[ Page 5033 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Northeast coal development. Mr. Lockstead –– 5033

Mr. Leggatt –– 5033

Amax mine tailings in Alice Arm. Mr. Passarell –– 5034

Racial discrimination. Mr. Barnes –– 5034

Job safety in government service. Mr. Hanson –– 5036

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 161: transit services –– 5037

Mr. Barber

Mr. Nicolson

Ms. Brown

On vote 162: building occupancy charges –– 5041

Mr. Barber

On the amendment to vote 162 –– 5041

Mr. Howard

Mr. Barber

Division on the amendment

On vote 163: computer and consulting charges –– 5044

Mr. Barber

On the amendment to vote 163 –– 5045

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. King

Division on the amendment

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Jordan)

On vote 183: minister's office –– 5047

Hon. Mrs. Jordan

Mr. Hall

Mr. Barber

Appendix –– 5057

TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the members of the House will be happy to know that a former MLA is in the public gallery. Mr. Ernie LeCours was the former member for Richmond for a short time, 1963 to 1972. I would like the members to welcome him.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery are Mr. and Mrs. Fugeta from the city of Penticton. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a group of students from Alpha Secondary School accompanied by their teacher. I would ask the House to join in welcoming them.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have a visitor, a long-time friend of mine from Texada Island, Mr. Gordon Copeland. I ask the House to join me in welcoming him.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, along with the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I would like to extend my greetings to Mr. and Mrs. Fugeta, who are friends of my mother. I welcome them to the House today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, I seek guidance from the Speaker. During committee earlier today the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was asked to withdraw from the chamber. Glancing at standing order 20, it says that anyone who has been asked to withdraw from the chamber or who has been ordered to withdraw from the chamber shall be absent during the remainder of that day's sitting. I seek guidance on whether the day is over yet.

MR. SPEAKER: I am reviewing standing order 20 and checking the wording of it.

The minister is right. It says the "remainder of that day's sitting." I'll accept an opinion from the Member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: I put to you, Mr. Speaker, that at the commencement of the session the House passed a motion saying that there would be two distinct sittings each day, and on this particular day one of those sittings was from 9:30 a.m. until 12:30 unless otherwise ordered, and it was ordered yesterday that it commence at 10 o'clock. The second distinct, separate sitting is commencing now.

I submit the reading of standing order 20 should be taken as such that it means the suspension for the balance of that day's sitting, indicating that because there are two distinct sittings, that only applied to the sitting this morning and not this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I do not have a precedent for this particular question. I would ask that the House give me perhaps the time of question period to reflect on it and, without prejudice to the member, give a decision before we go into the orders of the day. Is that agreed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Oral Questions

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. In the northeast coal project, the access roads to the townsite will be built from Chetwynd and Dawson Creek rather than from Prince George. As a direct result, the major suppliers to the project and the future townsite are more economically situated in Alberta. Will the minister advise why the routes chosen give better access to Alberta suppliers than to B.C. suppliers? What have you got against B.C. businessmen, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. FRASER: The member for Mackenzie omitted to say in there that, you bet, we're accessing it from B.C. We have a good highway, which we didn't have when we took over government in 1975, the Hart highway from Prince George to Chetwynd. We've rebuilt over half of it. We have good highway access for distribution, if they so choose, out of Prince George and north, and, of course, railroad as well. It is not correct to say that the other accesses give access only to Alberta.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Can I give a supplementary answer, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The only answer that would be acceptable would be an answer to a question that the minister himself took on notice.

MR. LEGGATT: The minister, I know, is anxious to answer this question, because it's essentially along the same lines. Concerns have been expressed, particularly by residents of Prince George....

MRS. WALLACE: Which minister?

MR. LEGGATT: This is to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

Residents of Prince George and the area have been very concerned that the jobs in this great northeast coal project are going to go to Alberta and not to the province of British Columbia at all. The minister knows that if we're going to subsidize jobs, at least the British Columbians who are subsidizing them ought to get those jobs. My question is this. Can the minister confirm that the first B.C. Rail contract to build an access road along the right-of-way of the Anzac spurline has been awarded to Coal Valley Industry Ltd., a company which has mainly used non-union labour from Alberta?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm surprised that that member, who has never been in the area, knows so much about the logistics of the area. I'm also surprised that that member, who represents that socialist party that would do nothing to build highways in that area when the great oil boom started, and all of the access to the natural resources of that area was going to the province of Alberta.... I stood on that side of the House and pleaded with the socialists, when they were over here, to build some highways so that British Columbians could have some of the benefits of their natural resource developments. I'm really surprised that that member would be able to stand in this Legislature and even talk about highways in that area.

[ Page 5034 ]

Your second question I'll take as notice.

MR. LEGGATT: Now that the minister is confirming, I think, that the first serious contracts are going to Alberta, what I would like him to advise the House is: what guarantees are you going to give to the workers of British Columbia who are subsidizing this massive deal that they're going to get some jobs out of this project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I almost blush when I stand in this Legislature in answer to that member's question, because he's been wrong, wrong, wrong, and he's wrong again. He's wrong today, and he's always been wrong. Even though the socialist hordes out there are trying to create the atmosphere that there's great subsidization in this project, which is the greatest that's ever taken place in British Columbia or in Canada — I know they're trying to do that, and I'm glad — the people out there recognize the benefits and the jobs that will flow not only to British Columbia but to every other province in Canada from this great development.

HON. MR. BENNETT: To Canadians.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and we're Canadians. We're more Canadians on this side of the House than they are on that side of that House, because whenever anybody in this House starts to talk about the constitution, what do they do? They hide under their bloody desks; that's what they do.

Now let me.... What was your question? [Laughter.]

I have to inform the member from Coquitlam that he's wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We cannot proceed without order. The hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. LEGGATT: Perhaps I'll speak a little slower this time so that the minister can get the question.

The question is this: what assurance or guarantee is there that the taxpayers and the workers of British Columbia, who are engaged in a massive subsidy of the northeast coal project, are going to receive jobs in the northeast, rather than the people of Alberta?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'm really surprised at the member's question, because he doesn't want the coal project to go ahead and now all of a sudden that member is concerned about jobs and where the jobs are going to go. Well, I want to tell you that indeed we will be putting on seminars and identifying for all British Columbia industries the opportunities that will come from this great development. I want to tell the member that many manufacturing and fabricating plants in the member's own riding will receive a great opportunity to fabricate a lot of the material and the machinery that will be used on this great development. We will identify those opportunities by putting on seminars in Vancouver, Prince George and indeed in the Peace River area. But I want to remind that member over there, who all of a sudden is so interested in jobs in British Columbia, that in this province we are Canadians.

I would also like to remind that member that there are manufacturers, engineers and other people in the province of British Columbia, indeed some in his own riding, who — as a result of the seminar we put on for the Alaska pipeline, where some 850 small business people from the lower mainland came into the Vancouver Hotel while we brought over the Alcan people and identified the jobs and opportunities that would be available from that great project — are presently doing business with the petroleum industry in Calgary. Until we put on that great seminar, they did not know those opportunities existed.

MR. LEGGATT: There is something we do know, and that is that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development doesn't need any of those seminars in fabrication.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There was no question; there was only perhaps an unparliamentary accusation. I would ask the member to withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing,

MR. LEGGATT: Certainly I'll withdraw, and I'd be happy to rephrase the question.

My question to the minister is: does he feel that he needs to take any of those seminars in fabrication?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: May I answer the member's statement, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: We must first of all determine whether the question was in order. Does the minister wish to answer?

AMAX MINE TAILINGS IN ALICE ARM

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Yesterday A.J. Richardson, deputy chief inspector of mines, advised the Nishga Indians that they will be barred from attending a meeting tomorrow regarding the application by Amax for a further permit to dump excess rock and earth into the Alice Arm watershed. In view of widespread concern by the Nishga Indians over their vital food fisheries in Alice Arm, has the minister decided to allow the Nishga to attend the meeting?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I think the nature of the meeting which is being held should be understood by all members. It is a technical meeting, involving technical discussions not only with people from my ministry but also with representatives from the water rights, waste management and fish and wildlife branches in the Minister of Environment, and also with people from the federal environmental protection service. It's been a policy of the Ministry of Mines for many years in this province, including the years in which the former government was in power — under an agreement with the Mining Association of British Columbia, the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines and others — that those kinds of technical discussions and presentations, because they deal with items of a nature that could be of benefit to competitors, be held in private with the companies. However, there may be opportunities at some later time for public meetings to be held. This is not one of them.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Mr. Minister, you recently appointed Mr. John McAlpine to investigate ways in which the Human Rights Code might be effective in dealing with the Ku Klux Klan, a racist organization in this province. I'd like to ask you to explain to the House why you have advised your deputy minister, Mr. Steve Stackhouse, to interfere with the authority of Human Rights Director Nola Landucci in the Chandrama Mishra case involving the Vancouver Community College.

[ Page 5035 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm not really in a position to answer that question right now. What I will do is take it as notice and come back to the member.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to ask the minister if he is aware that under the NDP, the director had the power to investigate all complaints and was given complete access to records. Is the minister also aware that she had access to legal counsel in pursuance of these duties, in terms of investigating to get preliminary information?

MR. SPEAKER: The purpose of question period is to seek information, not to bring information.

MR. BARNES: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was asking him if he was aware of the policy that had existed and was in place. That's a question.

MR. GABELMANN: The Speaker's biased.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member for North Island to withdraw the accusation that the Chair is biased.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, because of the institution of parliament, I do.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I would ask the member for North Island for an unqualified withdrawal that the Chair is biased.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any comments that the Chair itself is unbiased,

MR. SPEAKER: I ask for an unqualified withdrawal that the Chair is biased,

MR. GABELMANN: That's what I gave you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: We give the member just a moment to reflect upon his attitude, and then I will order the member for an unqualified withdrawal of the statement that the Chair is biased.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat, I agree the Chair is not biased.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. KING: On a point of order, I wish the Speaker would share with the House the reason for ruling out of order the question of my colleague from Vancouver Centre. It was a serious question. I think the member deserves the courtesy of an explanation of why he is being ignored.

MR. SPEAKER: To the best of my recollection, I said the purpose of question period is to seek information, not to bring information to the House. A question which asks whether the minister is aware of certain information seems to the Chair to be a device that is used to bring information to the House.

MR. LEA: One of the things that Mr. Speaker quite often points out to all members of this House is.... You ask us whether we are putting forward motives for other members, and if we say we are you say that's out of order. I ask you, sir, are you doing the same?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the member for Prince Rupert showing disregard for the Chair?

MR. LEA: No, I am not. I asked you a question, sir. I'm asking whether you're doing the same thing that you stop us from doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The responsibility of the Chair is to determine points of order for the entire House, whether that be in question period or under the normal orders of the day. The decision of the Chair is subject to an appeal to the House at any time. However, in question period, if a question is to be determined in order or out of order, that determination is left to the Chair itself, and the Chair tries to be extremely lenient.

MR. BARRETT: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is sounding like a debate but I'll take an opinion from the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that motivation is a subjective decision and that the question then must be put to the member whether or not his motive is in order or not? A subjective judgment by the Chair leaves members feeling that motives are being interpreted without a member having expressed an opinion as to whether or not that is subjective or objective.

MR. SPEAKER: Well received. It is not at all the intent of the Chair to try to determine motives; it is simply to rule a question in order or out of order. Does that conclude the matter? Can we proceed?

On a point of order, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think it might be of continuing assistance for all members on both sides of the House if they could perhaps take a second look at the Speaker's ruling, February 28. 1977, concerning question period. It followed the report of the select standing committee of 1973. Firstly, questions without notice must be urgent and important; secondly, supplementary questions may be allowed by permission of Mr. Speaker; thirdly, no debate shall be allowed during question period; and fourthly, the decision of Mr. Speaker shall be final on allowing or disallowing any question. These are the rules that this House has had before it since this report came in and since the ruling of the Speaker. I don't think we've got anything new here.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Member.

I will allow an extra five minutes in question period today because of the time that the Chair itself took in explaining some points of order.

The second member for Vancouver Centre.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

MR. BARNES: I'd like to repeat my question to the Minister of Labour. I was asking the minister if he was aware that prior to his taking office under the New Democratic Party there did exist power for the human rights director to investigate with full authority any questions regarding discrimination. I'm asking if he's aware of that. In other words, is he familiar with the Human Rights Code sections 13 and 15, with respect to the power of the director?

[ Page 5036 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Energy on a point of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's my understanding that for a long time the practice — at least, as long as I've been in this Legislature — in dealing with, first of all, preliminary questions and then questions which follow has been that in order to bring fullest possible information to this House, if a minister takes a question as notice for good reason, then the proper time to bring forward a supplementary would be when that question is answered by the speaker, and not to bring forward supplementaries to questions which have been taken as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: At the time the question was taken as notice, the Chair asked for a new question. With great respect, I think it was the intent of the member to ask a new question, although the question which he asked did sound as though he was bringing information to the House.

The second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARNES: I think it's quite necessary sometimes to bring information in the way of a preamble to clarify the situation and then ask the question. That's quite common in this House. That's all I was doing. I'm quite prepared to drop the matter, because I think it's obvious that the minister is not familiar with what goes on in his department.

JOB SAFETY IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary, as the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission and more specifically the accident prevention branch. Would the minister confirm to the House today that the annual award — what they call the Premier's Safety Award — for 1980 was cancelled because of the accident performance of the six major ministries of government?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, I cannot confirm that.

MR. HANSON: I have a document here from Mr. Long, the acting chairman and former chairman of the Public Service Commission, which indicates that the Forest Service and Highways have had a deterioration in accident rates up to 157 percent over the last six months of 1980. Will the minister tell us what actions and what agents are responsible for this disastrous increase?

HON. MR. WOLFE: That question is a little different than the first one. I might just correct the member in that Mr. Long is the current chairman of the Public Service Commission.

I'd be more than happy to bring a report to the House on the status of the safety program and the status of this year's safety awards. I'm not aware that any awards have been cancelled. There may be a ministry which has not become eligible under the point system, due to circumstances that prevailed, but I'm not aware that there's been any cancellation of the program.

MR. HANSON: I don't think it is necessary for there to be a report to this House, in the sense that this is filed with the provincial library.

