to suggest that.

But the proposition that is before Ottawa right now, on which there is going to be a meeting on Monday with respect to the economic union concept, does indeed call for that. It states quite specifically, I believe -- certainly from the information that I've seen -- that in fact it will be a right that can be protected in Canada through litigation. Do I take it from the Premier's comments today that the position of the government and the position that he will be taking to Ottawa on Monday is that the province of British Columbia will not agree with that portion of the proposal?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Again, we don't want to have this matter being decided by the courts. These are values that are important to Canadians: pay equity, workers being treated fairly, whether there will be a fair minimum wage for low-income workers. These are matters that should not be decided by the courts; they should be decided by the duly elected representatives of the people in the Legislature. Those views, as the Leader of the Opposition is aware, have been expressed by the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, who has spoken with the Leader of the Opposition about it. So the answer is no, we don't want the courts to be making those decisions. There are a number of provinces that are taking a similar position.

G. Wilson: I thank the Premier for that clarification.

If I could move now to a couple of other questions with respect to agreements that are underway. One, I understand, is indeed an agreement that has brought about -- perhaps the Premier can clarify this point -- the opening of an office by the province of Quebec, with respect to agreements that they have, in a cooperative manner with Bombardier and the development of technologies overseas. Is that a functional part of an ongoing program with respect to the development of Canadian industry? Is that a part of the B.C. trade and development strategy to work into interprovincial trade agreements and overseas development? If so, where does that fit into this set of estimates?

[ Page 3092 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: That matter is not before the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. It was as a result of a meeting I had with Premier Bourassa at the beginning of February in Davos, Switzerland, during the World Economic Forum. I said that there were a number of areas that Quebec and British Columbia could work on cooperatively as good Canadians, as friends, and that we would like to see Quebec establish an office in British Columbia for its trade activities in the Asia-Pacific. We would like to be of assistance to Quebec in some joint venture possibilities such as Bombardier, the UTDC in Ontario and B.C. Transit, selling light rapid transit systems -- conventional and advanced -- into Asia. There's some engineering work that Hydro Québec and B.C. Hydro could work on together. Our joint skills, when you merge them, make us among the best -- if not the best -- in the world in hydroelectricity projects. It was initiated by me as Premier, meeting with Premier Bourassa in Davos, Switzerland. Premier Bourassa very quickly took up the idea, and two and a half months later established the Quebec trade office in British Columbia in the World Trade Centre in Vancouver.

G. Wilson: I note that what's interesting about the response -- and it was in fact the direction that I wanted to go in on this question -- is that in both instances with B.C. Transit and B.C. Hydro we're talking about the involvement of British Columbia Crown corporations in potential overseas developments and trade. I also noted earlier that the Premier suggested that one of the areas of great strength in our economy is going to be the communications area. Recognizing that B.C. Rail is now talking about a merger with respect to telecommunications and telephone work, is it the policy of the government, through the Crown corporations or with assistance through the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, to have B.C. Crown corporations engaged in overseas development opportunities either with other provinces or with private partners?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is yes. They have been doing that for some time. I think there's a tremendous potential in, for example, the new countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States. There's great potential to help in areas where B.C. is a world leader. For example, our B.C. Assessment Authority, our Torrens system of land registry and the computerized systems we have are among the best -- if not the best -- in the world. There is certainly a need to establish those kinds of systems in, for example, the eastern part of Russia, in what's called Primorye. I met recently with the governor from that area -- who is the ex-mayor, by the way, of Vladivostok -- about whether this is something where we could be helpful. Yes, I think there are tremendous opportunities for British Columbia Crown corporations -- B.C. Systems Corporation, B.C. Rail, B.C. Hydro and a number of others -- to sell our services abroad, as they have done for a number of years. I intend to pursue that.

G. Wilson: I take it with respect to the B.C. Rail proposition and their potential venture into telephones and telecommunications that the Premier thinks that this is a good thrust. This is the way we ought to be going. We should be developing our Crown corporate entities as part of the expanding North American economy.