The first eight months of 1980 have resulted in $7.5 million of compensable fines for the provincial government. Why is the provincial government seeking variances from the WCB to avoid safety regulations within the government service?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I've undertaken to bring an answer to that question to the House, so I'll take that question as notice.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, to seek the advice of the Chair in assisting the House during question period. It arose as a result of the extension of today's question period. Some days ago Your Honour took under advisement the subject matter about points of order in question period, and whether the time of question period should be expanded as a result of time taken up by points of order and the like. I wonder if Your Honour could advise the House when he would come back with a ruling in that regard.

MR. SPEAKER: That decision is now nearly prepared. It could even arrive as early as later today.

However, before we proceed, hon. members, I did undertake without prejudice, and before we arrived at orders of the day, to take into consideration the point of order raised by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) regarding the suspension of a member from committee.

Standing order 20 in our own Standing Orders says that a member whose conduct is grossly disorderly shall be ordered "to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of that day's sitting." It then further explains how that order shall be carried out. May, in his eighteenth edition, on page 429 says: "When...a member persists in disorderly conduct or conducts himself in a grossly disorderly manner the Speaker is enjoined..."— by a standing order — "forthwith to order him to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the sitting...." That in itself perhaps does not clarify the matter, but if you readjust a little further it is clarified. It says: "....if he thinks" — this is the Speaker or the Chairman, by the way — "the authority and the dignity of the House would not be sufficiently vindicated by excluding the offender from the House for the remainder of the sitting..." then the remedy would be to name him.

So it appears to the Chair that when a member is excluded, if it is not thought sufficient that the remainder of the sitting would vindicate the House, then the second procedure should be engaged at that time. I recommend the same to the House.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, earlier in today's proceedings, during question period, one of the members of the House was asked to withdraw a remark as to whether he felt that the Chair was biased. Mr. Speaker, I'd ask for your guidance. In my experience in the House, there has never been a government member kicked out. There has never been an emergency resolution by the opposition accepted. Although I know the Chair isn't biased, the statistics from such an historical account do leave certain members to wonder whether or not we stand any sort of chance in this House of ever having a ruling come our way. I'm sure that Mr. Speaker can understand that we are just a little perplexed that it always seems to go the other way, and I was wondering whether or not there isn't some way that Mr. Speaker could resolve this wonder in my mind.

[ Page 5037 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:. Order, please, hon. members. The point of order was raised for the Chair to consider, and I do not take the member's concern lightly. As long as this Speaker shall occupy this chair, the decisions from this Chair shall continue to be unbiased.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) just a few minutes ago asked about the decision regarding question period. It is now ready, and with the concurrence of the House, let me leave it with you. On last Wednesday a point of order was raised by the Leader of the Opposition as to whether or not the period of time allotted for oral questions should be extended by virtue of points of order being raised after commencement and before completion of the question period. The report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, dated February 27, 1973, which has since been adopted by the House as a sessional order, is silent on this point. I have noted, however, that on last May 8, the Chair ruled that oral question period ought not to be infringed upon by the raising of a matter of privilege. Hon. members will recall also that the Chair has recommended previously that lengthy answers to questions previously taken on notice would best be deferred until after question period, so as to keep intact the time allotted.

It is the opinion of the Chair, in accordance with the practice adopted in other jurisdictions, that points of order generally should not be raised at all during question period, but would more properly be deferred until the question period has been completed. In view of the authority vested in the Chair by the sessional order, it is very difficult to conceive of a valid point of order being raised which would require any significant time to deal with, unless, of course, there was any disposition to improperly engage in protracted discussions on points of order with the Chair.

It is my view that if the Chair itself has to interrupt question period for a significant period, any time so utilized ought to be restored as determined by the Chair. Should any hon. member insist upon raising a point of order during oral question period, rather than deferring the matter without prejudice until after the question period, any extension of time ought best be left to the discretion of the Chair with leave of the House according to the circumstances.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
(continued)

On vote 161: transit services, $92,675,151.

MR. BARBER: Some time ago the Premier admitted that his government has a communications problem. There are those who would argue that it has a credibility problem. In discussing transit, one of the major credibility problems suffered by the coalition is the problem of comparing its record to its promises. One of the major problems the Minister of Municipal Affairs has is persuading anyone to take any of his promises seriously.

This morning we were discussing the record of half-truths associated with the administration of Municipal Affairs in this province. I wish to briefly read into the record half-truths that have been corrected — not for the first time, but certainly not for the last either — by the official opposition. It was alleged that the New Democratic Party had purchased a German rail vehicle for transit purposes that would not fit on the tracks. That half-truth has now been properly exposed as such, and it was done by reading into the record the words of the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Curtis, who said that it fitted the tracks perfectly well and that claims to the contrary were nonsense. He publicly chastised B.C. Hydro for making such a false claim. This is one half-truth in the field of transit which the official opposition rejects and repudiates and reminds the committee of at this time.

Secondly, another half-truth was heard by this committee. It was alleged that in 1975 the New Democratic Party spent all of $3 million on transit. The truth is that $3 million was spent by the Bureau of Transit Services within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, that additional millions were spent on SeaBus, and that something like $24 million was spent by B.C. Hydro in its transit division — if I recall the figure that the minister read out when he finally admitted what was really going on before the existence of the UTA. The half-truth was that the government of 1975....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, this morning we determined that the term "half-truth" was one that was not acceptable to the Chair. All members were asked at that time to find alternative descriptive words that would be equally appropriate and certainly much more suitable in this chamber. Would the member so try.

MR. BARBER: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not accusing the minister of telling half-truths. I do say, though, that we heard half-truths. There is a distinction. One is parliamentary, the other is not. I’m pursuing the parliamentary one, with respect.

The half-truth which we heard but which we now reject — to set the record straight — is that the New Democratic Party spent $3 million on transit in 1975.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I just asked the member if he would refrain from use of that term. The member said yes, and came right back with the same term.

MR. BARBER: I made it clear that I'm not charging the minister with telling a half-truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're referring to debate that took place this morning among hon. members. I ask the member who is presently taking his place in debate to use terms that are much more parliamentarily acceptable than that one.

MR. BARBER: Okay. It was wrongly and insupportably and unfactually alleged that the New Democratic Party spent — we were told — all of $3 million on transit. What a ridiculous, preposterous, incorrect statement. So the record was set straight on that.

Also talking about transit, when my colleague the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) was debating, it was alleged that he was unqualified to discuss the issue because he had allegedly been a floor-sweeper at the Provincial Mu-

[ Page 5038 ]

seum — as if there was something wrong with that in the first place. What's wrong with that is that it's false. He is an anthropologist with a graduate degree who worked for the Provincial Museum. That my colleague from Victoria doesn't meet the social status of the millionaire minister whose estimates we're debating is not, I think, a plausible reason for questioning his ability to ask good questions in this committee. That any millionaire over there doesn't care to be associated with anthropologists or floor-sweepers — just because of that sneering attitude — is no reason to refuse to answer questions in this committee. I reject that, and I think the minister should have been held accountable to answer the questions put by my colleague the second member for Victoria. He didn't do that, so once again we are forced, in the instance of vote 161, to debate transit services in the absence of a complete answer from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who instead prefers to talk about nonexistent floor-sweepers at the Provincial Museum.

Discussing transit further, it was also insupportably alleged, without any factual basis, that the New Democratic Party had bought and presumably attempted to put on the road — although the minister didn't specifically say "on the road" — broken-down buses from Saskatchewan. This equally incorrect, insupportable, non-factual allegation has also been corrected by the official opposition, which pointed out two things. First of all, the people saved a heck of a lot of money when all of those perfectly usable spare parts were purchased at an excellent bargain rate. They were never intended to be put on the highways. It may be that certain used-car dealers are familiar with the practice of throwing any old trash on the highway. Maybe they think that's a plausible argument for them to make against us. But the point is that we didn't because we aren't and we wouldn't. Any claim to the contrary is simply half-accurate or less.

There was another phony claim, and I saw how this one happened. This morning in committee the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) turned around and said to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm): "How long does it take SeaBus to cross Burrard Inlet?" I, who can lip-read, saw the minister reply "20 minutes." So the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications wrote down "20 minutes" on a pad of paper and, sure enough, a couple of minutes later he got up and said: "It takes SeaBus 20 minutes to cross the Burrard Inlet."

AN HON. MEMBER: You lip-read wrong, Charley.

MR. BARBER: I did not lip-read wrong. You heard it? Good. You stand up and defend the wrong information given by your colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Once again we see the origins of another inaccurate, insupportable, incorrect and unfactual claim which this committee has been all too much the victim of during the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communication was wrong. He said it took 20 minutes. He got the information from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Then he changed it and he said it took ten minutes to cross. Finally he abandoned any attempt whatever to make up a figure for the crossing time.

In fact, it's variously six to eight and sometimes nine minutes. Why does it vary, Mr. Chairman? It depends on traffic in the harbour; that's one reason. Secondly, it depends on the orders of the harbour master. Thirdly, as they discovered in the trials of SeaBus, which is a splendid piece of British Columbia technology initiated and created by our administration, they discovered it went too fast, and the wake created by the potential SeaBus speed was doing damage to boats that were tied up at docks nearby. The harbour master ordered them to slow down.

That's why we have to stand up in the committee and time and time again correct the record of misinformation for which that minister is responsible. He tried to tell his colleague that it took SeaBus 20 minutes to cross Burrard Inlet. He embarrassed his colleague, who then had to back down and say that it was ten minutes. It's not ten minutes either. As I say, it is variously six to eight or nine minutes. SeaBus is perfectly capable of doing that and might even be able to do it just a little bit faster. But as with the Marguerite in Seattle harbour, it is capable of a greater speed than it's allowed to go because of the possibility of damage caused by the wake to boats tied up nearby.

We are sick and tired of the misinformation constantly coming from that minister. I presume that he is not being badly advised by his public servants. I presume, because I happen to know and respect them as individuals, that they are not giving him this misinformation that he tries to give us. I also know that if I were a minister and I did get that kind of misinformation from a public servant, he would be out the door so fast that he would wonder if there were a door there at all. I don't believe the minister is being given misinformation by his public servants. I do believe, though, that he has stood up in the committee during these estimates for the last three days of debate and again and again, for whatever his political motives may be, said completely insupportable, absolutely wrong, unfactual and incorrect things, claims and criticisms regarding the first New Democrat administration in this province.

We had another illustration this morning, Mr. Chairman the final one of the six claims made by this minister. He described the initiative taken by my colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) to provide transit service to the people of the Cowichan Valley as a broken-down taxi service in the Cowichan Valley using old vehicles.

What's the truth, Mr. Chairman? It's not what we heard from the minister. The truth, as my colleague from Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) pointed out, is that it wasn't a taxi in the first place, it wasn't broken down in the second, and it wasn't old in the third. It was a brand new eight-passenger bus that served a small community with an appropriately sized vehicle in an energy efficient way, and it was killed by Social Credit. That's the truth. What we heard on that instance, as well as with the other five, is something other than the truth.

Why the minister would be provoked or moved to go with this endless line of misinformation that he continues to dig in this committee is beyond me. We're sick and tired of it. The German rail vehicle fit on the tracks, and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) said so publicly. We did not spend $3 million on transit in 1975. A great deal more than that was spent on transit. This party yields to no one — least of all Social Credit — in its record of commitment to public transit in British Columbia. My colleague, who was asking legitimate questions, was not a floor-sweeper at the Provincial Museum. That is no reason — even if he were — to refuse to answer his questions, as the snooty millionaire minister did. Apparently being a floor-sweeper doesn't qualify you to be answered.

[ Page 5039 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, personal aspersions towards members....

MR. BARBER: The minister's aspersions were wrong and offensive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It really does not enhance debate. I would ask the member and all members to be a little more cautious. If we're to complete any kind of process that we were dispatched to do here, then we must certainly pay more attention to matters of debate and less to somewhat personal terms, which are becoming more and more prevalent on both sides of the House.

MR. BARBER: Well, it was certainly not my colleague from Victoria, who he alleged had been a floor-sweeper at the Provincial Museum. But that's another matter.

The third totally misinformed claim of this minister was that the government of Mr. Barrett had attempted to put broken-down buses from Saskatchewan, as he described them — which had been bought for spare parts — into service in British Columbia.

The next phony-baloney claim was that of the alleged inadequacy of SeaBus, when he told his colleague the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications that it took 20 minutes — and then it was ten minutes, and then he abandoned any figure at all, because none of them were accurate.

The final completely incorrect claim....

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's unbelievable.

MR. BARBER: It certainly is. It's unbelievable that a minister of the Crown would think he could get away with this nonsense.

The sixth and final piece of total misinformation from this first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) was that the New Democratic Party had supplied a broken-down taxi service in the Cowichan Valley, which, upon examination, turns out to have been a brand-new eight-passenger bus. The Premier says his government's problem is communications. We say it's credibility, and we say the committee now knows why.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I rise to correct a statement made by the member across the floor, whether or not it's other than the truth he's telling or whether it's information. But the remark that was passed — which I heard and didn't lip-read, Mr. Member for Victoria — was "between eight and ten minutes"; it was not 20, as you so stated.

MR. BARBER: That's an even more amazing admission of Social Credit incompetence. If the minister told Mr. McGeer, the Minister of Science, that it took eight to ten minutes, why did he turn around and tell us it took 20? Which way is it, you guys?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to debate this issue with the first member for Victoria, but when he talks about "half-truth" or "less than the truth" or "misinformation" — and he considers himself an expert from across the floor, lip-reading — regardless of what the Minister of Science said, the first member for Victoria is attacking the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I want to assure that member and the House that the correct figures stated were "eight to ten minutes." And I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that member tell the truth and not just less than the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, I must again ask, if any imputation from the minister toward the first member was made, for a withdrawal of any imputation to that member. Would the member so withdraw.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, yes, I would be pleased to withdraw any imputation with regard to telling less than the truth. I'm just saying the member misinformed the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: "Misinformed" is one thing and "tell less than the truth" is something else.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, apparently the only person who misinformed the House was the Minister of Science who, it is alleged, did not correctly report the advice he had received from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. For some reason or another he was prompted to say "20 minutes," while apparently he was told "eight to ten." Now if I mis-lipread, I'm delighted to be corrected, but not by that minister of all people. The minister for Spetifore is hardly....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We're on vote 161, and I'd ask the member and all members to bear in mind that somewhere along the way we have an obligation to follow the rules that bind us in this committee, and to be strictly relevant to the points we discuss. Otherwise we get off on tangents, we start personal attacks and we accomplish very little to the benefit of all whom we are here to represent.