Hon. M. Harcourt: That's a different question. I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition could ask the minister responsible for that, the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

His question, though, was a different one: are we going to continue to use the Crown corporations in international markets? The answer is yes. I should say that that's to be done in cooperation with and facilitating the private sector. There's a consortium of first-rate firms here in British Columbia -- firms like Ernst and Young, H.A. Simons -- that are working with the B.C. Assessment Authority and the Vancouver Port Corporation to help to modernize that area of Russia.

You mentioned earlier that I wanted to establish a cooperative economic working relationship with Premier Bourassa in Quebec. I have also made an offer to the western premiers that we go to Japan and Asia together this fall and, from Lake of the Woods to Tofino, let the Japanese business world know about the cooperation that's going to take place across western Canada. The grain, potash, sulphur and products that come from the Prairies along the rail system and into our port are great assets and of tremendous benefit to our customers in Japan, Korea and other areas of Asia. The premiers can get together to work with each other on trade missions. These are new ways that Canadians can cooperate with each other. As the Premier of the province, I intend to use the front door to the Asia-Pacific and to continue to try and work cooperatively with the other premiers, whatever their politics. I think those premiers have an interest in that sort of arrangement.

G. Wilson: I would assume that the Premier is not saying that the first ministers from western Canada should be going into Japan in the absence, hopefully, of those in the private sector who are engaged in the industry. I'm hearing that this is a consultative process and a combination of events that will get people working together. I think that is something that we could support. I'm interested to hear that there is a plan for the fall to journey to Japan. I read earlier in May that the Premier has decided that he will travel with Washington's Governor Booth Gardner to Europe in the fall. Can the Premier tell us where else he's going in the fall?

[12:45]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I don't know what you were reading, but I am not going anywhere with Booth Gardner. I'm quite willing to meet with the outgoing Governor, as I did recently to sign an environment accord with him to clean up some of the environmental problems we have here, including the flooding of the Nooksack River, which is a very serious problem in

[ Page 3093 ]

dealing with some of our sewage treatment and pollution problems in the Fraser Valley. I have made no commitments for travel in the fall. I hope that we can have a constitutional referendum that will put the constitutional turmoil and the marathon sessions that we have been going through in the last few years behind us. That will be my priority in the fall.

G. Wilson: Perhaps I shouldn't be so quick to rely on what I read in the local newspapers. Certainly everything that's written about us is correct; I assumed everything written about the government must have been too. On May 8 it was suggested: "Earlier, Harcourt and Washington Governor Booth Gardner agreed to send a joint trade mission to Europe in the fall." That's where that comes from. If in fact there isn't an agreement to that effect, then I'll take the Premier's word on that.

With respect to the Premier's travel I wonder if the Premier could, for technical purposes, tell us where the costs associated with his travel abroad show up in these estimates. What are the costs associated with those trips? Who goes? Who pays? If the private sector goes, what relationship is made? Generally, what is associated with the costs of the Premier's travel agenda with respect to trade?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can answer that by saying that my travel, when I am involved in an economic investment trade mission, is through the travel fund of the Ministry of Economic Development.

G. Wilson: I take it then that none of the $9.5 million within the B.C. Trade Development Corporation would be used in any way to facilitate or assist these trade commissions.

Hon. M. Harcourt: The economic offices of the province are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Economic Development. Ministerial travel has to be approved. There has to be a clear purpose and objectives for the mission. There has to be a description of who is going. In the private sector they pay their own expenses. The minister's travel, if it's for tourism promotion or to expand our value-added forest products in Japan.... If that is approved by me, my deputy and the Minister of Economic Development -- because we can see it would be of benefit to British Columbia in expanding our markets -- then that cost will come out of the travel fund of the Economic Development minister. If an official from the Trade Development Corporation is along in their official capacity -- their duties through the Trade Development Corporation -- then of course the official's expenses will come out of the travel budget of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation.

G. Wilson: I really have only a couple of questions more on trade, then maybe I can have a few on the constitutional question as it may relate to the duties of the Premier. That will, I think, pretty much wrap it up for me.

With respect to the moneys that are set aside, how much communication or planning is there between the Crown corporations and the agencies that have been referred to with respect to these potentials? I'm thinking more specifically of B.C. Hydro, because I know there are a number of ongoing projects where we can facilitate projects abroad. How much ongoing planning is there between the office of the Premier, the Crown corporations, the Crown corporations secretariat and the B.C. Trade Development Corporation?