MR. BARBER: What we've done is illustrate six instances, six cases, six events, six encounters with the truth; and we see who won and who did not win when the facts came out regarding the truth.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: There were closer encounters on the part of some than others.

Now what I wish to do is remind the committee that I will be calling a division on vote 16 1. The purpose of that is, once again, to set the record straight, because there are some who allege that the New Democratic Party is less than concerned with public transit. That's nonsense, it's gibberish, it never was and never will be true. Our commitment is clear and obvious. Our commitment stands in part on the record of achievement when were in government the first time around. We will vote in favour of this and we will call a division as soon as the government is ready.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I want to respond very briefly to the six points raised by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber).

Firstly, I certainly am on record as having said the German train did fit the track, but it had the wrong calibration, and you can't run it on the track. That's not to say it won't sit on the track, but you can't run it. I said that very clearly. He conveniently picked up only a portion of it.

I didn't say that B.C. Hydro was not involved in transit services; I simply said that the provision by the then NDP

[ Page 5040 ]

government was something in excess of $3 million for the year 1975. I did not mention the B.C. Hydro transit contribution.

Third, I'll bet you I do more floor-sweeping than anybody in here, because I love floor-sweeping. Every chance I get I go out to my nursery and sweep floors. I think it's great. What's wrong with floor-sweeping? Is that such a terrible thing? I don't know why these academics always get it into their heads that anything like floor-sweeping, digging or shovelling is bad. I think it's wonderful. I think to shovel is the greatest thing ever invented.

Broken-down Saskatoon buses. That has not been denied. They were a part of the bus purchases. The member himself admitted that these broken-down buses were used for parts. That's fine; if they decided to buy a fleet of buses from Saskatoon for parts, I guess, that was their foolish mistake. I only made mention of that.

SeaBus. When my colleague asked I told him it was initially designed for eight minutes, but because there was a problem with the speed across from central Vancouver to the North Shore and the waves it caused, they cut it back to ten. So it takes ten minutes, which is 20 minutes for a turnaround, or approximately that.

With respect to the taxi service in Duncan, I used that as an example in response to the Leader of the Opposition when he said we can provide commuter service to Mission by stopping the CPR train when it comes through. I remind him that it runs on a very irregular schedule, only once every so many days, and that would not be satisfactory for the people in Mission. That would be a ridiculous approach, just as ridiculous as the purchase of a broken-down taxi service for Cowichan. It wasn't a good taxi service or they wouldn't have required a subsidy. It was obviously broken-down. I compared and criticized that particular act just as I criticized the former administration for subsidizing, purchasing and running parlour buses and trips to Reno at taxpayers' expense.

I think I've covered all the points, but there's one final point I wish to see covered. This morning the Leader of the Opposition said: "All you've done for transportation is dump the load on the local taxpayer. You tell the local taxpayer that you would never vote for a formula that calls for escalation because there's inflation...." Then, he says, I go ahead and put on a gas tax. "Every time those people buy gas they're paying for their transportation.... We never dumped that on gasoline or on the municipalities." For the benefit of the hon. members here I refer to the budget speech of 1975. On page 27....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who was in government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That was the NDP government. It has a picture of the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Dave Barrett, Premier, right on the front cover. It says: "The government intends to continue the orderly development of such systems" — meaning transit systems — "both because of their favourable effect on the development of our cities and for reasons of fuel conservation. To this end I am announcing today an increase in motor fuel taxes of two cents per gallon." They conveniently forget those things. They want to forget, and they somehow don't want to be reminded of them as in this debate they batter us with a lot of innuendo and things that have no relevance to the vote we're dealing with.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm in favour of this vote. I'm in favour of $92,675,151 being allocated for transit. Last year I was in favour of $77,765,000 being allocated for transit. We can give the minister a cheque — not a blank cheque, but a cheque up to a certain amount — but there is nothing to guarantee that after it is passed in the House he intends to make that kind of investment in transit.

What did the minister do last year? According to the details of expenditure for the 10 months from April 1, 1980, to January 31, 1981, for the first ten months the ministry had spent less than $50 million out of that almost $78 million. So either it intends to be spending on transit hand over fist for the last two months — in other words spend as much money in two months as they were taking five months to spend — or it's another area where they have overestimated their expenditures. Of course, we know that they've underestimated their revenues.

What we're really voting for here, no doubt, is B.C. Place, the convention centre and any other fancy that might strike some of those cabinet ministers. But there is no guarantee that this money will really be spent for what it is being allocated for by this Legislature. I think that this House deserves some explanation as to why the minister came here last year with his cap in hand asking the Legislature to approve almost $78 million when he only spent $50 million.

If he goes on at a normal rate to the end of the year, there's going to be $60 million spent and there's going to be a surplus of $17 million. That's a pretty rough estimation. If this money is not really going to be spent, then this money should be saved. I very strongly suspect that what we have here is just another piece of evidence that we really didn't need a tax increase this year.

This is just another one of the little building blocks — the unravelling of this budget, which will go on. This isn't the only minister who has been caught up in this flimflam. I suspect that there is $17 million, and probably in these new estimates I suspect that the real figure to be spent is probably closer to about $72 million than it is to $92 million.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm very pleased to see with us today, formerly from Richmond and now living in Victoria, Mr. Ernie LeCours and also a good friend of mine from Surrey, Mr. Peter Zeemen. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

Very quickly again, the estimate was $77 million. By the time all the bills come in — there are outstanding bills — we will have spent $73 million this year. That certainly would indicate a balance of $4 million, which is not bad. Frankly, in the area of transit you're dealing with estimates, which are given you by bodies such as the Urban Transit Authority, Pacific Coach Lines, the custom bus service and Cariboo West. You're dealing with other agencies and are receiving their budgets and you're preparing your budget on the basis of the information given by these other bodies. So the estimates which we're looking at today are based on the figures which were given us by UTA, by Custom bus and Pacific Coach.

[ Page 5041 ]

MS. BROWN: I was pleased to hear the minister say that they're going to have $3 million left over. I hope that $25,000 of that will be placed back in the budget so that the blind people in Vancouver and Victoria will have the use of their bus passes and not have them taken away from them as this minister has managed to allow to happen.

Vote 161 approved unanimously on a division.

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On vote 162: building occupancy charges, $504,000.

MR. BARBER: How much more proof do we need, Mr. Chairman, of a negative government, automatically reflex, opposed to anything the opposition stands for?

Vote 162 is the building occupancy charges of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, which this year has gone from $349,000 to $504,000. This is a spectacular increase of 44 percent in one year. Forty-four percent in a year of restraint does not, on the surface, sound justifiable.

I ask the minister to tell us whether or not the total floor space occupied by the ministry increased by 44 percent last year or will this year. If so, perhaps he can justify how that's gone up. As well, would he tell us who his landlord is? If the landlord is the Crown, will he tell us why he's been so badly fleeced by one of his own colleagues? If your floor space didn't go up and your rent did and your landlord is the Crown, I'm not sure you should be paying another 44 percent.

The minister told us earlier during a previous vote that his staff had increased by 20 persons. Well, once again the record doesn't quite bear that out. At the beginning of the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, we discovered that the staff has not gone up by 20 at all; they have gone up from 114 to 130. This is an increase of 16, not 20. In a ministry as small as that of Municipal Affairs, a difference of four persons is considerable. It's not like the Ministry of Health, which has 5,000 employees. It's a small ministry — perhaps the very smallest in government, next to Finance.

Under another vote the minister tells us the reason we should pay more for travel and office expenses is because he has 20 new staff. Unfortunately the minister's own estimates indicate that it went from 114 to 130. As usual, his figures are wrong. But he needn't believe a New Democrat — just read his own estimates. They would tell you it went from 114 to 130. That's not an increase of 20; it's an increase of 16. No doubt the minister will have some excuse about the anticipated retirements for this year. However, that's still no excuse for an increase of 44 percent under vote 162 for building occupancy. I therefore move that vote 162 for building occupancy be reduced by $156,000 so that the minister will be restricted to last year's expenditures and so that the minister will practise the restraint that Social Credit preaches but never actually delivers.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

As well, I would observe that the New Democratic Party was using a chart earlier today to demonstrate this, but that was not allowed, so I must now take somewhat longer in order to describe it verbally. We have been making a series of excellent proposals for budget cuts. These proposals would have seen $12 million in waste and fat lopped off the Ministry of Forests estimates. It would have seen $600,000 in waste and fat and overexpenditure lopped off the estimates of the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications. Unfortunately the government has seen fit not to accept any of the opposition's constructive amendments for fiscal restraint. During this vote as well, we have attempted to reduce the total estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs by $368,308. The specific amendment before us is to reduce spending by $156,000.

This year the government wants 44 percent more than they wanted last year for building occupancy charges. In a year of restraint, this is not justifiable. In a government that supposedly governs by example, this is the worst possible example. We ask that the government accept our amendment and reduce its spending to last year's level.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The increase in staff is: building standards, a transfer of seven people; planning from ELUC, nine people; education officers — these are two new positions that have been continually requested by the UBCM, and finally we have been able to respond to their request. We have provided two education officers who, of course, travel the province and provide information not only to newly elected members of council but also to new staff, etc. They provide a lot of information to clerks and other people in the various municipalities. The downtown revitalization program has approved four people, although they are not all on staff, and that number may not be required. The standards appeal board has two people. The total is 24. Then there's a decrease of two from engineering: one transfer and Islands Trust one, for a balance of 21. It's a figure of 21, and I hope that is of some assistance to the member.

With respect to the building occupancy vote, as the member is aware and I mentioned previously, we have the transfer of the building standards branch and the ELUC secretariat staff, so obviously we required additional space in that building. It's not a Crown building; it's leased from an individual. It's a lease which is fairly recent but which will have some considerable time left. The building occupancy vote also provides for the establishment of four regional offices: Cranbrook, Kamloops, Smithers and Penticton. If the hon. first member for Victoria — because so often they don't see beyond Victoria — is suggesting that we remove those regional offices and not give the people in the Kootenays, the Cariboo, the north country or the Okanagan the opportunity of dealing at the local level with respect to planning problems or other matters that can best be dealt with regionally, then I think that should be his motion, not a blanket one to go back to last year and deny these people these facilities.

With this new information, I thought he was going to ask initially before his motion, because that's how his comments began.... When you're discussing various votes, the fair thing for an opposition member is to get up and question the vote if there is something not entirely clear. It's not only the right thing; it's certainly the intelligent thing to do. Instead, he stood up and made some comments which I thought would lead to a question. He almost appeared to indicate that he would ask the question, and next he made the motion for an amendment. I would ask that he consider this and withdraw his amendment in light of the accurate information that's been given him now, which he could have had initially — and apologize too.

[ Page 5042 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the debate has been parliamentary.

MR. HOWARD: I understood the minister to say he gave accurate information to the committee. What a switch!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's remember that all members of the House are honourable.

MR. HOWARD: I want to deal a bit with the landlord, who I gather is largely B.C. Buildings Corporation. I understood the minister to say that there are some outside, private leases involved or something of that sort. Am I incorrect that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs does not use space provided by B.C. Buildings Corporation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, you're incorrect.

MR. HOWARD: Could I ask the minister a question then? Does the Ministry of Municipal Affairs use space or rent space provided by B.C. Buildings Corporation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I certainly appreciate as a member of the Legislature looking at all of these estimates is that we now for the first time — certainly it's not this year for first time, but it was something introduced by this government — are able to tell exactly what it is costing the various ministries for building space. I think that's good and healthy. It's something that people ought to know. That's certainly to the credit of this government. Of course, like all ministries, we deal through the B.C. Buildings Corporation. They arrange for the space and we deal with them.

MR. HOWARD: The B.C. Buildings Corporation, Mr. Chairman, is one of those agencies established by this government in order to hide some debt and not have it show on the books of the province. It's part of the function of the corporation. The B.C. Buildings Corporation annual report for March 31, 1980, says that it incurred in that one year an additional amount of $18,386,000 of long-term debt. It had at that time a total long-term debt of $86,386,000 plus short-term borrowings, promissory notes payable to the province on demand, accounts payable, etc., plus short-term indebtedness of $203,985,000. One of the things that is happening is that the government — and the minister is proud of it — set up a corporation so that they could hide the debt from public view.

Who pays the interest on the debt? It's the direct obligation of the taxpayers through the estimates here to provide the funds for building occupancy charges. A fair proportion of that goes to pay interest on debt — something in the neighbourhood of nearly $290 million of debt — incurred in just a short three- or four-year period by this agency called B.C. Buildings Corporation.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Transportation and Highways said something there. I don't know if Hansard caught it. If I can repeat what he said it was: "We're still paying off your debt." I'm quoting him now.

The fact of the matter is that there was no debt incurred when the NDP was government — not a penny. That $261 million was a fabricated figure — absolutely.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the Minister of Transportation and Highways not to interrupt the member who is speaking. I will further ask the member for Skeena to relate his argument and debate to the amendment which is before us. I should point out that there will be ample time in another vote to criticize or debate the entire matter of BCBC. If we could stick to the amendment to vote 162, the committee would be well served.

MR. HOWARD: That's what I'm seeking to do and yet, as you know, Mr. Chairman, when a member of the government interjects a comment of that nature, the record needs to be put straight, because comments of that nature are not factual. So long as they are raised, then the truth of the matter has to be put forward in balance.

B.C. Buildings Corporation, I say again, was an agency created by this government so that B.C. Buildings Corporation could incur the debt and the province could stand there and say: "Oh, we don't owe any money." That's fiction. That's $290 million worth of it incurred by B.C. Buildings Corporation to the end of March 31, 1980. Whether they incurred any additional debt in the fiscal year immediately preceding the one we're in now I don't know, because that report is not available. So part of the building occupancy charges before us that the amendment seeks to reduce are to pay the interest on that debt. It's for no other purpose.

Secondly, they built into this B.C. Buildings Corporation a fictional thing called "net profits" and another fictional thing called "dividends." Where do they get the net profit? They get it from the rent they charge to groups and ministries like the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. They charge the ministry building occupancy charges — charge them rent. They charge an excessive amount of rent, just so they can satisfy the bookkeeping entry called net profit or retained earnings and so they were able to say as they did in 1979 that we have provided a dividend to the people of B.C. of $10 million that comes back in the form of a cheque on the other side of the account. Where do they get the $10 million? They got it from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and every other ministry. Why did they have that excess amount of money to put back on the other side? Because they charged excessive rents. That's why. They did so well in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, that they returned — or so their annual report says — $18,342,000 overcharge. That's $18 million in excessive charges for rent.

That's why we're seeking to reduce this item. The history of B.C. Buildings Corporation has shown that it charges excessive rents in order that it can turn around and give some of the money back again and say: "Aren't we a wonderful corporation? Aren't we doing well? We're making a profit."

In addition to that, for each of the two preceding years the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has not expended the full amount of the funds allocated by the committee for building occupancy charges. He always had a shortage. He always came to this Legislature and asked for more money than he needed. Now with that record of two successive years — in the two years preceding the one we're in now — saying, "I want more money than I'm really going to spend," plus the fact that the B C. Buildings Corporation is padding the rent in any event in order to pay the interest on debt and create a surplus that they're going to feed back into the treasury someplace, is there any reason in the history of this ministry

[ Page 5043 ]

that we should not reduce that item, regardless of what he talks about, regardless of these regional offices?

I say to him that if he were a competent manager of the public funds, he would sit down with B.C. Buildings Corporation and he'd say: "Look, you've been overcharging me the last two years in a row. I'm not going to stand for it anymore." If the minister cared enough to put his money where his mouth is, as the expression goes, he would be dealing with B.C. Buildings Corporation.... Now that the minister is looking at me, I'll restate the statement. You should be saying to B.C. Buildings Corporation: "Look, you guys, you overcharged me last year. You overcharged me the year before that. You created a surplus out of this overcharge. I won't stand for it anymore. You guys pare the rent charges back to the bone. Save the taxpayers of this province some funds, some money."

Never mind twisting the thing about regional offices in Cranbrook and Smithers. We know they're going to be there, but we're just saying that the minister has come forward to this committee and to the House with a padded account for building occupancy charges that he cannot justify. All we're seeking to do to him is what he said to the thousands of people who were clients of the Ministry of Human Resources when he was the minister: "Tighten your belt a little bit, Bill." Save the taxpayers some money. That's all we're asking.

MR. BARBER: To conclude for the opposition, Mr. Chairman, it's quite clear from the brilliant and extremely helpful analysis of my colleague from Skeena how it is that the B.C. Buildings Corporation turns a phony profit every year, Oh, come on, that's not unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not saying it's unparliamentary...

MR. BARBER: Well, then don't look like you're groaning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...but I would suggest that we are referring to a vote that is not before the committee yet, or at least we could be leading that way. I would ask, as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) did, if we could contain our remarks to the amendment that is specifically before the House now. I'm sure the hon. member can do that.

MR. BARBER: That's right, and I am. I'm saying that the excellent analysis of the member for Skeena, as the House Leader for the official opposition, makes it perfectly clear that the B.C. Buildings Corporation appears to be overcharging its clients; otherwise, how could they possibly justify a profit? It's one agent of the government charging another agency of the government and ripping them off by making a big profit. Why do we ask that this ministry be held to last year's office expense? Why do we have this amendment put forward? It is to help prevent the fleecing of the poor Minister of Municipal Affairs by the big, bad B.C. Buildings Corporation. If B.C. Buildings Corporation was operating like it should be, it would break even. That's the idea of it. But no, it tries to make a phony paper profit for some political purpose that is simply weird and ridiculous, except in a Social Credit province where this sort of flimflam is traditional. For that reason, we reject the minister's completely inadequate defence of his proposal to increase rental expenditures this year by 44 percent.

Secondly, as usual the minister's figures don't add up. He told the committee earlier he had 20 new employees. He now tells us he has 21. At page 199 of the estimates, we learn that he only has 16. It tells us that last year's staff were 114 and this year's will be 130. That's 16, not 20 or 21. I don't ask the minister to believe any of our figures. I ask him to look at his own and realize the contradictions. His estimates say 16. An hour ago he said 20. This hour it's 21. What will it be tomorrow, Mr. Chairman? What new figure will we have tomorrow from this incompetent minister?

Further, our administration and our party proudly and profoundly support decentralization. We did it with resource boards. We did it in many fields. I'm glad that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has finally taken advice that I offered in 1976 that it start operating field offices. I argued in 1976 that they go out and meet the folks where the folks are, but I would never be such a wastrel as to tell this committee that I need half again as much money as I had last year to run four field offices, which will apparently only have two or three employees each. Now one or two people, plus a phone,and two desks, hardly justify an increase of 44 percent in one year for rental charges.

The minister has admitted that he's using private suppliers of rental space. Now that's a strange twist, because I remember when the former minister, Mr. Curtis, opened the Robert Ker Building on Blanshard in Victoria, and that was owned and paid for by the public courtesy of our administration's "pay as you go" policy. None of this phony-baloney B.C. Buildings Corporation — we paid as we went. At that time it was dedicated to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Well, apparently for some reason — I know what it is, but I won't mention it in committee — they were moved out of that building, and they are now into the home of a private supplier who clearly charges far too much.

On behalf of the taxpayer, who is being fleeced by B.C. Buildings Corporation in order to turn a paper profit and who is being fleeced — it would appear — by private suppliers who are charging too much, and who is perfectly well able to understand that you don't need 44 percent more rent if you only have 16 more staff out of a total of 130, we argue that this amendment should pass because we know the minister's arguments have failed.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 28

[ Page 5044 ]

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 162 approved.

On vote 163: computer and consulting charges, $143,750.

MR. BARBER: This is the last opportunity for the committee to get serious about cutting costs, trimming fat and getting rid of wasteful Socred expenditures. This is the last attempt that the official opposition will make during this estimate, but not during these estimates, to reduce the ridiculous attempt by Social Credit to overcharge the people of British Columbia and to over spend within given portfolios.

We earlier indicated — this morning I did it by a chart that visually made it perfectly clear how these things worked — that the New Democrats have taken the initiative to cut waste in this current budget. We proposed reductions of $12 million worth of waste in the Ministry of Forests; we proposed reductions worth $600,000 in the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications; and in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs we have proposed reductions in the amount of $368,000 worth of waste caused and created by Social Credit.

We have observed that this government has asked for a travel grant increase of 192 percent in Municipal Affairs. They've asked for office expenses to go up 133 percent, the advertising budget to go up by 266 percent and the office rental budget to go up by 44 percent.

Now we have at hand vote 163, computer and consulting charges. This is one of the worst of all. In one year this government wants an increase of 193 percent for one estimate. They propose to go from $49,000, which they spent last year — or claimed last year — to $143,750 this year. This is a ridiculous example of restraint. In fact it is an accurate example of just the opposite. For computer charges to go up by 193 percent in one year again reveals two things.

First of all yet another Crown corporation is overcharging, ripping off and fleecing the taxpayers. Anyone who reads Monday magazine saw in last week's issue, and will see again in this week's issue, an excellent analysis by Jack Danylchuk of what's gone wrong with the B.C. Systems Corp. The member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) will remember that when the Systems Corp. was promised it was further promised that it would save the taxpayers money. The minister at the time promised that this was an attempt to reduce, control and limit public expenditure in the field of computer services. In fact, the spending of the Systems Corporation is wildly and recklessly out of control, and a great deal of press attention has been spent lately examining the way in which the reckless policies of Social Credit have lent themselves to such grotesque overexpenditures in the field of computer services. Here is another example, Mr. Chairman.

The minister wants 193 percent more money this year than last year for computer charges. We can only presume it's because he has ill-advisedly taken on projects in a year of restraint that cannot be afforded. We can only presume as well that he is being charged much too much by the Systems Corporation for their services. We might presume that they were being charged too much by outside suppliers, but I have to hope that they have not gone to outside suppliers for this estimate. If they did, Mr. Chairman, they'd be totally contradicting the promise their own Premier made three and a half years ago. They wouldn't want to do that, would they?

Mr. Chairman, we have proposed reductions of $368,000 in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs' estimates. This is a bold and new initiative by the New Democratic Party to reassure the people of British Columbia that this House is doing its business properly and that this committee is playing a watchdog role over public expenditures. What has Social Credit done? They have totally undermined the traditional role of this committee. They've done what we expected them to do, Mr. Chairman, to put it charitably. They've done what the people of British Columbia have come to expect them to do: they talk tough outside, but inside they vote soft, and they give in to every ridiculous scheme and proposal of the big spenders in cabinet, one of the worst of whom is the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I predict that this government with its majority will force its spendthrift way on the committee from now till the end of this committee's sessions, some time in September or October. At the end of it, I predict that they will have rejected all of the cost-cutting measures proposed by the fiscally prudent and responsible New Democratic Party of British Columbia. I predict that they will reject them all and they will say yes instead to the big, mighty, wasteful spenders in the coalition cabinet. There is no way that the minister can justify any project that requires his computer services to increase by 193 percent in one year. It may well be more, as my colleague from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) will shortly demonstrate. However, it is minimally 193 percent. What does the official opposition do in the amendment I'm about to propose, Mr. Chairman? We do not propose to reduce them to nothing.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: We've already done our homework and we know the ridiculous answers you'll supply, so we won't bother. We're not going to believe any excuse you may offer to justify an increase of 193 percent in one year.

Mr. Chairman, imagine what would have happened if a New Democrat administration of today had come in here with a proposal to increase the computer charges and consulting services in this ministry by 193 percent. If the member for Surrey were in the House at such a time, do you know what he'd say? He would stand up and he would say: "It's wrong; it's not justified; it's a bad example; it's no restraint; it's unacceptable and it should be denied." However, now that he's minister, now that he's the victim and a member of the big-spenders team in caucus in that unholy coalition of car dealers, et al., we see that he has forsaken his former Liberal principles and political promises when he ran as MLA for Surrey. We anticipate that he will stand up and offer another ridiculous, grotesque, weird and unbelievable explanation for why he's asking for another 193 percent in one year. There is no project that we can imagine which would justify such an increase.

We can imagine that this minister falls victim to the unnecessarily high charge of the Systems Corporation, because we know something now about the record of charges made by that corporation. Even another Eckardt redistribution wouldn't cost 193 percent more than last year. The minister, I predict, will stand up and rattle off a list of expenditures, item by item, which he thinks will justify to the

[ Page 5045 ]

public an increase of 192 percent in one year for computer and consulting charges. We tell him that no matter what rationale he may care to offer, politically it won't wash. The public of British Columbia will not buy it, just as they reject travel expenditures being upped by 193 percent, office expenses going up by 133, advertising by 266 percent, building occupancy charges by 44 percent, and so too, in a year of restraint, will they also reject computer charges going up by the phenomenal figure of 193 percent.

We imagine the minister will offer some lame excuse for this reckless, out-of-control spending by the coalition. But we tell him in advance that it will not be accepted or believed by anyone. It would not even have been accepted by Social Credit when they were in opposition. It is rejected by the New Democratic Party now, and we therefore move that vote 163 be reduced by the sum of $94,750.

Let me go on to point out that we are not cutting back to zero. We're simply holding the minister to last year's expenses. We're holding him to last year's budget. We're holding him to last year's performance, for what it was worth. We are holding him to restraint, caution and fiscal prudence. This is the target, this is the philosophy, and this is the aim of the New Democratic Party in tough economic times. We have moved many responsible amendments to reduce spending during the last three days of debate on this minister's office. We ask him to take this one last opportunity to clear his name of the charge that he is a wasteful, reckless spender of public funds and vote instead for this amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I won't ask for a withdrawal of those statements. Anything like that coming from the NDP is probably a compliment.

They don't want to be reminded of the bad NDP days. I won't go through it as I did previously. I think they've got the message about that. They don't want any facts, figures or information. They're not prepared to ask questions, as is normally the procedure in this particular exercise when we're dealing with budgets. You question the votes or various components of it. They don't want to know that. They don't want any information. They just want to go and recklessly move this or move that, without really having any awareness of why it is they're moving what. For the last three amendments the first member for Victoria wanted to withdraw after initially having made the move. I'm sure he did, but because he had already made the motion, of course he wanted to proceed with it. But if instead he was to get the information first, we could save all of that, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure it would save him a tremendous amount of embarrassment.

I've had to repeat continually that many of our programs in the ministry are devised to give information and services to the northeast section of the province, the northwest section of the province, the Kootenays, the Okanagan and the Cariboo — those areas of the province from which we gain many of our resources and which certainly provide benefits not only to the communities there but to the people of Vancouver and Victoria. Continually, every attempt by this ministry to provide services to those areas is argued and debated by the first member for Victoria, whose mentality unfortunately doesn't go beyond the ferry landing just outside of Victoria. As a matter of fact, I doubt if it really goes beyond the shopping centre on the outskirts of town. Again, I really must point out that we have an obligation to provide services to those outlying communities.

In this computer service program, we have the moneys for the first time to take and change over the information program that has been in effect within the ministry for a good number of years through a computerized program. So instead of a manual program we will now have a computerized program. It's a non-recurring, one-time charge, but it must be provided for in this budget, as that is the appropriate place. This will give us information very quickly, The trouble with the manual information was that it really wasn't of any assistance until it was complete. That was often too late. A computer program will allow us to make proper projections, etc., to guide municipal programming and to provide for an interface between the statistical information we have available within the ministry and that which is required from day to day at the municipal level.

The cost of preparing this program is in total about $70,000. It's not only an opportunity to provide for comparative costs in recreation from one community to the next, comparative per capita debt, or comparative costs for fire protection; it will also give us the opportunity to very quickly provide information for the Municipal Finance Authority in its dealings with the bond people in New York or wherever. We're all aware that the Municipal Finance Authority — as did the B.C. government, to its credit — received a triple-A rating because of the good economy of British Columbia. It is one of the very few agencies in the whole of North America that had the honour to be awarded it this year. In order to maintain that excellent rating. which obviously is of tremendous advantage to the municipalities in their borrowing, we should be in a position to very quickly provide financial information about any municipal authority or group of them to the Municipal Finance Authority for their dealings with the bond people.

So that explains it, Mr. Chairman. It's a one-time charge. It's to change over from what was. I could show you a chart, if it were permitted; I had one prepared.