Hon. M. Harcourt: There wasn't a great deal of coordination on that issue, and we're doing much more now. That's one of the reasons that our cabinet has established a Crown Corporations Committee chaired by the Minister of Finance. We are going to be doing more of that coordination and more of that cooperation between the Crowns in terms of seeking out markets internationally.

G. Wilson: Does the Crown corporations secretariat have a role to play in the development of the trade agenda with respect to government policy on trade and overseas development?

Hon. M. Harcourt: If they are so directed by the chair and by cabinet to do that, yes. It is a direction they have received, that we want to expand the export of B.C. goods and services. If we can assist the private sector by joining a venture as I stated in Primorye, or as I've shown we'd like to do with transportation, then that direction will go to the secretariat for the Crown corporations to help promote that. What the Crown corporations secretariat is trying to do is bring some synergy and a better cooperative working relationship between the Crown corporations, which has been pretty loosey-goosey up to this point.

G. Wilson: I take it, then, that the chair of the Crown corporations secretariat would have a significant role to play in developing the policy and direction by which we can start to have international trade and trade agreements established in conjunction with the Premier's office and the B.C. Trade Development Corporation?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I don't think so. That would be one of the minor tasks of the Crowns as more domestically focused, but as an offshoot of their activities, as I said earlier, a number of the Crowns have been doing this for a long time. We want to do it better.

The Chair: Opposition House Leader.

G. Wilson: Actually, the opposition House Leader isn't in the chamber, but...

The Chair: Sorry about that, opposition leader.

G. Wilson: ...I can fulfil both roles, I'm sure. I should be careful what I say.

I wonder if we could move on in the last round of questions that I have. They have more to do with the

[ Page 3094 ]

office of the Premier and the executive council with respect to matters on the constitution. The Premier's views on the Senate have been well documented, that he favours a triple-A: abolish, abolish, abolish -- even though he knows that that is not likely to be the final resolution.

I wonder then if the Premier can tell us to what extent he sees continued first ministers' conferences having a role with respect to resolution of not only the constitution but other national questions. I direct my question to the Premier specifically in this. It would seem to me that there is a proposition that executive federalism -- if I can use that term -- is becoming more the order of the day in Canada; and that there is, I suspect, a tendency or desire by some provinces to promote that so that executive federalism can override the more democratic process of a decision taken by those directly elected to make those decisions, as opposed to an executive branch of government.

I wonder if the Premier could comment on that, because it's something that has caused some concern on this side of the House.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I thought the Leader of the Opposition was in favour of a triple-A Senate too. I didn't think he wanted to continue the present unelected and unrepresentative and unaccountable Senate that we have. I thought we were all for a triple-A Senate, which is to abolish, abolish, abolish; and that if we were going to have a Senate, it should be composed of elected people, and that it should have an effective role.

I think what we're trying to do now is to find a Senate that is elected, is effective and can provide the representation for the provinces that can help us resolve the present logjam or impasse that we're into with the present attempt to bring about constitutional reform.

I think the Leader of the Opposition has been kept well informed by the Constitutional Affairs minister of the attempts that B.C. has been making to help us through this. We're basically standing still right now, because we've reached an impasse on the Senate and on a couple of other issues, but I think the member would agree that one of the ways that we could diminish executive federalism -- and quite frankly, I'm not in favour of 11 men sitting around in a room in private, making decisions about the constitution; that was one of the failures of Meech Lake, and I don't want to go through Meech Lake 2 -- is with the assembly of the provinces. It's one way that we could make sure that we institutionalize legislative members participating in national institutions that deal with provincial issues and concerns.

We are trying very responsibly to break the logjam, to get the constitutional ministers back to the table, to keep pushing towards what I think most Canadians want. As weary as we are about this constitutional round, I think most Canadians want to get beyond it and get on with other very important issues involving the economy and our finances.

I think first ministers should and do meet, but I don't want to institutionalize executive federalism. I'd like to find ways for legislatures to have a greater say in national institutions, and I think the assembly of the provinces is one idea that may help us break the logjam on the Senate.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I'd like to acknowledge the contribution and thank the young member in the gallery. It's encouraging to have those kinds of contributions from that side of the House. It's nice to see that there's some intelligent heckling.

If I could now....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I acknowledge that all the members' nephews are intelligent. I don't doubt that for one moment.

Coming back to this question with respect to the abolish-abolish-abolish of the Senate. It's much like the free trade agreement: just because you don't like it doesn't mean you rip it up. If you don't like the Senate, you don't abolish it, you reform it. We're attempting to reform that House. My question is an important one, because the Premier will be in Ottawa on Monday. I think the people of British Columbia want to know the role that this government will play in the final analysis with respect to the question that is put before the people of Canada. There is a real risk, I think, given the mounting frustration that Ottawa politicians are feeling that Ottawa may attempt an end-run on this question. I think the people of British Columbia would like to hear from the Premier that those of us in British Columbia who have worked hard are prepared to continue to work hard to keep this country together with a reformed constitution, and we will not accept or tolerate an end-run on the matter of the constitution. Because it is a very definite function of his office with respect to these first ministers' conferences, I wonder if the Premier might tell us what he would intend to say or what his position is today on that matter.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I've made it very clear that I'm prepared to go to Ottawa but not to participate in Meech Lake 2. This is not a full-blown constitutional conference that I'm going to. If the first ministers can get together to see if there's some way that we can help break the logjam, that's what I'm going to do. I'm letting the Prime Minister, the other Premiers and the people of Canada know that there's a political will in British Columbia to keep going until we get a constitutional reform package. I have given that instruction to our Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. He is prepared to go back to the table to resolve the last few items that need to be resolved. British Columbia wants to see a reformed constitution and a reformed Senate. We will keep pushing in that direction.

[1:00]

The Prime Minister is well aware that if this was a full constitutional conference I wouldn't be going. Until there is an agreement through our constitutional ministers and until Premier Bourassa in the province of Quebec is prepared to participate and take a proposal

[ Page 3095 ]

back to Quebec, as I would be bringing a proposal back to the people of British Columbia, to vote on in a referendum, there's no sense having a constitutional conference. I'm going under the very clear understanding that this is a meeting of first ministers to see if there's something we can do to break the logjam, and to make it clear that we in British Columbia have the political will to keep going.

G. Wilson: I'm encouraged by those comments, but I would remind the Premier that the longest supper that we had not so long ago commenced with a calling together of the first ministers to have dinner that ended up five or six years later. Initially it was a "let's get together and have a chat, and now that we've got you in the room we won't let you go" concept. I'm leery that that trap is likely to be set again. I wonder if the Premier would commit today that if that is the case, he would withdraw and not become party to what might be a political agenda being played out by federal politicians who simply do not work to the interests of the people of British Columbia.

Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is yes.

G. Wilson: That's great. I'm very pleased to hear that, because I think that British Columbians will take confidence in the fact that we together -- opposition and government -- have worked well and will continue to work well on this question. I thank the Premier for giving direction to his constitutional minister to keep the Leader of the Opposition informed on the progress of talks. I hope that I have been able to be constructive in putting forward proposals to try and resolve the constitutional questions.

I have one last question with respect to this set of estimates, and it has to do again with the role of the so-called executive federalism that seems to be coming forward. Can the Premier tell us what his view is with respect to the ongoing commitment to first ministers' conferences in Canada as a functional part of the overall involvement of the provinces with the federal government? Does the Premier think that is a wise and proper way to proceed, or would he perhaps entertain a change that would allow for essentially a rotation of ministerial conferences -- which now seems to becoming more the model, i.e. that first ministers are coming together, but also Finance ministers, Health ministers and so on -- so that we can break away from this kind of direct hierarchical level of executive federalism that seems to be involved?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition is aware that one of the proposals in the reform package for the constitution refers to first minister's conferences and would entrench a first minister's conference at least once a year. I think the Leader of the Opposition would agree that first ministers getting together can be a very valuable activity if we don't have airtight constitutional activities -- and there is a need for first ministers to get together as we have on the economy. It would be worthwhile carrying out those sorts of activities. Health ministers have been getting together to find ways that we can make reforms to medicare. Trade ministers are meeting to try to reduce the barriers between provinces. I think that's all very useful, and I think we should continue that. But I don't see any increase in the range of ministerial and first ministers' meetings beyond what I've just talked about.