MR. BARBER: Go ahead. Bill; we approve.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, Mr. Chairman, I won't, because I respect the rules of the House. I don't want you to have to go through all that the Chairman had to go through this morning with respect to the chart on the desk of the first member for Victoria.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Maybe we'll still have some money in the budget for that office in Smithers. Anyway, I don't think that amendment passed, did it?

We certainly want to see this program develop for the benefit of all municipalities. But as I said, it's especially important for the smaller communities outside urban Vancouver and Victoria to have this information, and that it be available to the Municipal Finance Authority in order that the municipalities receive the best rates when borrowing money for the many municipal projects now in progress and which will be undertaken during the next year.

Finally, today and yesterday there was a great deal said about municipal population statistics. This approach will provide better opportunities for us to compile the statistical information for municipalities with respect to population, which will be a fantastic help in the revenue-sharing program. All members are aware that there is a problem in

[ Page 5046 ]

municipalities continually wanting to see this updated — and I don't blame them. Once more, we have had some difficulty in getting the necessary information because of the manual process. So this one-time charge is certainly well justified.

Possibly the hon. first member for Victoria would want to withdraw his amendment.

MR. BARBER: No chance!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the next member, I must point out that in the debate between the first member for Victoria and the Minister of Municipal Affairs there were certain personal reflections made by each member upon the other member. The Chair finds that unparliamentary. If we can contain our debate to the amendment before us, it would be most appreciated by the committee. I'm sure all hon. members, including the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the first member for Victoria, understand that.

MR. NICOLSON: We're led to believe that there's a one-time increase in this particular vote of this particular ministry. I've done a perusal of every ministry, and I would say that there's a one-time increase in almost every ministry. When you're talking about saving money.... You can always make up a case for needing something more. But what are we doing? He said they're doing away with the manual information program, and they're going to have a one-time expenditure. It's going to cost $70,000 to prepare a program — to do what? To compare communities and to compare their debt service ratios, and to compare, I think he said, something about recreational facilities, and so on. I think this is something we could very well do without. It sounds to me like the minister is trying to become a Big Brother — information is power — collecting all kinds of information about various municipalities, so that when they try to explain their difficulties the minister will be able to try and intimidate the municipalities.

I look at this vote, as I look at others, and I see that last year he asked for $49,000. In the first ten months he had spent $34,083. If you extrapolate that to the end of the year, he will spend about $40,899. So what he's asking for is about a 250 percent increase over what will probably be spent in this fiscal year. We're just saying yes, Mr. Minister, everybody would like to do everything all at once. If there's anything the people of British Columbia have been telling governments, and are telling governments all over North America, it is: "Slow down, it's our money, it's not your money." Mr. Minister, if you think that to have information that you can use as a club in a Big Brother approach toward municipalities is a priority, we on this side of the House don't agree that that's how computers should be used. We think that is the abuse of computers. We think that the potential danger of computers is when people try to grasp power through knowledge and information which gives them tactical advantages.

I think this is the one type of computer expenditure we can well do without. We can certainly use computerized information and computer technology which enhances brainscans and does things like that; the computer has a very good purpose to fulfil in a modern technological society. But when it is the grasping of information in order to create a Big Brother power base, then I'm afraid that a 250 percent increase over actual expenditures to proposed expenditures is too much in one fiscal year.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. Over the years the government has been fond of telling the people that the government has no money of its own — that's one of their favourite clichés. I object when I see the punitive taxes this government is assessing to support the reckless spending sprees in virtually every estimate, which results in these very spectacular increases in computer and consulting charges — an increase of 250 percent of the people's money over last year.

The first minister, to face the task of trying to justify this kind of out-of-control increase, rationalized it by saying: "Well, I've had a restructuring of my ministry." The next minister said he'd had a reorganization, and that's why both building and computer costs had gone up. Did you get the euphemism this minister used? He's not involved in a restructuring; he's not involved in a reorganization; my good friend the Minister of Municipal Affairs justifies that 250 percent increase in computer charges on the basis that he's got a changeover. That's what he said: he's changing over his information programs.

I want to advise the minister that the municipalities out there are not aware of any improved information service flowing from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Only the other day the mayor of Kelowna, His Worship Dale Hammill, indicated that the information flow to that municipality is very weak indeed. There's no indication that the municipalities of the province are benefiting from this wild, reckless spending spree of that minister and his colleagues. He comes in with some pallid excuse, and he says: "Well, my colleagues were involved in restructuring and reorganization, but I've got a changeover." The best changeover the people of this province could have would be the changeover of that whole government out of their seats of power.

What about all these information programs? We've got to get information out through this costly computer system. What is this guy Douglas Heal doing? I understand he's got a big new amphitheatre with increased staff. I suppose he's got a computer down there too, to crank out propaganda on behalf of the political aspirations of this government. On top of that, we see each ministry with phenomenal increases in their computer capacity, undoubtedly to serve the partisan interests of that coalition on the other side of the House.

We say enough is enough. We say it's true that government has no money of its own. They're gouging it off the backs of the taxpayers by increasing the sales tax, the liquor tax, ICBC rates — you name it; you're having to dig down and peel it off. That minister comes in here and doesn't explain a thing; he doesn't get up and justify the need for this 250 percent increase in computer costs. Shame on him! He's irresponsible.

Every responsible member of this Legislature will support this amendment, which will peel the irresponsible fat off that minister's estimates.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

[ Page 5047 ]

NAYS — 28

Mr. Barrett requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 163 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

On vote 183: minister's office, $186,530.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, because this is the first opportunity I've had since assuming the responsibilities of Minister of Tourism to really make a statement in this House, at this time I would like to bring to the House's attention a number of things that have gone on in Tourism this year: a number of challenges we have met, changes we have made and accomplishments we have achieved.

Before doing so, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the staff in the Ministry of Tourism: the fellows in the warehouse; the secretaries; the accommodation counsellors who are out in the field and are seldom in a position to be known except by those in the industry whom they visit and serve so well; and the directors. All of them have done so much to help our fledgling ministry grow, mature, learn to stand on its own feet and develop the type of professional attitude that we hope to build into an even more professional state in the future. They've worked tirelessly — overtime, at night, on weekends — and they've all done more than was fair to ask of them in helping the industry itself, helping me as their new minister and helping their ministry form the team that we hope it will be in the future.

I should also thank the industry itself, the private sector, for the support and cooperation that they have given our ministry in the past and me as the new minister this year. They've been very helpful in coming forward with suggestions. They've been very supportive in new programs that we need and in requests that I've made of them. They also have been very quick to respond to new initiatives and very quick to seize the opportunities now available in British Columbia for the tourist industry because of the growing confidence in the political and economic climate. Mr. Chairman, these are by no means large corporate operators. We are pleased to say there are some international chains, international organizations and major investors in tourism in British Columbia; but by far most of our operators are what one might call the little guys, people who have worked hard as families, who have put their capital together and built their enterprise over the years. All of them have made in the past and make today a major contribution to our industry, to the attractiveness of British Columbia as a place to visit, as well as to the future of our province and the contributions to the economy that this industry — as the third-largest industry in British Columbia — must take.

You'll recall, Mr. Chairman, in reviewing this past year, that our Premier and our government agreed to the request and declared tourism a basic resource in the province. The reason was that we as a government have recognized that tourism is to be nurtured and planned for, to be husbanded, to be thought about as carefully as any other basic resource, such as water and trees. The government has recognized that tourism has a great impact on our own lives as citizens — that can be a very positive impact if we manage it like a resource — and that other industries and other resources have an impact on tourism itself.

We've been very busy this year in reorganizing and reclassifying the ministry. We're pleased to say that we now stand not at the bottom of the ladder, but very much in the middle, where I personally feel — and obviously Treasury feels — this ministry belongs in terms of its contribution to the province, its growth potential and the qualified people that we must have, both internally and externally, if we are to meet the mandate that has been given to us.

Mr. Chairman, I've tried as a new minister to have an open-door policy, and hope I have made very clear to the whole industry and the citizens that we look upon tourism in the very broadest terms. We've tried to encourage cultural and recreational people to work with us so that we can complement each other and combine many of our promotions, helping to bring them more clients to enjoy their plays or sports events and helping us to have more widespread knowledge of the attractions we have in British Columbia. I've been very strong in my position that in having an open-door policy I don't wish to have any specific organization or group stand between any individual — a citizen or someone in the industry from whatever part of the province — and the minister's office.

Part of our mandate has been to maintain and increase the image and the high spirits that were brought to a very depressed industry by our colleague the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who gave it the spirit, the drive and the excitement it needed and attracted the type of international attention that we had to have to help the industry gain the confidence and the vision that it needed to meet the challenges. As well as that, it was to take and build upon the excellent business base, the economic foresight that another former minister, now the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) brought to this industry. He was the one who said: "Tourism is business, and big business." We have tried to build upon that base. I'd like to thank both those former ministers for the support that they've given us as a new ministry.

We have been challenged, Mr. Chairman, with the need to increase the opportunities for tourism in British Columbia and to increase the economic investment. I look to that as being accomplished largely in the softer areas of the province as far as summer growth is concerned, but more particularly in the spring and the fall all over the province and in the wintertime. We are very mindful that tourism can bring many advantages to our own citizens. We have the great variety of restaurants, motels and hotels, amusements and attractions in British Columbia today for ourselves as citizens at a reasonable cost because they are in part supported by the tourist industry. We want to continue to have that type of growth and opportunity for our citizens and do it in such a way that we round out the year and see that the opportunities don't crowd our own citizens.

[ Page 5048 ]

One of our objectives this year which has been accomplished was to take the 3-M study which had been initiated by the former Minister of Tourism, the now Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, around the province in such a way that the challenges that exist for us in a changing and more competitive world in the tourism industry could be understood by those in the field, be they the most sophisticated or the most enthusiastic but perhaps with less time than others to understand what those challenges were. We call this "Tell the World." We went to every region of the province and we invited those people who we felt would like to learn to understand tourism and who could benefit most from this study and the showing of it. That included people from the arts, from all cultural areas and from recreation; people such as women's institutes, who have so much to contribute to this industry on the basis of their personality and their activities, if nothing more.

At the request of and after discussions with the industry, it appeared that there was a great need to develop new marketing approaches and to examine potential market areas. Along with travelling around to nearly every area of the province — twice in most instances — I also embarked on the first tourism industrial trade mission with its own minister to overseas bases. That, of course, was to Asia, Mr. Chairman. It was a very highly successful mission.

Then we embarked upon an effort to help our industry have the opportunity to understand and be exposed to what is going on internationally in the tourism world. This was accomplished by the very modestly named "Seminar of the Century" in Richmond. It was a three-day event where we had, I noticed, more delegates than they had at the national seminar in Toronto recently. Mr. Chairman, I know you and the members will be pleased to know that we had world authorities — international speakers — at that seminar, and the attendance was very widely dispersed from around the province. So people in Peace River, north Vancouver Island or the Kootenays had an opportunity to enjoy this type of presentation, to get together with operators from other parts of the province and to decide for themselves how they could share this information with other operators in their area and benefit most from it.

I would also like to advise you, Mr. Chairman, and the House that since assuming the ministry, and with the help of our new deputy minister, Dr. Rae, we have decided that there is great potential for film and television production in British Columbia. You will note in the budget that there's considerable emphasis placed on this new approach. We hope that with a little luck and a great deal of hard work and planning we will be able to secure British Columbia as a major film production centre in North America. We have a lot of opportunity. We believe that with care we can take care of it.

Much of the time has been spent in meeting with various associations within the industry. I would venture to say that we have now met at least once with all associations, be they a chamber of commerce in a small community, regional tourist associations or one of the various specialized associations within the industry. Again, we have been meeting with cultural and recreational groups, exchanging ideas as to how we can help each other. We have made a new step in British Columbia in terms of agriculture. Our colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has been most helpful. His industry has expressed great interest in our two industries working more closely together. It's not a new thought to you, Mr. Chairman, that one of the most important ingredients that we have to have to be successful in tourism in British Columbia is not only the facilities that people would expect and a variety of experiences within the province that they can find nowhere else, but also the quality of service — the feeling of warmth not only on the part of those in the industry in management and on the front line — waiters and waitresses — but also on the part of our own citizens. We have embarked on a new program called the "Good Show."

It's one of the many new attitudes that we're trying to bring to the industry with the great help and imagination of our new deputy minister of marketing, Mr. John Plul, who is no stranger to any of you. The Good Show program is an adjudication by those who visit us. Whether they're from Richmond to Vancouver, from Prince George to Kimberley, Amsterdam to Vancouver, or Tokyo to Prince Rupert, it is our guests who adjudicate those who are in the front line of our industry. We can have all the capital investment and all the experiences that one could ask for, but unless those who meet the visitors daily, who greet them and who offer them the type of service they'd like to have, recognize their importance in the industry and understand how much they can do for the industry and feel a sense of pride and professionalism in themselves and their training .... Then we can move ahead much more strongly. They will be happier in their work, and we will have a much better product to sell.

Among the priorities that I have established, Mr. Chairman, is the area of education. We employ in this industry over 65,000 people directly. We are a labour-intensive industry, and we look forward to encouraging people who are entering the industry — whether it be as a dishwasher, a hotel manager or in any other area — to recognize the need that they will have to strive to make themselves the best in the industry and to afford them the opportunity to do the same in their own region at many areas. I'm most anxious, Mr. Chairman, that we should see tourism introduced in the elementary schools, so that our young people can understand what an important industry it is to British Columbia, what fun it can be to be part of it and how much it can bring to us as citizens, as well as the return it can bring in dollars and providing jobs and encouraging capital investment. I'm sure there will be questions about that later on in the estimates, but I thought I'd like to touch on that.

The last point I'd like to make at this time is the efforts that our deputy and our new assistant deputy of operations, Mr. John Currie, have made in trying to strengthen the internal core and the business management of the ministry. We can't talk to the industry at all areas of interest about it being a business as well as the fact that we are marketing fun unless our own house is in order. This has been a high priority along with the emphasis that we try to bring to new marketing approaches and looking into new marketing areas.

Mr. Chairman, I will look forward to my estimates. It's a privilege for me to have this opportunity. I suspect there will be times during the estimates when I may wonder about it, but I also wish to assure you and this House that our team between the industry and our ministry is growing stronger and that we accept the mandate before us with enthusiasm and, I believe, with a great deal of professionalism. I would also like to thank the members of the opposition, those who responded to my invitation when I was first a minister to discuss tourism with our ministry and with myself and to bring forth ideas that they had that might benefit their own area or benefit the industry in itself.

[ Page 5049 ]

I thank you for these few moments, Mr. Chairman. I hope that as the estimates move along you yourself will learn more about this exciting and challenging industry and realize that while we recognize that we are marketing fun and we must be a buoyant and positive industry to market fun, underlying it is a very complex, sensitive and very, very businesslike industry.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for opening up her estimates in that way. I found a lot I could agree with in her opening remarks. I know she's enthusiastic, and for that I think she deserves full marks. I don't think anybody who has known the minister for as long as most of us have known her would ever fault her on the score of enthusiasm. Indeed it may be her enthusiasm that sometimes might lead her occasionally into straying into the paths of error, and I might touch on those as I go through the estimates.

I did want to set the record straight a little bit, as I've heard while I was away from the chamber for a little space of time statements that were made which were not quite accurate. She mentioned that this is a new ministry, and just now we've heard that it was a fledgling ministry. One can say: some chicken, some neck or something like that. I think only the minister and I could possibly get some mutual enjoyment out of expressions like that, but it's not a new ministry and it's not a fledgling ministry. Can I show an annual report in the House? I can't. I can. This is an exhibit; this is allowed.

This is an annual report here, which is the sixth annual report of the ministry, so it's a hell of long time aborning, if it's fledgling. I do want to correct that kind of impression. I heard the minister say there was a new ministry, and I heard the previous minister say it was a new ministry. It's not a new ministry at all. The ministry was founded out of a division of the old Department of Recreation. It became a full-fledged department and had a minister. The fact that a minister had two portfolios has got nothing to do with the fact that it was a full-fledged ministry. The then member for Chilliwack had two portfolios, and I think nobody would ever say that he didn't fulfil them both very well. I happened to be the next Minister of Travel Industry — or Tourism, as it's now known — and that was a full-fledged ministry. Then, at the end of 1975, that ministry had, for a time, a minister all to itself — to use some expressions that have been used in previous debate. For a brief period of time before the general election in 1975 it enjoyed the administrative supervision of the then member for Cranbrook, who had previously been the Minister of Mines, Then, you'll be interested to know, when the new administration took over at the end of 1975 and the beginning of 1976 governmental reorganization took place, and a new Ministry was formed entitled the Department of Recreation and Travel Industry. That's how this has come about.

Then, of course, under the Social Credit administration it flitted from place to place like an orphan. First of all it was in Recreation; then it was taken over to the Provincial Secretary for a while. From there it went to Small Business and then on to Industry. Now it's back all on its own again under a minister who has no other responsibilities but to look after this one.

I'm glad to hear the minister mention the 3M study in her opening remarks. I wrote down most of the things I wanted to say about her opening remarks. I was interested to hear her say she was on the very first mission to Asia that dealt with promoting tourism. I have to take exception to that. I went to Japan, and I promoted tourism all over the place.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You didn't play rugby.

MR. HALL: No, I didn't play rugby; it's the wrong-shaped ball. It's that crazy game where the chief shout from the touchlines is: "Never mind the ball, get on with the game." I can say that when the Leader of the Opposition is away.

I went to Japan on a combined industry-ministerial visit promoting tourism. I spoke to hundreds of tour people, wholesalers and tour packagers. I shared the platform in a public meeting in Tokyo with the Japanese daredevil who skis down Kilimanjaro, Everest and other places. I spoke to the largest ski club in Tokyo. In my press releases I collect from the minister — I seem to get two copies in my office in Surrey; I guess that's because there are two members for Surrey.... I took some of the same people that accompanied you; Mr. Iwata, Gordon Kadota and others accompanied me on the trip. So I think it's a little bit unfair to say you were the first minister to go promoting tourism. I know you did a good job though.

The Seminar of the Century has echoes of the minister from South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips). If I may say so, to call anything a Seminar of the Century starts to lurch into hyperbole that I don't think even the minister can sustain. I would caution the minister on those kinds of titles, as indeed I would, if I may, in the friendliest possible way, caution her about the use of the expression "assuming the ministry." I don't think you assume the ministry at all. It could be argued, as we're dealing with usages of parliament and the throne, that you might assume a throne, but I don't think you assume the ministry. You might be appointed as minister, but I don't think you assume the ministry. I think the casual interuse and exchange of the pronouns we and I in the minister's remarks, while it may label me a pedantic, does tend to confuse when one listens to the minister describing what is going on in her department. I'm not too sure whether the minister did it, as it were, or whether a staff person did it. If you consistently use the words we, our or I, meaning the same thing, it is difficult for members of the Legislature to understand exactly what it is you're achieving.

The first time we heard from the minister, other than the unfortunate launching of her ministerial career at a time when there wasn't sufficient constitutional room in our statutes for her in terms of payment of wages — and we all sympathized over the unfortunate hiatus that developed here in the chamber until she could receive salary.... We then received word from her in the following way. I'm reflecting on a letter dated January 28, 1980, addressed to myself in a familiar way — which is fine; I appreciate it and I mean that sincerely — from the Ministry of Tourism, signed by Patricia J. Jordan, Minister.

"I am sure by now it has come to your attention that the golden crown of Tourism now lies on the head of Okanagan North, a challenge to which I really look forward. From time to time we've had discussions on tourism and you've had a number of ideas. At this time I'm writing to ask you if you feel you would like to share these ideas with me again," etc.

I replied to the minister.

That was the first correspondence that most of us got from the minister. I would have felt a little better, in terms of being addressed as "Dear Ernie," if I hadn't seen that everybody else had exactly the same letter. I thought I was getting something special, but I wasn't. It was kind of a mim-

[ Page 5050 ]

eographed letter. That let me down a bit. You strike out the name, put Ernie in and sign it Pat. Then I saw that Dennis got one, and Eileen and Bill and Karen. It kind of takes it out of you a bit. That's why I mention it.

It refers to the golden crown. I know a classical reference about the golden crown: "Uneasy lies the golden crown." I leave that for the minister to cogitate upon.

The next letter we got from the minister — I've got a full file here — dated March 5, 1980, was headed "Minister of Tourism." "To all Members of the Legislative Assembly." No "Dear Ernie" this time.

"Please be advised that Mr. Gary Ley has come on staff with my office as an executive assistant. Mr. Ley has my confidence and will be very involved with many of the ministry's more detailed programming. Would you please let your staff" — I've got a huge staff; thousands of them — "know of Mr. Ley's position. He may be reached in my office at 387-1201. I would appreciate any assistance you can give him. Thank you."

Well, I thought I'd give him a couple of tips. I phoned him up and — do you know? — he'd gone. Either the place was too hot or all that dedicated work was too much; but zip, that revolving door was....

March 26. Minister of Tourism. "To all cabinet ministers and MLAs." I thought.... But no, it's to me. "Please be advised that Mrs. Barbara Morrison has joined my office staff as an executive assistant." I thought to myself, another one. We do tend to do that when we get letters about executive assistants. It's a political knee-jerk reaction to those orders-in-council.

"Mrs. Morrison will be involved in the minister's more detailed programming." Well, that's what he was doing. "I would also like to take this opportunity of introducing my executive secretary, Mrs. Francine Mailhot. Both Mrs. Morrison and Mrs. Mailhot can be reached through my office at 387-1201. Will you please advise your staff" — there they are again — "and the appropriate members of your ministry" — that's you, over there — "of these two recent appointments."

Interjection.

MR. HALL: I don't know. I'll have to search through the record. No, by jingo, she's gone as well. That detailed programming must be a real toughie in that office. That's something you've really got to work at.

I thought, well, we'll hang on a bit. The minister wasn't on salary for a while and I thought she deserved a holiday and we'd get back to it. On June 3, 1980, I got a note from the Minister of Tourism. It wasn't addressed to me personally.

"To all MLAs. It gives me pleasure to invite you to be my guests at the Empress Hotel tomorrow evening at 7:30 p.m. to view my ministry's 1981 marketing and promotion presentation, as well as to discuss the paper on tourism development strategy for the eighties. The evening shall be an interesting one. I do hope to see you there. Pat."

The trouble is I didn't receive that until 9:50 a. m., June 4. I don't have a crowded social calendar these days. I mean, I'm not beating them off with a stick. Sad to say, that's not a bad offer — the best I've had to date — but I couldn't make it. So there was that one gone.

Then I got one September 16, 1980. I thought: "Now we're cooking with gas." That's my birthday — can't miss.

"To all hon. members: I would like to introduce Mr. Ray Dykes, a former Colonist legislative reporter who has joined my office as executive assistant effective immediately. He will be responsible for tourism and legislative matters."

They've obviously deep-sixed that detailed programming now.

" He brings with him an extensive background in parliamentary reporting in several countries, including the B.C. Legislature, as well as having wide travel industry public information experience. I appreciate your extending all courtesies and help you can to him on my behalf. Ray has my full confidence, both as to his ability and discretion."

I thought "discretion" was such an unusual word to use in a press release like that. However, I thought, that's the kind of fulsomeness that sometimes leads the minister into trouble — that unerring selection of the wrong word. "The assistance you and your staff give to Mr. Dykes will be very much appreciated." I don't know if Mr. Dykes is still with us on this long list. We'll find out.

I asked a question on June 27 because by then I was really worried. I was beginning to think about the Health department and occupational therapy and all sorts of things about the Bermuda Triangle down there. Anyone who ventured in the office during the last two weeks.... I spoke to my colleague the ex-Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke), and I thought I'd better find out. I asked the question on June 27 about who's working in the department. It took until August 22 to find out who works in the department. I got a seven- or eight-page reply. Then I looked through my cuttings and I found that the establishment of the department was 101 last year and is 108 this year. But when you took at the actual figures, you find that there's only 83 established positions filled. You've been there a year and you've only got 83 of the established positions filled. That doesn't sit too well with the kind of speech that you opened up the estimates with. Your friends and advisers on tourism should be able to tell you that you've got to do better in terms of getting people on staff to do those things that you're talking about.

Simply said on a first go-around, I honestly feel that one of the major things wrong with this department is the staff morale. I said at the time that the minister was appointed that she had a wonderful opportunity to solve that problem, because it had become serious. I thought she had the enthusiasm, with a clean sheet, to go to it and get it sorted out. I'm not going to pass judgment yet, but I'm not at all happy, confident or sure that the past 12 months have seen the kind of improvement that I think was available to the minister when she eventually took her portfolio a year ago.

I'm going to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that in answer to that question about who was on staff, what jobs they were doing and what changes there had been.... Over and over again I have examined estimates from last year and this year and looked at the Public Service Commission report to see who's drawing wages. The estimates, if I may be lighthearted with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.Curtis), are just figures in a book. You've got to look at what really happens in the Public Service Commission to see who's drawing pay and rations, as it were. We find out that in actual fact there are only 83 people drawing pay and rations in established positions at December 31, 1980, in the Ministry of Tourism.

[ Page 5051 ]

You've got people releasing press releases with different names all the time. You've named travel aides. On May 28, 1980, you named a new deputy, who we're pleased to see here today. We welcome him to his first go-around. We wish him well in his job. I know how important a deputy minister is. I think I can say that when I was Minister of Tourism my appointment of Richard Colby was welcomed, congratulated and appreciated by the travel industry the length and breadth of this country. I hope and I do know that Dick Colby is enjoying retirement, and I know you're entitled to expect and will get the same kind of service from your deputy.

The public service staffing report as of December 31, 1980: Tourism, 83 people total paid in established positions, which does not fulfil that mandate whatsoever. What happens then is you have people like Ray Dykes and Ben Pires on staff who have journalistic experience. You've got all sorts of people. I've seen and read out press releases. I have a new press release here about fishing. I read it out just for style: "The Minister of Tourism today made the following statement in relation to the new sports fishing regulations: 'When the federal minister for Fisheries and Oceans announced the new sports fishing licence fee, I moved swiftly to advise him of my concerns. It would appear my words were not heeded.' " It goes on for two more pages in terms of dealing with the sports fishery, but nowhere in this report does it really tell us what the position of the provincial government is on the sports fishery. Nor does it tell us what the position was. Those are the kinds of things that I think give the game away in terms of the hyperbole that can often overcome a ministry which is striving to fulfil a role that it has not quite worked out yet.

While I'm still talking about staff — and then I will finish it with a couple of questions on the budget before we go onto something else — may I ask a question relating to a release that just came to my attention? Here I welcome all sorts of people who want to help in promoting tourism. A release came out on March 25, entitled: "World Cup Skier Joins Tourism." "Gerry Sorensen" — who I think many of us saw on television — "the World Cup downhill ski race winner from Kimberley, joined Tourism ministry representatives in Toronto this week to promote the province's world-class ski facilities." It went on to tell us what has been going on and what Ms. Sorensen was doing. The minister can answer my question sometime during her estimates. What particular job classification or role is Ms. Sorensen playing? What is her salary? Was there a competition? Is she a consultant, or what? Just let me know exactly what is going on. I'm all for having anybody helping to promote tourism, but I'd like to know how it fits into the scheme of things in terms of the public service of our province.

While the minister was speaking and talking about fulfilling a mandate, I was going over my papers and making some notes. I noticed that from 1975 through to this estimate year, 1981-82, there have been five or six ministers, and we're dealing with eight years of estimates. The budget has gone from $2.1 billion to $6.6 billion, and the Tourism budget has gone from $5.5 million to $14.75 million. The percentage that the ministry has obtained from Treasury Board — this is in direct reference to the minister's remarks about being lifted up some imaginary ladder — has remained remarkedly constant. In actual fact, you are at 0.0022 of the budget, which is the same as you were last year at 0.0021, slightly less than you were in 1980, and considerably less than when I had the portfolio, when it was 0.0025, if that 0.0003 of a percentage of those billions of dollars is significant. I think we shouldn't allow the minister to make those kinds of statements without calling her to task on the figures. There's been very little movement in that ladder of expenses allotted to Tourism. The percentages from 1975 to 1982 go from 0.0023 to 0.0025, 0.0017 — that was when the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain had the portfolio — 0.0016 when Mr. Veitch had the portfolio, 0.0023, 0.0027, 0.0021 and 0.0022. So I think you should do the kind of bookkeeping that is required to substantiate those fulsome remarks you make when you're talking about what's happening in the ministry.

There are a lot of good things happening in the ministry. There are a lot of good people wanting to work and lots of effort to be done. We all know one of the greatest things that can help tourism in this province is good weather and an 18-cent dollar. If we get those two things going, we've got a tremendous start on anything. I know it's much more significant than that, but we can't overrate or underrate those aspects.

I should continue and say that one of the things that's happened and that gave me concern — why I spent so much time talking about the top of the ministry — is this. It's not that I have any personal vested interest in these people I'm going to talk about, because most of these people have worked an average of 10 years or so for the government — long before I or the minister ever appeared on the scene. When you start to go through, what has happened in the department is that people resign or take early retirement. I would just like the minister to understand the kind of concerns that I think we on this side and people in the private sector have when they see this kind of thing going on. When they see people resign after 14 years of service or 9 years of service, executive directors and the managers of research resign.... Assistant Director Elaine Johnston resigned; travel counsellors Linda Carter, Leta Lohr, Doug Benedict and Diane Bell of the film branch — all these people, with 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 15 years in the department, resigned. In case the minister misunderstands my remarks, I should point out that this happened before you were minister. I'm not talking about anything happening since you've arrived. I tried to underscore and underpin and buttress and emphasize my opening remarks to you about the opportunity that's yours. Edith Yelland, Victor Downard, David Livingstone, David Hall, Elaine Johnston, Rick Lemon, Paul Barry, manager of winter development — I remember seeing him frequently not only in magazines, but on television and other places. At times I didn't even know that he was on some of these things that he was fulfilling. Fourteen people with 120 years of travel experience went down the tubes in one short year.

Those are just some opening remarks, just to set some of the record straight and to start off discussing this important portfolio. I began in a light-hearted way to begin with, but I don't think we can fault anybody for that. I want to say again that there are some serious things that do bother us and I'll come to those a little later on. I want to know some specific things about some of the industrial groups that don't appear to be satisfied with the minister. I want to deal with some of the film promotion work which was hinted at and the hyperbole that appears in press releases. "Tourism Ministry Plans $12 Million Spending on B.C. Package Tours," and things like that. I want to deal with that as we get around to the votes, but that will do for the time being.

[ Page 5052 ]

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I guess I could really sum up his remarks by saying that we have been looking for a good writer in the ministry. There well might be occasion very shortly for that member to have reason to apply, perhaps not only for his wit. I appreciate his comments and have listened carefully. It was a little difficult to follow him sometimes, because there was probably more fluff than substance in what he had to say. I'll do my best to sort out what I think were his questions. If there should be any misunderstanding, perhaps he will return with the question specifically.

He briefly touched upon resignations in the ministry over rather a long period of time — several years. He began by leaving the impression that it was during my time as minister, and then did admit that this was not so. I would just add to that that one of the things we have to understand about this industry and this ministry is that it's ever-changing. There's a great need for people to move in and out of the ministry and the industry. It would be my hope one day in the not too distant future to make it very possible for people within the ministry to move into the private sector and conversely for people in the private sector to move into the ministry. I think it would be healthy and essential for the ministry that, while we have a need for long-term employees — and a lot will want to stay that long — we also need them to go out and get experience elsewhere, perhaps come back to the ministry or have an opportunity to better themselves and move on in the private sector, as well as for others to come in and perhaps go into an entirely new field. I can't be distressed that some people who maybe did work for the ministry for 9 years or 3 years decided it had been a good experience, that they enjoyed it, but they'd like to spread their wings elsewhere. We will look to people coming to the ministry with that idea in mind.

Mr. Chairman, there's not too much on the budget. When we look at the figures — and I won't go into them — it's obvious why that member needed more money when he was minister. I would just tell him that our emphasis — he doesn't like me saying "our"; I'm sorry, we're a team, so I tend to say "our" — but my emphasis is not to get into the penny counting game, but to make the very best possible use that we can of the taxpayers' money to bring tourists and to develop the type of industry that we want in British Columbia. As long as I have the privilege of being minister of this ministry, I shall never be offended if there's criticism of the budget in comparison to the NDP days, which I may wish to address later depending on which tack the member takes in his criticism. We want to have effect. We will seek, and I'm sure we will get, the money we need to do the job that has to be done. I feel that perhaps the member hasn't quite read the budget, because we have an increase of 18.21. percent. In 1980-81, you will recall, we had $12.5 million and this year we have $14.8 million. I believe, in context with the reorganization that's gone on in the ministry — the tailoring of some programs, the cutting out of other programs — we don't want entrenched programs within the ministry. We want to be flexible. We want to be able to respond to the industry and to the times, and to move ahead without being encumbered by entrenchment. We will be able to do well with this budget. We're very pleased with it. We think that in the long run the taxpayers will be pleased with it.

Gerry Sorensen is a delightful young lady. As the member knows, I had the privilege of presenting her with the Good Show award from the people of British Columbia — a very high honour which this ministry can confer. Briefly I'd just like to answer his question. Yes, Miss Sorensen was an ambassador for British Columbia. In fact, the day that we knew of her successes we asked her if she would assist us. She went to Toronto to a Sportsmen's Show, where there were 400,000 people. She was a great attraction within herself, for her sport and, of course, for British Columbia. She enjoyed it. We were proud to have her. I believe the citizens of British Columbia would have felt that the money that went into her air fare was well worth the return in terms of benefits to the province, as well as perhaps something very nice for a very hard-working, talented young lady to have, and certainly a great addition to tourism. She's done a lot in taking the name of British Columbia to all parts of the world.

Fishing. The ad, Mr. Member, was designed to be that way. As you know, one of the greatest things that concern us are negative comments and negative publicity. My efforts and the efforts of our ministry are to work with our industry to help them meet with Mr. Leblanc or his staff to try to come together, recognizing that conservation has to be the watchword. It is the watchword of our ministry, when it comes to promoting fishing and other recreational pursuits. My effort was to get the industry together to accurately document where we seriously had problems and to classify them as publicity problems, operational problems, tour-package problems; then, of course, to talk to both federal ministers, which I did, in support both of our industry and our colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers). As you know now, we got through with a minimum of bad publicity as far as tourism was concerned. We now have some proposals before the industry, which we think will largely meet the concerns of the industry. So I make no apology because the member didn't care for the ad. I'd like to please him. Certainly I'm pleased he likes his "Dear Ernie" letters, but as always I must put the ministry and the industry ahead of pleasing that member.

The positions in the ministry.... I'm going to have to send him another "Dear Ernie" letter, because obviously he's a little confused. He doesn't seem to know whether people work within the ministry or within my office, and it's very clearly spelled out in the estimates. We have 108 positions in our ministry; 94 are filled, and the other 14 are in the process of being posted or are posted. I might add that we are looking for the very best qualified people to bring into the various slots within the ministry. It did take more time than I had hoped, but then the matter of reorganization, as I'm sure the hon. member for Surrey realizes, is complex and time-consuming. We wanted to make sure we didn't make any more mistakes than necessary, and I'm sure we're going to make lots of mistakes, because we are trying many new ideas. The reorganization and reclassification took time, but it's worth it, because now we're able to have the positions we need and are able to pay a much more attractive salary than before. I thought maybe dear Ernie might have done that when he was minister, but I guess that wasn't a priority at the time.

As far as government investment goes, we put about 11 cents a day per man, woman and child into tourism in British Columbia. Up until now, particularly in the last year or two, we have received from the tourism industry a direct return of about $2.05 per citizen. Surely that is a good investment and a good balance. That seems to me the type of balance I've been hearing suggested by the members of the opposition in the various debates. They keep saying we're spending too much; now they're suggesting perhaps we're not spending enough. I just want them to know that with this ministry,

[ Page 5053 ]

which is the only one I speak for, we have done these things, and I hope they'll be able to recognize it as we go through our estimates. We're looking for value for the dollar; we're not going to waste a cent.

In terms of other comments by the member, you do know that Mr. Ley is not with us at this time. He's now working in another area. He had about a five-month holiday. I believe when he came to us he found it very interesting, but like many young people he wanted to move on to other things. I believe that's a good thing and would encourage it. Miss Morrison, as you know, wanted to move to British Columbia. We needed someone at the time. It was an opportunity for her, and she has gone on to more of what she wanted in the private sector. Again, I make no apology for this. I think this is a good thing. I think we should encourage people to come through government, get experience and to move on. If we're so good in our office that we can train people this quickly and make them that much more valuable to the private sector, then I believe we should be applauded rather than criticized. Mr. Dykes came to us, and we are delighted with him. He is a very travelled, very experienced journalist, a very dedicated gentleman and a family man. He has borne a great deal of responsibility and I hope he will continue to do so. But I also hope, Mr. Chairman, that he will gain valuable experience, as will the other members of my office staff or the ministry's staff, which will carry them on to future opportunities, which will train them and which will see them in the private sector eventually, or the ministry or wherever they go, as more valuable to the people of British Columbia,

I have here the "Dear Ernie" letters. I like that. I must compliment the member and would just advise him that I probably will be sending him some more "Dear Ernie" letters, and if I hurt him because I wrote to the others, I'm sorry. I can only say you can't blame a girl for trying.

The tourism Seminar of the Century, as we modestly called it, we did with intent and design, because tourism is the industry of the century.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Yes, as a matter of fact the federal minister and the deputy minister told not myself but other people in Ottawa and the east that it was the finest tourism seminar or meeting that had ever been held in Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: The best of the century.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It is the best of the century, and this industry of the century. We don't make any apologies for that.

As far as the trip to Asia is concerned, I'm sure the member will have more information. I'm pleased that he told us that he did go, because certainly none of us knew it. It was a secret to the people in Japan, because they never knew that he'd been there. When I look at the figures that should have resulted from that trip — and I say this with the greatest of respect — maybe you'd have been better to have stayed home, through you, Mr. Chairman, because it just didn't wash very well. They certainly didn't seem to know that you'd been there and, as I said, the figures don't show it. But we appreciate your comments, and maybe you'd like to come with us on the next trade mission. We'd be delighted to have you if you don't mind paying your own way. We would appreciate any input that you might be willing to give us.

I think that that's about all. I will listen very carefully to the comments made and try to answer them to the satisfaction of the opposition.

MR. HALL: I don't know where the minister was. She was chosen critic for the official opposition when I went to Japan. I was not one that used liberally to put pictures of myself in my annual reports, but I can show you one if you like. If you read the annual reports, as you're supposed to and paid to do, you might have possibly seen it. You might have also possibly seen the report of the deputy minister and the executive director you had, and the marketing manager you still have, who say that in actual fact following that CPA-B.C. Department of Travel Industry trip to Japan the figures from tourism have probably never been better and have never been equalled. That's in your own reports, following my departure from the scene.

However, that's beside the point. I think the trip to Japan was successful. I think that if you did look at anything prior to 1976, you'd find out what was going on instead of completely and utterly on every single occasion trying to reinvent the wheel. I'm trying to suggest that you're employing people for new function, when the functions were acing on not only between 1972 and 1975 but prior to 1972. There were joint programs going on into the eastern seaboard. There were joint programs going on with industry well before I was minister, which I continued.

May I tell you that your three predecessors and yourself have all taken great pains to reinvent the wheel? You've claimed first, when you've only followed. You've renamed functions to allow public relations types the full range of their imaginations. At the same time you studiously downgraded the efforts of that ministry — not the previous New Democratic Party government.

The interesting thing about this ministry is that most of its achievements are achieved by cooperation with the private sector. So every time you tell people, as you so often do, that the years 1972-75 were no good — in your words — you are in effect telling the people in the private sector that they were somehow leaning back and not taking part at all. In actual fact, you can quote all the figures you like — and you do it very regularly with your arrivals, departures, border crossings and everything else — but in terms of tourist revenues the figures will speak for themselves. In every case that we've examined from 1970 through to 1980 in terms of tourist revenues — the source of these statistics is the research branch of the Tourism ministry, such as is left there — projecting those revenues as percentage increases over the previous year, the best year ever achieved was 1974. Try as you may, with all of the Smile buttons, all the phony Captain Cook things and everything else, you've never been able to achieve a 32 percent increase over the previous year as we achieved in 1974.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-two percent of zero.

MR. HALL: Somebody says "zero." That's absolute rubbish. If you want to insult your own government, of which you were a minister without portfolio from 1966 to 1972, carry on and do it. I'm taking those figures because you can't have it both ways. You can't suddenly pull out a number of years and say they were bad years and try to absolve yourself of any responsibility for that which went on before.

[ Page 5054 ]

I asked a simple, straightforward question about the young lady who is the ski champion, as to whether she joined the Ministry of Tourism. In press release number 3-25-03-81, Minister of Tourism, "contact Cheryl Coull, 604-387-5498," the headline was: "World Cup Skier Joins Tourism." My simple question is whether she has joined the Ministry of Tourism. If so, at what salary? I know all about the young woman's athletic prowess. Fantastic. We all salute her. What we're trying to find out is what's going on in the ministry. How do you get a job in the ministry? What role is she playing? How do you get there? Do you have to be able to ski fast to join the ministry, or what other criteria are there? I'm not knocking the appointment; I just want to find out what's going on.

The next thing you said was that I need to do more homework on public service figures. Let me tell the minister that there is nobody in this House who needs to tell me to do homework on Public Service Commission figures. I say that with all the humility I can muster. The fact of the matter is that the Public Service Commission report dated December 31, 1980, showed how many of your establishment of 108 were getting paid, and you've agreed that figure was correct. You've agreed that my figure of your establishment was correct, so how can you say in the next breath that I was wrong when you said the two salient facts I gave you were correct? You've now told me what has happened since December 31, 1980, when your establishment on strength, being regularly paid, has gone from 83 to 94. That's good; you're moving. You've still 14 to go. But what happened in the meantime was that you were carrying all those temporary people.

May I depart just for a second by saying that one of the things going wrong in the public service is that there are 33,000 full-time, permanent public servants on establishment positions, and there are 10,000 temporary workers. I don't know how programs, managers, directors and departments can run with that kind of proportion. We haven't seen that kind of proportion of permanent workers to acting full-time temporary workers since the bad days of Gaglardi and Williston, when they wouldn't listen to anybody on Treasury Board or in the Public Service Commission. I think the minister knows of what I speak, because she was in cabinet in those days.

When we left government — rudely interrupted — by hard work and a dedicated Public Service Commission we had that temporary figure down to less than 4,000. You birds have got it up to 10,000 again — beyond the kind of controls that should go on. That's the point I'm making.

I know it's off the vote; I'm coming back onto it.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, I very much appreciate the member's humour and comments, but I wonder in the interests of the House itself and many others if we could confine our remarks to my ministry and its responsibilities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken.

MR. HALL: I did say I was going to stray from the point. I wanted to make the point that people on staff, from a permanent point of view, and those on staff from a temporary point of view.... I might add, parenthetically, that the one thing we should all learn in this House is: if you dish it out, you should be able to take it.

We've examined the list of senior personnel put together over the years by governments that this minister has served as a minister without portfolio, and which I have served, and which she now serves again. It's a list of 14 senior personnel with a total of 120 years' service. Those are the things that worry me. I'm only expressing that concern. I'm not making any charges or allegations. I'm just pointing out that when you lose that kind of continuity — given the fact that between the minister from Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and this minister from Okanagan North, the ministry was left virtually unsupervised for month upon month — I think the minister should realize the kinds of messages that we on this side are trying to give her. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm not levelling any accusations against her at all. All I'm saying is that it's a sorry state of affairs when the public service of this province suddenly turns around and starts to do that. I'm sure there are enough people who could be hired who have enough career ambitions to go into the direction.... That's good.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

We talked about the relationship with some other industries. I'm going to do some more work on this. I've just been visited by a number of people from the new Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia. I'm afraid I must challenge the minister on some of her remarks about that. I shall be dealing with that tomorrow.

In completion of my early remarks, I will say that the relationship with the industry is now a difficult one, particularly in view of the tax increase, in view of the non-arrival of the TIDSA study and in view of the strange reluctance of the minister to answer some letters sent to her from some of these new associations.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to wait until tomorrow, when I can go into more detail about some meetings I've had with the tourist association.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I wouldn't want to leave that member waiting with bated breath. I'd just like to tell him again that I don't think he understands how important it is in developing this ministry that we have the flexibility for people to come and go and that we have the type of imagination that's needed to meet the challenges of the future. This sense is growing within our ministry and is being responded to by our ministry. We have nothing but enthusiasm for the future.

As far as Miss Gerry Sorensen is concerned, she's a great Canadian and a great British Columbian. She's done a tremendous amount for our province in terms of bringing attention all over the world to British Columbia and the type of activities we have. We were delighted, as I say, to have her be at a Sportsmen's Show, which was her field. I believe that she was delighted to go. There were 400,000 people there, as I mentioned, all of whom were interested in this young lady. We appreciate what she did for British Columbia. We wish her well in the future. We know she's going to be carrying our flag to even newer and greater heights, but we also wish her a great deal of personal happiness.

The member wants to get into a battle of figures figuratively speaking, that is. I would just advise him, if he wants to have a little fun, to look at the Rogers Pass traffic. In 1974, just after the NDP came into government, 1,119,876 people passed though there. After their dynamic and exciting efforts to promote tourism in British Columbia, and a few

[ Page 5055 ]

little comments like "tourism go home," in 1976 there were 983,344 people who passed through there.

MR. BARBER: As most people who observe the conduct of the public administration of British Columbia know, the morale within the Ministry of Tourism has been the lowest of any ministry for the last two years. No ministry has been perceived by its own employees as more badly disorganized, more ineptly led and more carelessly treated than has the Ministry of Tourism. It's perfectly clear that what the minister describes as flexibility is known by normal people as chaos.

I happen to be an associate member of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada. I know something about this field; I've studied it pretty closely for a long time. I have never seen any ministry operate in a less organized, less disciplined and less scientific manner than we've observed in that ministry for the last two years. I lay no claim and make no charge against individuals within the ministry, who have had, under ridiculous and trying circumstances, to deal with simple ineptness from the top. My colleague the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) — who is together with me the critic for tourism; we have two on our side, that's how seriously we consider this industry — has demonstrated the astonishingly high turnover, the astonishingly short duration, the astonishingly clumsy performance in filling the most senior and the most serious positions in that ministry. It can only lead one to conclude that the reputation of the Ministry of Tourism for low morale is entirely earned. As I say, what this minister describes as flexibility would be described by normal people, as I say, as simple chaos.

To go and remove senior people with years of experience, to remove from that ministry the advantage, the benefit and the trust of those years of experience and to replace those persons with either no one at all, as in many instances, or with persons who come and go in a space of weeks — not years, weeks — and to continue to defend such ineptness by telling the committee, "Oh well, this is flexibility; we're running a kind of Canada Manpower service in our administration; people come in one week, they leave four weeks later, and we've trained them," is simply lame and ridiculous. The Ministry of Tourism is not and should not be run as a sort of Canada Manpower for the tourist industry. You should be attracting into the permanent public service the most able, excellent and tough-minded, and the best will in the world on the part of the individuals who come through.

What do you do instead? Well, apparently you drive them out within a space of weeks. Apparently you deny them the opportunity for legitimate advancement, and they leave on you. It is not a Canada Manpower service for the tourist industry, but that's how you've treated it. And as my colleague from Surrey has demonstrated and has made manifestly clear to this ministry, we are simply not satisfied with the lame excuse that the reason your revolving door revolves so quickly is that you've turned yourself into Drake Personnel for Tourism. That's ridiculous and cannot be accepted as an excuse for the way in which you have failed to fill positions and to keep positions filled by people of competence and experience and years. It's simply ridiculous. My colleague from Surrey indicates that for month after month the people in that ministry have not been supervised at all by any senior officials in key areas of your own ministry. We are offended by that, and people within the tourist industry are also offended by that. The inept administration, which this minister calls flexibility and which we call chaos, is simply not acceptable to the tourist industry of this province.

Secondly, we are also offended by the endless self-serving, self-promoting hype of Social Credit Tourism ministers. We heard yesterday from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) that the transit formula in British Columbia is "the best in the world." What a ridiculous claim! What a preposterous allegation — "the best in the world" — but that's typical of Social Credit. The self-serving, self-promoting, self-adoring hype with which Social Credit has always been associated is well-known in the field of municipal affairs. It's unfortunately even better known in the Ministry of Tourism. We heard today yet another bloated claim by Social Credit. This bloated claim is that Social Credit has now run the "Seminar of the Century." This is absurd. How can you make such a claim in this or any other field? You tell us you've got the best transit formula in the world and now you've run the seminar of the century. What are you going to announce next? What ridiculous claim are you going to make tomorrow for yourselves? What self-adoring, self-stroking, self-serving, self-promoting claim will you make next?

AN HON. MEMBER: Whatever seems appropriate.

MR. BARBER: No doubt whatever seems appropriate at the time.

We are offended, and we reject and the people of British Columbia ridicule the bloated claims of Social Credit and this minister of running the seminar of the century or any other grandiose and ridiculous claim she may make. Seminar of the century! Oh, come on. Don't be silly.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: You can speak when I'm through. Let me talk about the record of the Minister of Tourism and the bloated claims she has made about her own success. This is the minister who did nothing whatever to save the Kettle Valley Railway. This is the minister who stood by and allowed her own colleague, the Premier, to reject the legitimate, the serious and the sensible proposals of the business and tourist people of the Okanagan Valley to save a vital link with their heritage and history and a vital highway into the future of the transportation and tourist industries of British Columbia. This is the minister who did nothing at all, and can show no results whatsoever, in favour of the Kettle Valley Railway. She makes yet another bloated claim to success, but has to admit that today the Kettle Valley Railway is ended, is over and is dead, thank to Social Credit.

This is the minister who told us in yet another bloated claim that she only wanted "quality tourists" in British Columbia. Do you remember that one, Mr. Chairman" She said "quality tourists." We've had, I think, on the order paper from last year — is it on again this year? — a request that the minister tell us what constitutes a quality tourist in Social Credit heaven. What is a quality tourist as this minister defines it? Are they all millionaires or car dealers? Do they all know the right WASPs? Do they all meet the right ethnic criteria or whatever of this minister? She stood up and she told the tourist industry of British Columbia — and we made sure that they got the message, we repeated it — that she was interested in, as she put it, "quality tourists."

MR. LEA: They'd be real nice people.

MR. BARBER: She thought they'd be real nice people — just swell, just folks.

[ Page 5056 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: You guys should bring back Bill Hartley.

MR. BARBER: No, his quality probably isn't high enough. He only runs a honest business in town.

Another of the bloated and preposterous claims of the Minister of Tourism is that she deserves credit for saving the tourist industry of British Columbia last year. We have to believe this is what she means because she told us last year that the tourist industry of British Columbia was down. She said it wasn't because of the — may I say it, Jim Hume; forgive me — Princess Marguerite. She said it was because of Mount St. Helens exploding. Remember that one, Mr. Chairman? The reason the Victoria to Seattle traffic was down, she told us, was not because of the stupid decision of this government to shut down the Marguerite — a decision they themselves have now repudiated — but rather because of Mount St. Helens.

I remember this Minister of Tourism standing up and trying to defend in her usual way the ridiculous decision of the government to shut down the Marguerite and trying instead to blame it on two things: the bad-mouthing of the NDP and the bad breath of Mount St. Helens. She now turns around this year and tells us that tourist traffic was up after all last year — I believe 12.8 percent is the figure she used. Yet another ridiculous claim of hers has been exploded by her own speeches of last year compared with those of this year. Last year she said it was down, not because of the Marguerite but because of the volcano. This year she doesn't blame the volcano for everything and takes the credit for the fact that it has gone up. She omits any mention at all of the Marguerite. As indeed she had nothing to do with saving the Kettle Valley Railway, so she had nothing to do with saving the Princess Marguerite — more neglect, more failure and poor leadership on the part of the Minister of Tourism.

There are, however, more instances of her strange administration. I believe it was in Parksville that she told the tourist industry, gathered to meet her there, that she didn't mind tanker traffic on the west coast because it would give the tourists something to look at. She actually described tanker traffic — supertankers in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Strait of Georgia — as a "tourist attraction." Does the minister remember that amazing speech of hers in Parksville?

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: She could give Good Show buttons to the captain of the tanker that cracked up on the shores and, as my colleague from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) says, invite the tourists to clean up the birds. This is the minister who asked for quality tourists and turned around and advised those quality tourists that they could admire the tanker traffic going up and down the west coast. At the same time she described her ministry as having "conservation" as its watchword. It's a heck of a record. It's a heck of an achievement. She's only been in office a short while.

Maybe the reason the ministry was so ineptly led for the first few months is because the minister wasn't being paid a ministerial salary for the first few months. We have to remember, after all, that she may have some grounds for resentment. You see, it was her own Premier who bungled her appointment to such an extent that he was not constitutionally entitled to pay her. We presume that she got paid after all, that she wasn't donating her services; and we presume that the taxpayers had to make up the difference between the Premier's promise and the minister's salary. However, Mr. Chairman, we argued at the time, because we raised it first in this House, that their minister was entitled to a ministerial salary. Therefore resentment is probably not an adequate excuse for the inept management of her own ministry, where senior positions have been left unfilled, where her own department has acted as a Canada Manpower service for the tourist industry, and where chaos and not flexibility is the authentic description of the way she's run things.

There's more. It's not just this weird definition of quality tourists or this strange notion that tanker traffic is an admirable thing for tourists to look at. It's not just the fact that it turns out Mount St. Helens wasn't responsible after all for the now non-decline, but rather increase, in tourist traffic. It's not just the fact that she's done nothing to save the Kettle Valley Railway, but it's also the fact that Pier B-C — the Vancouver convention centre — has unfortunately been the victim of grotesque mismanagement by Social Credit. What has the minister done to protect the interests of the Vancouver convention centre from the incompetence of the Deputy Premier? Well, Mr. Chairman, that's a story for tomorrow.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Just before adjournment on Monday last, the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) sought to move adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35 to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely a resolution to the Alaskan State Legislature in regard to the Stikine-Iskut hydro project. Firstly, I would point out that the standing order requires that a statement of the matter be forwarded to the Speaker. The statement should not contain argument, but should simply be a statement of fact. Secondly, I note that the House is currently involved in consideration of the estimates of Committee of Supply. Accordingly, a normal legislative opportunity will occur shortly wherein the matter may be discussed. For this reason, and because the statement on its face does not indicate the degree of urgency which would justify setting aside the business of the House, I find the matter does not come within the guidelines of standing order 35.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

[ Page 5057 ]

APPENDIX

9 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following question:

What is the total cost of the preparation, printing and distribution of the Cowichan Estuary Study'?

The Hon. C. S. Rogers replied as follows:

"The total cost of preparing, printing and distributing the Task Force report is estimated at $204, 750."

31 Mr. Skelly, asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following question:

What pesticides arid chemicals used in British Columbia were included on the list the Honourable Monique Begin provided to the British Columbia Ministry of Environment oil August 7th last, registrations of which were supported by inadequate or, in some cases, "fraudulent'' Studies conducted by Industrial Biotest Laboratories, and any supplementary lists subsequently received from the Honourable Monique Begin?

The Hon. C. S. Rogers replied as follows:

"This question is reminiscent of the questions raised in his letters to me of August 21, 1980, and December 11, 1980. In my answers of October 7, 1980, arid January 13, 1981, I indicated that the chemical pesticides studied by Industrial Biotest Laboratories arid contained in lists presented by the Minister of Health and Welfare Canada, Monique Begin. Included several serious shortcomings. The lists included not only registered pesticides supported by "pivotal" malurnalian studies, but also pesticides supported by less important, non-marrunallan studies and pesticides not even registered in Canada. I also mentioned that I was awaiting clarification and interpretation of these lists from Health and Welfare Canada before the significance of these lists could be properly assessed. Only then could %ve supply Mr. Skelly with a limited list of those IBT pesticides actually used in British Columbia.

"The latest IBT list from Monique Begin of February 4. 1981, indicated that now 23 compounds were no longer under the IBT "cloud However, the other 89 compounds continue to pose perplexing problem-is because the significance of this list is still unexplainable to the public because of an apparent legalistic "bind". In other words we have requested the toxicological reasons for the occurrence of pesticides oil the IBT list and Health and Welfare Canada says that they are legally unable to divulge these reasons to us.

"Since my Ministry cannot be certain as to the significance of these IBT studies, it would seem inappropriate to divulge the contents of this list to the citizens of this Province. The task of reviewing over 800 studies is a long and arduous one, but I am confident that the Federal Regulatory Authorities in Ottawa and Washington will be able to complete their reviews in short order."