G. Wilson: I am aware of that agreement, and that is precisely why I put the question to the Premier. Members on this side in the Liberal opposition are very cautious not to get into a process where we establish in Canada an executive level of government that seems to be outside the mandated government in the provinces. This, quite frankly, is one of the reasons that the House of the Provinces idea, which has been advanced by the government opposite and by the minister responsible for constitutional reform, has some merit in that it does provide for a mechanism, although I do have some concerns elsewhere with it.

Finally, to the Premier, is it the intention then of the government to actively move the negotiation into the proposition of direct provincial participation in federal legislative decision-making through this House of the Provinces idea without the executive branch of government, or do you see yourself having both? That would give me grave concern, quite frankly, if what we're attempting to do is have both the House of the Provinces and first ministers, which I think would serve to further balkanize the country and would remove the proposition of having a strong national central government that could speak for Canada. Not that I impugn the Premier. I'm not suggesting the Premiers can't have a vision of Canada. I think they can and some do, but it's important that there be a vision of one country so that we recognize that when we engage with trading partners, our trading partners trade with Canada even though they may work and sign agreements with its component parts. When people immigrate into this country, they immigrate to Canada and not a component part of it. When we establish national program, national agendas and national direction with a national vision, we do so as Canada -- one country -- and not a consortium of ten independent component parts. with the House of the Provinces that can regulate on the Senate level, as well as this executive branch of government that may regulate in terms of a national policy and direction.

I wonder if the Premier could comment on that.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would hope that the whole purpose of the constitutional reform package that we hope is approved by British Columbians in referendum and by Canada, the other provinces and our national Parliament is to bring about a strong, united Canada. That's what we need, and that's what we want. The Leader of the Opposition is also aware that immigration is a concurrent jurisdiction. It's not solely a federal jurisdiction; it's concurrent, with a federal override.

Trade. We are asking that the provinces be involved in trade negotiations before anything is signed during the actual implementation of a trade agreement, particularly when it affects provincial jurisdictions in natural

[ Page 3096 ]

resources, for example. It's not quite as simple as that. There are areas, as I said, where we have concurrent jurisdiction, and where provinces -- and all the Premiers have expressed this -- want a far greater chance to be involved in treaty negotiations so they can bring to the table the concerns of each of the provinces.

I think the Leader of the Opposition would agree that the first ministers should meet. I was skeptical about the meetings in the first couple I attended. I thought the third one was of great value to Canada. We can have a strong Canada that also recognizes the regional differences. We cannot have one economic strategy for Canada, because every region is different. To treat British Columbia the same as Atlantic Canada would be a disservice to Atlantic Canada and to British Columbia. Our focuses are different, our dynamics are different and our needs are different. One of the advantages of the first ministers getting together to start to work on a national economic strategy based on the regional economies we have is that we can combine the strengths of a strong sense of Canada but recognize the diversity of the needs of the regions. I don't see them as mutually exclusive at all.

I think the initiatives that have come out of the first ministers' meeting in March on the economic restructuring that's needed for Canada, the better use of the training funding that we talked about earlier, how we can change our health care system -- we have asked our Health ministers to do that, and they met recently with our Finance ministers -- are areas in which we should have communication among the first ministers. I think we can do that. We can find a balance between having a strong, united Canada, which I'm sure we're all after, and a recognition and a respect for the regional differences that make this such a great country.

G. Wilson: I would really welcome an opportunity, in another forum at another time, to have a much broader debate on this question, because it is clearly an area that the Premier and I, as Leader of the Opposition, may have divergent views on.

I don't want to get into debate, save and except to make one point: there's diversity within the economies of the province of British Columbia, yet we have one government that looks after the interests of the people of British Columbia. Notwithstanding that, the former governments -- I think this one is too young to judge -- have not looked after the interests of the interior, the north, the Kootenays or many other areas of the province. I think it is important for us to recognize that while yes, indeed, we have to have involvement in matters with respect to immigration and other kinds of issues.... I would point out, as I'm sure the Premier is aware, that British Columbia is one of three provinces that does not have an agreement with Ottawa with respect to immigration. It is critically important that as a component part of the country of Canada, while in the first instance we always put British Columbia and the interest of British Columbians first, in the final analysis we have to speak out for Canada.

I can conclude my remarks today, unless, of course, the response of the Premier is intriguing enough to force me back on my feet again. What concerns me is that we are starting to move away from the concept of one nation in Canada, respectful of the divergent parts of it and of the distinction those parts have, and the relative autonomy that some of those component parts require over their economy and over the development of their resources, without threatening the very fibre of what makes us Canadian and what makes us unique among people in the world -- that is, that we can have a divergent culture with divergent positions, and still have a strong nation; a nation that has a strong identity, which British Columbia can identify with as well as Quebeckers, Newfoundlanders and people from the Northwest Territories. I think that's what's lacking, quite frankly.

If the Premier wants to respond to my remarks, that would be fine. It seems to me that what is clearly lacking in this round of negotiations is that there is no vision of this nation. The more we decentralize it, the more we balkanize it. The more we look after our own interests, the more we threaten the interests of all of us in terms of our collective will to make this nation strong and united. With that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks.

The Chair: Shall vote 6 pass?

Interjections.

The Chair: So ordered.

The opposition House Leader. Pardon me, the opposition leader -- I'll get it right this time.

G. Wilson: I respond to a number of names, some polite and some not so. Yours have always been very polite, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for that.

I think, in the interests of procedure, that we should call a quorum, so that there can be no problem with it.

[1:15]

Hon. G. Clark: I call vote 7: be it resolved that a sum not exceeding $9,580,000 be granted to Her Majesty to....

G. Wilson: I think that it's vote 6 and then vote 7.

The Chair: The question was called on vote 6; however, if there is a question about it, we can call it.

D. Mitchell: Point of order. When we reflect back on the proceedings in the committee, I don't think there was a quorum when vote 6 was called. That's why there was a quorum call. I believe we do have to go back to vote 6 for that reason.

The Chair: The point is well taken, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: On vote 6. To date, I have really concentrated my remarks on the Trade Development Corporation. There are at least one or two areas that I'd like the Premier to respond to, at least briefly. The Province ran a story today that indicated that British Columbians clearly were increasingly unhappy with the performance of this government. The reasons

[ Page 3097 ]

indicated were the government's failure to keep its promises, its patronage appointments and its taxation policies. Given that the Premier is in fact the Premier and the one who leads this province and this government, I wonder if he has any plans to deal with the growing dissatisfaction of British Columbians with the performance of his government.

Hon. M. Harcourt: The major poll that is of interest to me has already happened. The people have spoken, and they spoke loud and clear about what they thought of the previous government. The next poll I'm looking forward to is the next election, and we'll see at that time.

J. Weisgerber: Well, far be it from me to coach the Premier. Let me say, however, that over the last five years voters at various times took that opportunity to send a message to the government by elections. Those kinds of activities were opportunities for British Columbians to indicate to the former government that they were dissatisfied with the government. We chose to ignore that advice. Is the Premier then following along and choosing simply to ignore the public opinion as it relates to the performance of his government -- to say, "I don't care," having made promises that people believed on October 17? Are you saying they will have to sit and accept what you hand them until the next time we go to the polls?

Hon. M. Harcourt: No, that's not the answer I gave at all. I said that elections are what decide governments. This is a very open government. We are very interested not just in what the people of British Columbia have to say but in them participating very actively in the decisions. That's why we established the Commission on Resources and Environment. That's why we have provided a whole series of opportunities for British Columbians to participate. Yes, we do listen. I think most British Columbians realize that we've had to make some tough decisions in some difficult times, but we are very interested in what British Columbians think about the important issues. Yes, we will continue to listen to British Columbians.

J. Weisgerber: If I understand correctly, the Premier is now saying that in fact he will look at the dissatisfaction that's been indicated by this survey and start to deal with those areas of primary concern -- the broken promises, the patronage and the tax increases.

Vote 6 approved.

Vote 7: British Columbia Trade Development Corporation, $9,580,000 -- approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:24 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada