[ Page 4207 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 19). Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Introduction and first reading –– 4207

Oral Questions

Sheriffs' responsibilities. Mr. Blencoe –– 4207

Park and Tilford distillery closure. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4207

Incentives for B.C. liquor production. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4207

Costs of Expo 86. Mr. Cocke –– 4208

Ministerial statement

RCMP report on Ministry of Tourism. Hon. Mr. Smith .. 4209

Mr. Cocke

Assessment Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 7). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On section 16 –– 4210

Mr. Mitchell

On section 42 –– 4212

Mr. Davis

Mr. Howard

Third reading –– 4214

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates.

On vote 60: minister's office –– 4214

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Lockstead

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Brown

Mr. Howard

Mr. Davis

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm very pleased today to take the opportunity to welcome 56 grades 10 and I I students from Seaquam high school. Mr. Speaker, I know that it's very familiar to you; they are from North Delta. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Kilpatrick. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon we have four people from the great state of Hawaii visiting us in British Columbia, representatives for the American Association of Retired Persons. They are Gilbert Gibson, George Birtton, Catherine Whiting and Lora Johnson. I would ask this House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today are representatives of the B.C. Central Credit Union: Mr. Harry Down, chairman; Mr. George Viereck, first vice-chairman; Michael Betts, second vice-chairman; and Lyndon Berner, a member of the executive committee; along with staff members Peter Podovinikoff, an old and dear friend of mine, who is chief executive officer, Wayne Nygren, chief financial officer and Richard Thomas. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the members' gallery today are two old friends from Kamloops, Gordon and Myrna Dittberner, and I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. McGEER: Earlier we had some people from Hawaii introduced to the House, and just to establish that this is a two-way street I'd like the House to recognize two British Columbia physicians, Dr. Graham Bryce and Dr. Cicely Bryce, who are going to Hawaii to do postgraduate medical work for a time, before coming back to British Columbia.

Introduction of Bills

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Act.

Bill 19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

SHERIFFS' RESPONSIBILITIES

MR. BLENCOE: Yesterday I posed three questions to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I have some further questions for the minister in light of the fact that he remained silent yesterday. B.C. municipalities have been hoping that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would finally take action to prevent the Attorney-General forcing local police officers to carry out provincial sheriffs' services. Will the minister advise whether he has raised this subject with his cabinet colleagues, and with what result?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The question should be directed, I would say, to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith).

MR. BLENCOE: It's clearly a Municipal Affairs situation. The costs are to the municipalities, and he is the minister. The costs will be millions of dollars. He has some responsibility to answer.

Supplementary, Mr Speaker. Will the minister advise whether he now realizes that he has unfairly forced these provincial functions onto local police officers?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, Mr. Speaker. Again, the question should be directed to the minister responsible, the Attorney-General.

MR. BLENCOE: This lack of response on behalf of the minister is shameful.

I have a supplementary for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Has the government decided to at least compensate municipalities for the extra work by highly trained police officers in pushing paper for the provincial government?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, again, the question should be directed to the minister responsible, the Attorney General.

PARK AND TILFORD DISTILLERY CLOSURE

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, first I have a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister advise whether he has met with Park and Tilford to determine what action can be taken to prevent the closure of that company's North Vancouver distillery and the loss of employment for a workforce which varies between 65 and 115 people?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, no, I haven't.

MR. GABELMANN: Would the minister, if asked?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If I was asked, I'd be happy to, Mr. Speaker.

INCENTIVES FOR B.C. LIQUOR PRODUCTION

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister advise why the liquor control board offers no incentive in its pricing policy for B.C. production of spirits and liquor?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the liquor distribution branch does offer incentives with regard to alcoholic beverages produced within British Columbia's boundaries.

MR, GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, that may be true in terms of wine but, according to the ministry's own information, not true in terms of spirits. B.C. wines, for example, receive incentive pricing through a B.C. markup which is less than half the markup for wines from other Canadian provinces. What consideration is the minister giving to providing an incentive markup on B.C. spirits and liquor in order to save jobs in B.C.?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I refer the member to the liquor distribution board's annual report; he'll see the difference in markup and taxation with regard to beer, wine and spirits. With regard to what incentives we might be looking at, that of course would be future policy.

[ Page 4208 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that the markup on spirits and liquor produced in British Columbia is 115 percent, and on those produced elsewhere in Canada 115 percent, and that that would indicate that no preferential treatment is given to production in British Columbia?

HON. MR. HEWITT: With regard to markup on domestic spirits, I refer the member to page 8 of the liquor distribution branch's annual report: LDB markup on the 710 ml bottle is $5.68 domestic; imported spirits, $7.34.

MR. GABELMANN: I may not have made myself clear. I'm not talking about imported from outside of Canada; I'm talking about the difference between products produced in Quebec or Ontario as compared to British Columbia, where there is no incentive for British Columbia produced spirits. Will the minister look at that to try to save these jobs at Park and Tilford?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Member, I'll look at anything we can within the realm of government policy with regard to saving jobs in British Columbia.

COSTS OF EXPO 86

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Tourism. On May 20 the then minister responsible for Expo 86 world's fair published a preliminary master budget showing the total capital cost of the fair to be $75 million. Will the minister advise what the current capital cost estimate is for Expo 86 world's fair?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. That budget has not been made public as yet.

MR. COCKE: I guess the people of B.C. love to be kept in the dark, but it's about time it was made public.

On April 1, 1982, the same minister published a revised current dollar estimate for the combined capital and operating costs of $283 million. Does the minister have a current figure for the combined capital and operating costs of Expo 86 world's fair?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the chairman and board of Expo will bring in that figure and make it public as soon as possible.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, maybe I can give him an alternative choice question. Will the minister advise, since he is unaware of the details — or indicates that — whether the current capital costs are in excess of $700 million?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I answered the member's question with my previous answer: that the board of Expo 86 Corporation will make that information public in due course.

[2:15]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Jim Pattison is to advise the government by Monday, April 9, whether Expo 86 is financially viable. Is Mr. Pattison preparing new capital cost estimates? Can the minister confirm that there have been major cost escalations in Expo 86? The Premier will give you some help; just give him time.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The premise of the member's question is entirely incorrect.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Tourism kindly indicate what is proper perspective in this whole situation? Just give us some corrections if everything is incorrect.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain that the people of British Columbia are well aware of the mandate given to the chairman of the board of Expo 86 Corporation, and I repeat that the member's premise is entirely incorrect.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, is the minister denying the Premier's statement of last week?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. BARRETT: Who is out of order, the minister or the Premier?

MR. COCKE: I'm just asking the minister if he is now saying that the Premier was incorrect last week when he made the statement that he did.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say anything of the sort. I said the member for New Westminster was incorrect.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I should never have listened to the Premier. I gather that the Premier is therefore incorrect, because I am just paraphrasing exactly what he said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) rises on a point of order in question period.

MR. LEA: I was just wondering whether someone had asked the Premier a question.

MR. SPEAKER: That matter was canvassed at a previous time, hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I detected the same sort of question in that exchange from the member for New Westminster, as much as there is a question in almost anything he poses to the House during question period. The question, as I understood it, was: did I give Mr. Pattison a mandate to make a recommendation because of the economic feasibility of Expo. That was not what I said. His mandate to bring in an economically feasible fair is already there, and he has been charged with that along with the directors of Expo, some of whom are from the city of Vancouver and some from the federal government, for these last three years. What I did say very clearly on television was that if there were disruptions that would threaten that fair or embarrass us internationally and prevent it from being carried out on time and on

[ Page 4209 ]

budget.... I asked him to hold negotiations and then make a recommendation to me and the government this weekend, in order that we can make a determination on whether that fair could continue. That recommendation will be his.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that was a marvellous rendition by the Premier, and I would just like to ask the poor, confused Premier whether or not he asked for a report — not a smokescreen — as of April 9.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the statement I made on television asked for a report to do with the industrial relations aspect of Expo and whether it could be held up at any time through disruption, blackmail and the ability to deliver. If he can't get those sorts of guarantees, I'm sure that would be contained in his recommendations. That mandate he has, and that mandate he has publicly. What the people of British Columbia are going to be concerned with is why the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) tries to put his own interpretation on what was on TV when they understand clearly. I expect from this they'll suspect those things he says in this House, as they've learned to do in the past when he poses questions on supposed medical crises that never happen.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this is the jolly hour, obviously.

Can the first minister tell us whether or not — he seems to know all about this situation, including blackmail and all sorts of terrible things — the capital cost has increased from $75 million to $750 million, or does that include the operating costs, which would have been $150 million to $700 million or better?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker. the Expo budget, as the Minister of Tourism said, will be made public by the chairman and directors, but I would tell the member for Now Westminster what their mandate is in the fair that they've been undertaking to produce and carry out for British Columbians, and that is, within the framework of the Lotto 6-49 revenues and the revenues they calculate from the fair, that the fair will be able to be produced on budget on time and at a figure in which those sources will be able to finance it, without it coming to government for tax review.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, was the public misled, therefore, at the original suggestion of $150 million for Expo 86?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, Expo has been charged with putting on a fair. As it has been developed as professional capacity, the chairman of Expo.... The fact that they've hired the professional staff that can do the accurate type of calculations.... I'm sure a number of things have changed in the size, the extent and the revenue picture, plus the cost picture for the fair. I'm sure the chairman of Expo would be very pleased to share that information with the people — and I hope that it's of interest to the people of British Columbia — after the weekend.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period.

MR. LEA: I'd just like to answer a couple of questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LEA: No? I thought we were all equal members, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

RCMP REPORT ON MINISTRY OF TOURISM

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have a ministerial statement to make about the RCMP investigation into Tourism.

On July 27, 1983, senior officials in the Ministry of the Attorney-General referred to the RCMP Vancouver commercial crime section for investigation the matters that have been raised by the auditor-general in her second report dated July 18 on the matter of expenditures in the Ministry of Tourism. The auditor-general's report dealt with matters arising from expenditures in 1981-82, and examined departures from established government policies and procedures in the ministry, particularly as those procedures affected the ministry's relationship with its advertising agencies. All these matters that were covered in the auditor-general's report have now been reviewed by the RCMP to determine whether any criminal charges are warranted.

I should tell the House that the RCMP investigation was conducted under Insp. S.F. Payton, a senior member of the RCMP Vancouver commercial crime section. He was assisted by Mr. David Hooper, a chartered accountant and highly experienced criminal investigative accountant. The investigative team sought the assistance of counsel and obtained the services of Leonard T. Doust, a senior criminal lawyer in private practice in Vancouver, who is also well experienced in the field of commercial crime, having had a number of cases for both the Crown and the defence. Mr. Doust has thoroughly reviewed all aspects of this investigation, and he has reported directly to me in this matter.

I should tell you a bit about this investigation and its ambit. The investigative team began with a full briefing from the auditor-general and the comptroller-general of this province and then examined the massive documentation that was provided by the auditor-general. The investigators then decided to proceed beyond a normal investigative audit, and they obtained search warrants to allow examination and review of all available additional evidence. Coordinated searches were conducted of two advertising agencies doing business with the Ministry of Tourism: McKim Advertising Ltd. and Vrlak Robinson Advertising Ltd. Substantial documentation was obtained from these agencies on August 16, 1983, and was catalogued and reviewed in detail by the commercial crime team. The new evidence was coordinated with the documentation that had previously been obtained from the auditor-general.

The investigators also received a full background briefing in the operations of the Ministry of Tourism from the Deputy Minister of Tourism. Dr. James Rae. The team personally interviewed all senior staff of the ministry. They interviewed the then Assistant Deputy Minister of Marketing, Mr. John Plul; the director of administration and finance, his accounting staff and the personnel in the Tourism marketing office in Vancouver; and also the Minister of Tourism during 1981-82, Mrs. Patricia Jordan. The information obtained provided the

[ Page 4210 ]

investigators with an understanding of the procedures that had been followed in processing invoices in accounts and documentation that flowed from the Vancouver office to the accounting branch in Victoria. Investigators also interviewed the senior personnel of the two advertising agencies which dealt with the Ministry of Tourism: that is, both McKim and Vrlak. These firms cooperated with the investigators by providing information. They also made their staff members available for interviews. A number of suppliers who did business with the Ministry of Tourism and the advertising agencies were also interviewed. Additional interviews were held and evidence obtained under the direction of Mr. Doust, and care was taken to explore all available evidence and to interview everyone who had relevant information.

At the beginning, this investigation centred on the internal financial and accounting systems of the Ministry of Tourism and McKim and Vrlak, the expenditures in the Ministry of Tourism and their advertising agencies, and the financial relationship between the Ministry of Tourism, the advertising agencies and their employees. The investigation also focused on alleged irregularities in the expenses of some officials of the ministry.

As I've indicated before, Mr. Doust has reported to me directly his findings and conclusions. He has reviewed with me carefully both the scope of the investigation and details of his opinion.

Mr. Doust was most critical of the system of financial control that was in place during 1981-82 in the Ministry of Tourism and those advertising agencies with which it conducted business. In this he is in agreement with Mr. Hooper, the accountant, who reported and concluded that there were very inadequate systems controls on the part of the ministry, extremely poor and uncontrolled accounting in recording systems in Vrlak and poor expense or docket control on the part of McKim.

Mr. Speaker, as sloppy and as incomplete as these financial controls may be, they do not in themselves provide grounds for involving the criminal law process. Mr. Doust has given me his opinion on the question of criminal charges, and he has particularly considered the offences of theft, fraud, false pretences and breach of trust. It is Mr. Doust's opinion that no single instance or combination of instances examined by the RCMP team in this investigation would support the laying of charges under the Criminal Code. Mr. Doust is unanimously supported by the investigative team in his opinion that there is no evidence that would justify the laying of a criminal charge against any of the persons or companies involved.

I have spent some time reviewing with Mr. Doust the substance of his advice and the findings of his investigation. I accept the recommendations of Mr. Doust and the RCMP team, and the criminal investigation is therefore concluded.

[2:30]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I read the gist of the report this morning in Jim Hume's column, so I'm not all that terribly surprised. I will say this: it would appear to the opposition — or certainly to this member of the opposition — that there certainly have been major irregularities. I'm pleased that the report has finally come down. It's a kind of saving grace, it would appear, by listening to the minister's report, that an inadequate system in the Ministry of Tourism, which is admitted there, and poor systems in both Vrlak and McKim.... That combination led to this terrible situation where there's been a cloud over all these people for all this time.

We would very much like to see a copy of the report, if the minister is prepared to table it. Having said that, I guess maybe we'll see where it goes. We know where it started: it started under the then Provincial Secretary, who is now the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It was restricted. According to Hume's column this morning it goes back to the 1800s somewhere. In any event, we will see what we have in this report, if the minister would make it available.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, yesterday in second reading I implored the minister to revise this section 26(4) which they are amending by allowing the benefits that are enjoyed by people who owned homes prior to January 1, 1959.... I think it's important that we review some of the problems that this particular section has caused in the community. As I've said before in debates, section 26(l) of the Assessment Act was brought in in 1964 by the then government because in areas of the West End of Vancouver and James Bay there was a flurry of construction of highrise apartments. The price of land in those particular communities started to skyrocket. Assessments on homes that had been family homes for years were getting out of hand. The government at that time felt that anyone who had lived in their home for five years should not be affected by a skyrocketing assessment because of a change in local zoning. I feel that that was an excellent amendment. The only problem, as time has gone on, is that there are a lot of people living in other parts of British Columbia whose communities are coming under the same attack as the areas that I mentioned earlier. Developers are going into an area, buying up property and paying an inflated price for lots that have been used for many years as residential homes.

One case affected one of my constituents very strongly. He was a veteran who bought his one and a half, I believe it was, under the Veterans' Land Act. Now he is a retired senior citizen. A developer came in and attempted to buy property all around him. He approached my constituent and he approached other immediate neighbours. He offered to purchase the property for in the vicinity of $300,000. All the

[ Page 4211 ]

other neighbours accepted a $20,000 option to purchase. My constituent, who had lived there since 1960 and had remodeled the home — his wife is an invalid and he had built ramps — did not want to sell. When the first six months of the option ran out, one of the neighbours went to the developer and said: "Either he's taking his $20,000 or the developer has to buy it." The developer did buy it for a price around $300,000. In that particular situation, because of a recent sale in the area and under the present Assessment Authority Act, the assessment of all the properties in that particular area went up. The assessment on his property was in the neighbourhood of approximately $70,000, and it went up to $104,000, I believe, in the first year. In the next year the assessment on his property went up to $240,000, and that worked out to approximately $200,000 an acre.

This particular individual is a senior citizen on a very limited income, and his taxes went from $1,000 to $2,800 a year. I find it very interesting, Mr. Speaker, when less than two blocks from my constituent's property — and his property is assessed at around $200,000 an acre — there is a new 30-acre shopping centre going in. When I say a new shopping centre, I mean that it's opening in the next month or so. It's a large shopping centre with a large Safeway and a large K-Mart and 40-odd other viable businesses that will be opening shop in that area. The assessment on that particular piece of commercial property is around $25,000 per acre.

Here we have, Mr. Speaker, one individual who got trapped because a developer offered and paid $300,000 — or a figure in that range — for property next door to him. It was not a viable operation, because since then the particular developer has gone bankrupt. Because of the legislation, the people who were caught in that little part of the community had their assessments and their taxes raised to an astronomical figure. There is nothing in the Assessment Authority Act that any of those in the ministry can or will do that will roll back that assessment to a figure that people can live with. In this particular case, under the present legislation, the assessments of the properties are not frozen at 1959 levels. The general assessment and increase in value of property over many years has increased the value of the land and also the tax level. In 1960, when my constituent bought his property and built his home, he was paying something like $95 a year now he's paying close to $2,800 a year for the home. As I say, a year or two years ago, before the assessment went up, he was paying, I believe, around $ 1,000 or $1,200.

1 brought up in the House on another occasion the case of a gentleman living in Toronto who was in a situation where they were building highrises and large apartments all around his particular area. Because he had an argument with one of the real estate people, who wouldn't pay.... At one time, I believe, he wanted to sell his home for $3,000 and the real estate wouldn't come up to that figure. He's sitting there and he will not sell, and all around his home there are highrise apartments. His property in the Toronto area is presently valued, I believe, at $1 million. Under Ontario law his taxes are only $1,800 for a piece of property that is valued at close to a million dollars. I am using just one case, but I know there must be hundreds of other cases throughout the province of people caught by the greed of others who are inflating prices because they want to get property rezoned for another type of development than it is presently being used for; so they have inflated the value and the prices paid for particular pieces of land. I feel there must be a change in the attitude of the government to look at changes that will protect people.

1 do have an amendment that I would like to propose to the minister. Mr. Chairman, although I would have preferred it if he had brought one in.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is it on the order paper?

MR. MITCHELL: No, I didn't realize it was coming up this fast. We only got through second reading yesterday, Mr. House Leader.

This is an amendment to Bill 7, Assessment Amendment Act, 1984: section 16: by striking out clause (b) and substituting "(b) in subsection (4) by striking out 'since January 1, 1959' and substituting 'for a period of five years prior to receipt of the notice.'" As to clause (c), by striking out  "since January, 1959" and substituting "for a period of five years prior to receipt of the notice." I would like to have the minister's reaction.

[2:45]

1 realize that what we are doing is to give that leeway that was built into the legislation in 1964 so that it will protect people who are caught in this trap and unfortunately cannot afford to pay the high increases in taxes. In this particular case my constituent is forced to defer his taxes, but it is costing him $150 a year interest on the taxes he is forced to defer. I know that by continuing to allow people to own their own homes, this amendment will save a lot of traumatic situations, and I implore the government to give it serious consideration and bring it in.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the government cannot accept the amendment, but that is not to say....

Am I speaking to the amendment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That is not to say that I would not want to explore this matter with the member, and with other interested members, for an amending act in a subsequent year. The Union of B. C. Municipalities offered a compromise proposal on this very topic, which precisely is in section 16(c); that was examined and found to be wanting in certain respects. The member has made this point before. In fact, the member and I have exchanged correspondence on this particular parcel. I believe.

I don't want to enter into lengthy debate with the member, but it should not be overlooked that the homeowner so affected has of Course, in my view — and I underline that point in my view only — a very cogent argument to present to the court of revision which is held each year. The member has alluded to the Land Tax Deferment Act. I won't speak on that since it is not before us, but while I understand the member's concern, I regret that today the government cannot accept the amendment he has proposed.

MR. MITCHELL: I know the minister might feel that at times I'm fighting lost causes. I'm not asking the government to make any change in policy on the original legislation, which was brought in by another Social Credit government in 1964, and which gave this five-year buffer. To say that it's going to cause some confusion.... I've talked to people on the Assessment Authority and they agree with me that it

[ Page 4212 ]

should have been built in in 1964. All I'm asking the government is not to turn it down. I'm not interested in getting political Brownie points, and that is why I brought it to the minister on many occasions. I would prefer to see the government bring it in and get the Brownie points. All I want to see is an opportunity for citizens in British Columbia to have some protection so they can continue to own their own homes.

It is very simple, and I find it hard that the government takes the position of the typical bureaucrat: "We can't change it, because it will do something." This is a human need for a small section of the community. In that section the majority are senior citizens. In my particular constituent's case he is a senior citizen, a veteran who fought for his country, but because the government will not budge he is going to lose his home. His property is assessed at around $200,000 an acre, and down the street less than three blocks there is a viable shopping centre whose property is assessed at $25,000 to $30,000 an acre. And the government says there is no injustice! It's such blatant injustice.

I stress to the minister that he should look at it and give the protection that is needed for the little person who is caught in the squeeze — the type that falls between the cracks in our regulations. It can be corrected. It is a minor correction. It will take the heat off the Assessment Authority, who see this going on all over the province, and there's nothing they can do about it. It just happens to be so blatant a problem for my constituent that not only was the land forced up but the company were so incompetent that they went bankrupt. The other people in his neighbourhood got the $20,000 that was given for the right to purchase, but in his case he got nothing, and he's going to lose his home because he cannot afford to pay the taxes, or he's deferring the taxes; it cost him $150 last year, and as that compounds it will go on and on. I sincerely ask the government to table that particular section, look it over and give it some serious consideration.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Having said that I can't accept the amendment today, it is not a question of whether the member for Esquimalt wins some points or whether I win some points. The matter is relatively complex; I'm satisfied on that point. This is not a question of asking officials and having them say: "Well, it's complex, and therefore you can't examine it." There are certainly a number of other factors. I invite the member, as I did before, to meet me at his convenience — we both live in this region — to discuss this at greater length, and perhaps to find some way in which a compromise can be reached. I restate that invitation today.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 16-41 inclusive approved.

On section 42.

MR. DAVIS: The section to which I object is the transitional section. Substantially what this section says is that any appeal which succeeded in the courts in the past is rendered null and void insofar as its effectiveness is concerned, and the appeals are those which were launched by several corporations beginning in 1981 and continuing through 1982 and 1983. In other words, this is a section which reaches back over a period of several years; it's retroactive, covering past appeals which succeeded in the courts.

It further says that a taxpayer, presumably the taxpayers who succeeded in the courts, shall not bring an action for the recovery of the moneys in question. In other words, it is both retroactive and is a denial of the individual's right to access to the courts in the future, with respect to successful appeals.

This is perhaps more a matter of law than anything else, but I would like to know from the minister what the point is in appealing assessments. I gather the practice for many years, as he has outlined it, is that one must not only appeal orally or in writing or by not paying their taxes and continuing to protest, but in order that their appeal be successful they must go to court and stay in court until there is a final decision rendered. If it is indeed the practice of the province to annul a successful appeal through the courts, what's the point of appealing ever? You cannot win. At least that's the principle.

In my own situation, let's say I am concerned about the assessment on my home, and I protest and don't pay. The argument of the minister seems to be that because a resolution in my favour might involve others on my street also appealing and also succeeding, this results in an exposure to the treasury which is intolerable and therefore there's an economic rationale for effectively denying the successful appeal, should it succeed, through the courts.

So I have real difficulty with this section. I know that the politics of it relate in large part to the fact that the successful appellants were several large corporations as well as several small ones — Cominco, MacMillan Bloedel and Scott Paper, notably. Their appeal related to specific installations in specific locations; they didn't cover all of their operations. They did appeal, did follow the process and did assume that the law of the land obtained and that if they were in court their appeal continued to be recognized as a valid appeal, and they expected that if they were successful as far as the Supreme Court of Canada they wouldn't be liable to tax. Now clearly they're liable to tax if this section passes. Clearly also they have no recourse to the courts in respect to these matters. That's the substance of it.

From correspondence I've had with the minister I am of the impression — and perhaps he can correct me — that if the monetary problems of the province and/or the municipalities are significant, then the rulings of the courts are no longer relevant; that the Crown can reach back and recover its balance, so to speak. The rationale is one of economic or financial necessity, and it's a matter of economic or financial policy that rules. The question of principle I have essentially is that if financial policy is the criterion, financial policy essentially relates to the majority, the large number out there. The large exposure, presumably, of the government — which I don't agree with — overrules the rights of the individual, be it a person or a corporation. This is essentially why I disagree with what I regard to be an important principle being offended by this section. It'll be interesting to see whether anyone else in the chamber is concerned about this matter.

[3:00]

MR. HOWARD: In order for those who may read Hansard to see what it is we are talking about, it may be necessary to quote a few of the words from this particular section and the second line of it. It starts by saying that certain definitions "shall be conclusively deemed always to have included" certain other things. In other words, this act is extending itself into the past — to the year of the birth of Christ or whenever the Assessment Act came into existence, or forever into the

[ Page 4213 ]

past. It's a type of retroactive feature that is completely unacceptable.

Let's also look at subsections (9) and (10) of section 42. There are some protective devices in here for transgression against common sense. Subsection (9) says: "This section applies notwithstanding section 10 of the Assessment Act." In other words, this is absolute. Then subsection (10) says: "This section is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect." It is deemed that certain definitions of improvements will always have been in existence, will always have had force and this section is retroactive forever into the past in order to give it effect. That's a kind of retroactivity that's completely and absolutely unacceptable.

The minister, as I understood his comment in closing debate on second reading yesterday, indicated that there had been a number of meetings held throughout the province and that no objections had been raised about the proposal of the government to do what it is now seeking to do. But I think that the simple fact of no objections being raised should not give licence for this kind of ethical transgression, should not give the minister carte blanche to run against common sense and common decency and against everything that we've held dear in terms of legislation. It was bad enough on Bill 18 because that sought to make individuals lawbreakers on a retroactive basis, but this wipes out any right that anybody might have had, as another member said, about appeals of assessments or anything else. It just says that the government's view is supreme and absolute, and that's it.

I understand this came into effect as a result of a court decision that declared that a certain aspect of the Assessment Act should not prevail and that taxes couldn't be levied on an incomplete building, or something to that effect. One could probably accept the retroactivity of this to the time of that court decision, but the court's decision should be accepted up to that time. We have a perception and a structure and an inheritance in our law that says that the Legislature makes the law, writes the words, passes them into statute, and that the courts, if called upon. Interpret what was the force or intent of the law. There have been many times when courts have determined that the law is to be interpreted in a way that may not have been in the minds of the legislators when they legislated that particular law. I suppose common sense and respect for the rule of law could lead us to accept retroactivity to the time of that court decision, to say: "Okay, the courts have determined that the previous interpretation is wrong as of this particular time." If the Legislature, in a political decision, were to say, "As of that time we want to correct it, we want to change it, we want to allow for a different interpretation," retroactivity to that time would probably be an acceptable course. But to be retroactive forever, to be deemed always to have been in existence — to wipe out the common right of appeal, as another member said earlier — is, I think, most improper. I'm sure that the minister, with the expertise of his department, or even by himself, could include an effective date in here, say as of that particular court decision, if that was the time that the policy change should be made — but not a retroactivity of this nature.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, there are two other points. In second reading the minister did say that there were no objections raised during a very extensive tour which he and another minister had of the province, in which they discussed assessments and property taxation within various municipalities. That tour was held during 1981, as I recall. He was surprised that this matter was not raised at that time. There are two reasons why it wasn't raised. One was that the matter was in the courts and several firms who were continuing to protest the assessment realized that and weren't likely to come into another forum — essentially a political one — to discuss their situation, or what they regarded as the true meaning of the existing legislation. The other is that the vast majority of people who attended those meetings were elected municipal people or municipal officials, people generally concerned about matters of assessment. I doubt very much whether industry — even small business — attended those meetings in any numbers. So there are two reasons why it wasn't protested in that particular forum. Again, whether or not it was raised at that time seems to me to be irrelevant.

There is one other point I want to make. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) mentioned Bill 18. He might also have mentioned budgets and finance bills. There is an element of retroactivity in that kind of legislation, but it's only to the date of the government making a clear announcement of intention in the case of Bill 18 and the case of finance measures during the introduction of the budget. The minister announces that as of midnight, or as of a certain hour today, or as of this moment, the law will be deemed to be thus and so. Generally speaking, the matter is usually widely publicized. One knows what the law is henceforward, even though the bill itself may not pass immediately. It might pass a few days later or a few weeks later. It's retroactive in terms of the legislation actually receiving royal assent, but it's not retroactive in terms of the notice given to those involved. In this case, notice is being given when this bill receives royal assent and reaches back to 1981. That is true retroactivity, and that's my principal concern, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the remarks of the member for Vancouver-Seymour and the member for Skeena, the opposition House Leader. I can appreciate that there are strongly held views with respect to this section.

It is important, I think, to state again, as I did yesterday, and as I did at the time that I indicated this legislation would be brought forward, that we have about 38 to 40 years of practice where what this section corrects has been accepted. So we are restating it. There were a series of court cases, and we now must emphasize this. I think that the argument would be more telling for me if we were attempting to change retroactively a practice which had been in place for quite some time. There's a very significant difference there. People have paid property taxes for, let's say, 38 years on the basis that this particular aspect of property was assessable and taxable. After repeated assaults in the courts, finally a few companies succeeded in one court. The retroactivity is only to 1981 — let there be no misunderstanding about that — for the 1981 tax year. Anything before that is not at issue here. Now a member may say: "Well, even 1981 is too far back." But we are clarifying and restating that which has been the practice and the system under which both parties, the taxpayer and the collector have functioned for a good long time.

The member for North Vancouver-Seymour said: "What's the use of appealing?" Mr. Chairman, I don't have the figures readily available, but it is correct to say that since the Assessment Act was introduced, there have been hundreds of thousands of appeals at the court of revision level where a correction has been made, where the appeal has been

[ Page 4214 ]

allowed, and if not there, then a much smaller number obviously at the level of the Assessment Appeal Board, and some in court as well. So the fact that we are restating this should in no way discourage any property tax payer from appealing when he or she feels aggrieved.

Sections 42 and 43 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 7, Assessment Amendment Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

On vote 60: minister's office, $141,801.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few opening remarks in my estimates — they will be brief — and then I will gladly take any questions from members. I'm pleased to rise once again and have the opportunity to report to the Legislature on the activities of my ministry. First, I would like to re-emphasize to every member in this House and to the residents of British Columbia the importance of tourism to our economy. Over too long a period we as British Columbians have suffered from the economic downturn, from which, fortunately, we now see the road to recovery. Helping in this recovery, of course, are the contributions made by tourism, which many refer to as a primary resource of this province. It is my belief and that of many others in the community that tourism will lead the economic recovery of this province. While other sectors are suffering, all indications point to tourism being a leading edge in our provincial recovery. The benefits of tourism don't just accrue to the government, Mr. Chairman, but accrue to all residents of our province. The tourism sector, of course, is made up of a variety of private entrepreneurs — whether it be the small motel in the interior or the large, multimillion-dollar hotel in downtown Vancouver. The tour operator, the fishing guide, the taxi driver — each in his own way contributes to our economy.

[3:15]

The final numbers for 1983 are now in, and an analysis of performance in the tourism industry indicates an increase over the previous year. Nine of the 15 indicators normally used in developing the ministry's statistics include entries from the United States and overseas countries, and they have increased over 1982 levels. An example of these increases is U.S. vehicle entries, which have increased by 8.6 percent. U.S. resident entries increased 7.2 percent; one-or-more nights U.S. resident entries, 9.3 percent; overseas entries, 1.5 percent. Restaurant sales throughout the province showed an increase of 9.7 percent. In addition, hotel occupancy in Vancouver registered an increase of 2.3 percent.

However, hotel occupancy throughout the province registered a 1.2 percent decrease. While our indicators show that there is a turnaround, we must recognize that problems still do exist in this particular sector of the industry. I am confident, however, that 1984 will be a year of substantial growth in the industry, and all British Columbians will benefit from it. As I have said, the outlook for 1984 is very positive, and the pattern of improvement in growth is expected to continue at a modest rate for 1984 and 1985 — 1986, of course, will be the year of Expo 86.

The level of the Ministry of Tourism's estimates this year reflect a modest decrease in the operational costs of the ministry, which is consistent with this government's policy of exercising restraint. The leadership shown by this government in restraint benefits each and every taxpayer in the province and provides a proud example for the rest of the country in these times of difficulty.

The commitment to the marketing of the province of British Columbia by my ministry has been enhanced, and greater effort is being exerted to maximize that potential revenue source in offshore markets. I have led two trade missions to the Pacific Rim countries of Japan and Korea in which the private sector took a very active role. In addition, I recently returned from the ITB in Berlin, and must report that British Columbia was well represented in that very important market — not only by me and by Mr. Willis of our London office but also by the private sector from British Columbia.

At this time I would also like to advise the House that I will be leading another trade mission to southeast Asia in June of this year, in which many representatives of the private sector will be participating. The potential for British Columbia from this market is enormous, and by taking the lead we are ensuring that British Columbia receives its fair share of tourists, which will also contribute to our economic recovery.

The revenues generated from our U.S. visitors contribute to a healthy economy in British Columbia, including payments for many social services such as education, health and human resources. Speaking of our American friends, I was pleased to have an opportunity to discuss many matters of mutual interest with Governor Spellman on his recent visit to British Columbia. In the state of Washington the recognition of the importance of tourism has changed their approach to marketing, and British Columbia will benefit from many of their efforts.

However, it is essential to remember that the neighbours to the south of our province contribute to our industry's health and well-being. In this regard, my ministry has continued to promote what is known as the friendship exchange program, whereby the difference between the American and Canadian dollars is given as a benefit for spending their money in British Columbia.

However, one must never forget that approximately 50 percent of our tourists are our own residents, and their demands and requirements are as important as those of visitors from outside our borders. In January I met with the ministers of the Yukon and Alberta and a representative from the Northwest Territories, who are all members of what we call Canada West. Canada West represents a geographical region which is used in many external markets. Each participant experiences common problems, whether it be the abandonment of Via Rail service, customs difficulties or general lack of awareness in some of our developing and foreign markets. The progress this informal organization is making will benefit the participants not only collectively but individually, and

[ Page 4215 ]

British Columbia will continue to use this as another important marketing tool.

I also recently had an opportunity to discuss concerns pertaining to the tourism industry with the Hon. David Smith, the federal minister, and I must say that I have received some very positive feedback.

In closing, I wish to re-emphasize the importance of Expo, not only to the lower mainland but to every region in this province. We in the Ministry of Tourism will assist in every way to ensure that the benefits are spread throughout the entire province through every tourism region, so that all residents of British Columbia can benefit from this world's fair. Expo will be a lasting legacy, and the returns and prestige throughout the world will be invaluable. Not only will many jobs be created but the visitors during 1986 will increase far above our normal levels, and therefore every resident should make an effort to project our best image and create a situation where these visitors will return many times over because they have received good value for their money and a warm welcome in British Columbia. We know that in '87, '88 and '89 they will return many times to Super Natural British Columbia.

That concludes my opening remarks. I will sit down now and gladly answer any questions that any of the members have. Oh, before I do, my deputy has now joined us, and I would like to introduce Dr. Jim Rae, the Deputy Minister of Tourism.

MR. COCKE: My God, it's lonely in here. It's not only lonely in here, it's boring. But let's get some answers from the minister, just for the fun of it.

The minister, incidentally, made a suggestion to the rest of the country that they should follow British Columbia's lead in this restraint proposition. I think it's a marvellous suggestion. If they all want to go broke like we have, then they should follow our lead. Here we are vying with Newfoundland to see who can have the most unemployed. We have 15.5 percent unemployment, and that's not including all those who have finally become apathetic because they can't do anything about it; it is probably much closer to 20 percent. That's where the minister wants to take us, but no thank you, Mr. Minister. If I were....

See, it works every time. They listen on the blower.

In any event, I do challenge the minister not to make that suggestion too loud or too clear, because it could carry some other jurisdictions into the same quandary that we have here. Restraint has been a disaster. The restraint that is carried on in this province is epitomized in the poor, pathetic, little Ministry of Tourism. What can they do with the amount they are expending in Tourism?

Now I know what is troubling this government. The Premier today showed what was troubling this government, Mr. Chairman. It is Expo 86, among a number of other things. Northeast coal has been a living disaster, and then we got Expo 86 carrying us down the tube so quickly that we don't know whether we're coming or going. You'll notice how the Minister of Tourism was silenced when the Premier got up and quickly started to answer questions in his inimitable fashion, saying precisely nothing.

MR. REID: Be positive for a change. Try and be positive.

MR. COCKE: I'll be positive for a change, Mr. Chairman, when something positive starts coming over the horizon. I will give you all the credit that you deserve when something positive finally happens in this province.

Mr. Chairman, let's deal. Let's ask a couple of questions about this monumental disaster that seems to be approaching us. In the first place. when it was announced that Lotto was going to look after it, we were hearing such things as: "Expo 86 is the winner, thanks to revenue from a new dollar lottery, B.C. Expo Lotto." Which, incidentally, is now Lotto 6-49, I gather, or at least their participation. At that time, Evan Wolfe, who was then the minister in charge, felt that over five years we would accumulate $100 million in the Expo Lotto revenue, which would be directed toward Expo. Can you imagine now, Mr. Chairman, when we see the numbers that are obviously before us? The Premier didn't admit today that it's $750 million, but he sure didn't deny it. Did any of my colleagues hear him deny it? I didn't. I don't think he knows. I think what he was trying to tell us was that Jimmy Pattison better come in with a figure that will be somewhere near the estimated revenue of the lottery; otherwise it's down the tube. And if it's down the tube, we will be sued by country after country, by those people who are already spending significant sums of money to come here and display their wares. We're in serious trouble on this thing, and the first minister tries to blame it on the labour costs, or the fact that the building trades are naughty boys. They haven't had a significant increase in the building trades for the last couple of years, and I certainly don't see very much of an increase in the foreseeable future in terms of their earnings.

I don't think that the smokescreen the government is blowing is washing. The fact of the matter is that they've got themselves into a very rough situation by underestimating what they were doing in the first place. They suddenly made a change from a small sort of state fair to a huge world's fair, and now they're in the big leagues and don't know what the blazes to do about it.

MR. MACDONALD: They're trying to beat Drapeau.

MR. COCKE: That's right. And good old Drapeau showed exactly what happens when you get into the big leagues and you haven't been planning properly.

[3:30]

Just before I ask some questions, I'd like to recount an interview with a very responsible British Columbian, certainly in the eyes of the government, because he's Chuck McVeigh. Now Chuck McVeigh, of the Construction Labour Relations Association, was interviewed on CBC by Gail Hulnick on March 30 — just six days ago. She said to him: "Do you think that a satisfactory deal can be worked out in this 10-day period?" She was referring to the 10-day period that the Premier was talking about and sort of danced around; but the fact is that we heard him say on television that they had to come back with a report within a 10-day period. McVeigh said:

"That's very difficult to answer, based on the position that the building trades appear to take, and I understand clearly where they are coming from. I think that type of approach is going to have some difficulty. I am optimistic that they are going to work seriously at it and look at it as realistically as possible, and I'm hopeful something can be worked out; but as I said at the outset, I do believe it's an uphill battle."

[ Page 4216 ]

That's a difference of opinion.

Then Hulnick went on:

"Some analysts have said that what's happening here is that the government is using Expo 86 as a sort of club. Do you feel that it is being used as some sort of lever to change the relationships between union and non-union people within the construction sector?

"McVeigh: 'I don't think so. Obviously it's a very high-profile project, and if it were to be cancelled over an issue like the building trades refusing to work with non-union people, it would appear to be a disaster. But if that were the only reason for its cancellation, I'd suspect there must be more to it than that, because they could hardly find that as sufficient cause for cancellation of the project.'" That's Chuck McVeigh!

"There must be some way that the government could see that that project must go ahead."

That's it. Chuck McVeigh says it's a smokescreen. He said it in gentle terms, but then....

Let's go on. Later in the program Marjorie Nichols was commenting on what Mr. McVeigh had said. I won't read her comments on his specific statements because what is there to comment about? The fact of the matter is, he says that this labour-bashing trip down there is purely a smokescreen. But Marjorie, in this discussion, said: "It seems like something out of another century, but that same fair three and a half years later, according to the latest estimation provided by Expo itself...is that the capital costs — just on the site — are going to be $750 million. So you can see what's happened, Gail; it has already incurred a 650 percent increase.... We don't have a report on what the capital costs are going to be. I'm not sure where Marjorie got her figures, but I do know that her figures of $750 million have to be significantly closer than the capital cost of $75 million and the estimated operating cost of $75 million at the outset. So there's a very significant increase.

I want to know what is making the government so nervous about this situation. Will the minister assure us again, as he did in his opening statement, that something's happening out there? He indicated that Expo 86 is the most significant thing that will happen in this province in terms of attracting tourists; it's going to be the greatest thing on earth. Yet all these stories are out there, and they're stories that worry me because of the fact that government seems to be dancing around on this labour issue when it is not really a factor, according to the president of the CLRA, Chuck McVeigh. He said it very clearly. So how about it, Mr. Chairman? Will the minister tell us what's going on? Talk about your confidence. Is your confidence warranted? It doesn't seem to me that the Premier is very confident that Expo is going to happen. I think it would be a good idea to let us know at this point.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. VEITCH: In the Speaker's gallery today are four people who are accompanied by 56 students. Their leader is Mr. Wayne Axford, a friend of mine, who is a teacher at Moscrop Junior Secondary School, and Mrs. Nancy Fader. We are hosting 27 students from Moscrop Junior Secondary, and they are somewhere in the precincts. As well, we're hosting 25 students from Polyvalente D'Albé-Viau in Lachine, Quebec. Their teachers are M. Jean-Pierre Michaud and Mme. Gertrude Duclos. I would ask this House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting to note that the member's opening remarks were that the figures I gave for the increases in tourism in 1983, which I thought were fairly good news for the people of British Columbia, were ones he found boring. I didn't find them boring at all. I thought that in these tough economic times they were very significant and heartening figures.

I think it's also important to note that that member's solution to all of our problems is to throw money at them. He makes light of this government's restraint program, which, I might add, is being emulated in other jurisdictions across the country. I don't have any qualms about standing up here and talking about it; he seems to suggest that I shouldn't. I'm very proud of some of the savings we have made for the taxpayers of British Columbia — in particular, in my ministry. We have been able to pare down the operating side of the ministry, while not affecting the marketing side, which to me is all-important.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Questions on the world's fair. I don't know if there was a definite question there. There was a question as to whether there was any confidence in the fair, and I would answer that by saying that I have every confidence in the people who we have charged with the responsibility of bringing to British Columbia a first-class world's fair. We have put together a board of directors of leading business people from British Columbia. It is chaired by one of the leading business people in the country, Mr. Jimmy Pattison, and several others, whom I won't name. Also, we have some members from the federal side, appointed by the federal government, and some members appointed by the city of Vancouver. These people have been charged with the responsibility of putting together a first-class world's fair. I should add here, on their behalf, that they give unstintingly of their own time and energies, with absolutely no remuneration of any kind. I think they should be applauded by all British Columbians for the time and effort that they put into this fair.

They in turn have put together a team of people who they consider to be the very best available; their reputations speak for themselves. They have charged this team with the responsibility of putting on a world's fair — using money from Lotto 6-49, as the member has said, but also using the considerable moneys that will be generated by the fair itself. I won't go into all those sources, but I'm sure that people will realize that a fair of this size.... They have already signed up 31 nations from around the world, and several large corporations will generate many millions of dollars in revenue which, when added to the Lotto funds, will offset the expenses of the fair.

Earlier today the member mentioned the budget for Expo. I am certain that when the chairman and board of directors of the Crown corporation of Expo 86 are ready with the budget, it will be made public. I would anticipate that they will be bringing a budget to the government and to the public in the very near future.

As for his other comments regarding third-party comments heard on the CBC, I guess the people who make those

[ Page 4217 ]

comments are entitled to their opinion. I don't know what some of them base their opinion on — only they know that.

As for the labour problem that could possibly exist at Expo, I can only correct the member again and say that the Premier charged the chairman of the board with the responsibility of working out an arrangement with the building trades so that we and the people of British Columbia could be assured that we could bring this fair in and that we wouldn't expose the people of British Columbia to a multimillion dollar liability when it was not necessary to do so. For that reason, the chairman of the board is right at this moment holding up well over $100 million in building contracts. I think that's a wise move, and I commend the Premier and the chairman of the board for not exposing the taxpayers of British Columbia unnecessarily at this time. I'm sure that the chairman, Mr. Pattison, is doing his utmost to extract a satisfactory agreement so that we can assure those countries — which may number as high as 45 — and the corporations and the taxpayers of this province that as far as can be determined we can bring this fair in on time. And of course the board is charged with the responsibility of bringing it in on budget.

I trust that has answered the questions thus far.

MR. COCKE: The minister talks about great public-spirited people sitting on the Expo board. May I ask a direct question? The $35 million contract for the B.C. Pavilion won by Dominion Construction: was that untendered, as I understand it? And is Clark Bentall, the chairman of the board of Dominion Construction, the same Clark Bentall who sits on the board of Expo 86?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can't give the member the details of everyone who tendered on the contract, but yes, it went to tender, to the best of my knowledge. I could bring in the details. To the best of my knowledge it went to tender, and I'm reasonably certain that it did go to Dominion Construction, if my memory's correct.

MR. COCKE: I gather that the minister is suggesting that it was a tendered project and he would bring back the information. There has been some fairly significant talk around that it was not tendered, and that it was a contract placed directly.

[3:45]

The whole question of restraint with respect to Expo.... Because the minister seems so determined that restraint is the way to go, I'd like to ask him whether it's true that the founding father of restraint — also the founding father of Expo — allowed a Michael Bartlett, the president of Expo, a $100,000 salary and membership in the Shaughnessy Golf Club. We feel, I guess, that it's very difficult to accept words of restraint and of acknowledgement of restraint from the minister when under his auspices we have this Expo going absolutely berserk, it would seem, from an original suggested $150 million to.... I'm sure that the word is bandied about that it's $750 million, but I bear from sources fairly close to the whole thing that it'll be running close to a billion. It will be a shame if it's Jean Drapeau revisited.

It's a further shame that, as I understand it, to date there are only two.... Now there are a number of countries, as the minister suggested, that have committed themselves to get involved in Expo. But do you know how many corporate exhibitor commitments they have so far? The minister may correct me if I'm wrong. You will correct if I'm wrong, won't you? How about two?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You're wrong.

MR. COCKE: Will the minister tell us whether it's two or three?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I will.

MR. COCKE: Go ahead.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I haven't got it right at my fingertips. I'll have it for you in a minute.

MR. COCKE: He hasn't got it at his fingertips. Mr. Chairman, there's a lot that isn't at the minister's fingertips. There is a lot about this whole question that isn't at the Premier's fingertips. When Marjorie Nichols made the suggestion that Expo is going to cost us over $750 million, I believe she was probably on the lean, or conservative, side.

Mr. Chairman, has the minister recently received a revenue estimate from the lottery that is supporting Expo? How much will that provide the government in the next three years?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the member has asked three or four different questions, and I'll try to take them in order.

I'm not going to comment on the salaries of all the people at Expo; those will become public knowledge in due course.

I don't have the number of corporations right here. I have that in my office, and I will have it for the member momentarily. But he is wrong on the number.

The commitment to Expo from the lottery hasn't changed since day one. Again, I don't have here the numbers that are projected over the next three years. I suppose I could get them for the member, if he feels it is important, but I don't have them right at my fingertips.

I want to make one other point, as the member commented on Drapeau revisited. I want to make the distinction between two events that were hosted in Montreal under the stewardship of the same mayor. One was Expo 67, the world's fair, and the other was the Olympic Games. I want to put this on record so that the public is not confused between the two, because while Expo 67 was very successful in every way.... It was one of the proudest moments in Canada's history, and it was five and a half months long, as our world's fair will be. It was very successful, especially when one considers the up side of the equation and the numbers of dollars that that fair generated and the wealth that it pumped into the economy of Canada. But one should not confuse that world's fair, or any world's fair, with the Olympics held in that same city a few years later, which are quite different. The Olympics are a two-week-long event, and if memory serves me correctly — although I can't quote the number off the top of my head — it was what one would call a financial disaster. I just wanted to straighten that out when the member refers to the mayor of Montreal.

MR. COCKE: We're having a marvellous time this afternoon, Mr. Chairman; we're getting answers rushed at us like nothing on earth. "I don't know this; it's in my office." Or "I

[ Page 4218 ]

don't know that; it may be upstairs." And "I don't know something else; it may be over town." But he does know that one of the Expos was a success and something else was a failure, and why would I have the audacity to liken this to that? Well, maybe I'll give the minister some opportunity to do some research in his own area, and I'll go to some other areas in Tourism.

This afternoon we received an interesting report from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) of our province. That report said that there were no criminal acts with respect to the Ministry of Tourism or the two advertising agencies that were involved in this seven- or eight-month investigation. It has been going on for so long that I can hardly remember. Anyway, it's got some time behind it. I want to ask the minister: is McKim still acting for the Ministry of Tourism? The second question: is Vrlak Robinson still acting for the Ministry of Tourism? I want to couch that question in what was said in the report. The report said that the bookkeeping systems used by the Ministry of Tourism were totally unacceptable. It went on to say that the procedures used in both those agencies were totally unacceptable. Nobody's going to go to jail. Nobody's going to be charged. We're talking about taxpayers' money that has to go through that kind of a grinder, where there are totally unacceptable procedures used by the suppliers in both cases, according to their own reports, and totally unacceptable procedures used by the ministry. So much for restraint. The, best way in the world I've ever heard of to blow taxpayers' dollars is to have those taxpayers' dollars siphoned through unacceptable procedures.

We all saw the report from the auditor-general showing where people had been paid twice and three times for the same service. No wonder the Royal Canadian Mounted Police — fraud squad, I gather — were used. No wonder they said unacceptable procedures were being used. Is the minister still using the services of McKim. Advertising? Is McKim Advertising still the government advertising agency? I guess I'd have to ask that of the Provincial Secretary. In any event, I asked the Ministry of Tourism whether he's working for them and whether Vrlak Robinson is working for the Ministry of Tourism. I would also ask whether or not Valerie Vrlak has a responsibility with respect to the Ministry of Tourism.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'll back up and give the member some of the answers that I didn't have right at my fingertips earlier but have now. One was on the question of the British Columbia pavilion. Did it go to tender? My answer was yes, and I was correct. There were three companies that bid on the British Columbia pavilion. Their names are PCL Construction Ltd. of Richmond, Cana Construction Co. Ltd. of Richmond and Dominion Construction Co. Ltd. of Vancouver. So the project did go to tender, and I believe the winning tender was Dominion Construction.

On the number of corporations, the member asked if there were two. The answer is that there are six that have signed up so far, and several more are pending. I won't mention the ones pending, because negotiations are still going on. Some of those firms are very large and some of the dollar amounts involved are very large, and I would not like to prejudice any negotiations. Those corporations that have signed up so far, in addition to the 31 countries, are Canadian Pacific Ltd., Canadian National, Via Rail, Royal Bank, CP Air and Telecom Canada.

MR. COCKE: Marvellous.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't know what it would take to excite that gentleman over there. Perhaps someone else could answer that question better than I.

The member referred to the report tabled today in the House by the Attorney-General, and I for one am very pleased that this report has finally come in. I agree with the member that it has taken a very long time, but I also feel, after having read it, that a very thorough job was done. Like the Attorney-General, I am satisfied in my own mind that there was no criminal intent, no evidence of fraud or any wrongdoing.

The member asks about McKim Advertising. I'd like to point out to him that since last year the advertising dollars for the Ministry of Tourism now come under the Provincial Secretary's ministry and are placed by government information services. His question was: does the Ministry of Tourism still directly use McKim Advertising? The answer is no, not directly. The same answer goes for Vrlak Robinson, the other firm referred to.

Yes, Mrs. Valerie Vrlak does work for the Ministry of Tourism in Vancouver. She is a very valued employee of this ministry, and her day-to-day job description does not call for her to become involved in any advertising dollars spent by or for the Ministry of Tourism. I think I have answered all the members questions thus far.

I can elaborate a little bit further on the contract for the B.C. pavilion. Ten firms were asked for pre-qualification submissions and, out of those ten, three were asked to submit proposals. I've named the three that submitted proposals, and one of them was the successful bidder.

MR. COCKE: Well, we're getting a few answers, and I'm very excited.

Will the minister tell us who is agent of record or the advertising agency now used by the Ministry of Tourism? His answer is a little bit confusing, because he said we're not using them directly. I gathered from that that we can use somebody indirectly; in other words, it would be something like shades of the past, because I remember that one of the criticisms before was that one agency would get the job or would be agent of record, so to speak, and then pass it off to another agency, and that's where all the confusion began. Now is it that same sort of thing? Have you involved a third agency that will take the business and then that third agency will pass it on to McKim, if they so will, or Vrlak? It's a very confusing thing. The minister says, "We're not using them directly," so therefore the corollary to that, I gather, would be: "Yes, we are using them indirectly." Otherwise he would have said: "No, we're not using them." So I would wonder what the minister has to say about that in terms of the response to the report.

[4:00]

Secondly, when the question was asked this afternoon about the availability of the report, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) nodded to me that the report would be available. Well, he walked out into the hall and he handed those two or three sheets of paper that he read from in the House this afternoon.... I hope that he has talked to his colleague, because we'd like to see the report — not the Attorney-General's report on the report, because it says nothing of great consequence other than that everything is lovely in the garden except that there is a lot of incompetence

[ Page 4219 ]

around. What can the minister do to assure us in the opposition that the report will be available so that we are able to read it and report to the public our feelings with respect to the whole question? I'm not arguing — as a matter of fact, I never did think — that there were criminal activities around this situation. I did think, however, that it had to be a proper report, and I said in the House that it was very unlikely.... But at the same time, when that kind of a report comes out, the air has to be cleared. I'll tell you something of consequence in this: the entire handling of the taxpayers' dollars and the way they have been over the years. So I think that we'd better hear that there have been some significant changes made before we can have any feeling of confidence.

I'll ask the minister again: is our utilization of the two advertising agencies indirect, and what has been done within the ministry to see to it that this sort of thing doesn't happen any longer?

HON. MR. RICHMOND. First of all I want to clear up any misunderstanding that the member or anyone else might have when I said that indirectly, yes, we do use McKim. Technically — and I want to be technically correct — the dollars that are spent in the advertising end of Tourism now appear in the Provincial Secretary's vote. There is nothing to hide; nothing ulterior, as that member usually alludes to. It's plainly and simply not booked through my ministry. Yes, we do use that agency, but the dollars are in another vote. The agency of record for the Ministry of Tourism through the Provincial Secretary's vote is McKim Advertising.

I want to put it clearly on the record, because of the innuendo that is always here, that this report the member is dealing with, which came in today, deals with events in the Ministry of Tourism prior to my getting there. I want to assure that member, and all other members of this House — and the taxpayers of British Columbia — that since that time there have been no more incidents of multiple agencies being used. These are a thing of the past.

MR. COCKE: How do you know? You just told us that Jimmy Chabot's doing it now.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can assure that member that that's not happening. As I told you, the dollars for the advertising come under his vote, but as is reported in the report that the Attorney-General tabled today, the systems that were in place when these events took place were not adequate. Those systems have since been changed. I've assured the people many times outside this House — and now I'd like to assure them inside this House — that the systems that were in place and that were the cause of a lot of this confusion have been changed and tightened up. In fact, I asked the Minister of Finance to send people into the ministry from the comptroller-general's office, which he did, just to reassure me and everyone else that the ministry was functioning as it should, according to the Financial Administration Act; and the comptroller-general, through the Minister of Finance, assured me that that was the case.

So I just want that clearly on the record. These things are in the past. The systems, as is said in the report, were weak, and the checks and balances were not there. I can assure people that they are now there, and that these things are not happening now and will not happen in the future.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister holds up the report on the auditor-general's report and says: "I've read that report and I've come to the conclusion that I agree with the final recommendation." But there's no suggestion that the members of this chamber or the public of British Columbia will be able to read that report and see whether they agree with the minister. I don't think there's much use arguing the point, Mr. Chairman. We're here to ask questions and express disagreements. It's a strange kind of investigation where the report is seen by the minister and he says, "I come to the conclusion that it is supportable." but it can't be seen by the public. It's kind of a police state we're getting into, where investigations are shuttled off in this manner. Of course, a public inquiry is never permitted.

I just say that. My opinions are pretty well known on that subject; I've got a basic disagreement with the government in terms of the kind of secrecy they practise and their refusal to let the public into these things. But I want to ask a question of the minister. My recollection of the auditor-general's report is that a lot of money had been misspent — and I'm not talking about the criminal aspects, because we've dealt with that. Are any moneys being recovered now by the department of Tourism, or by some other department of government acting for the department of Tourism?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, the member, when he first got to his feet, mentioned the auditor-general's report. I think he was referring to the Attorney-General's report.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I said the report on the auditor general's report.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, I just want to make it clear that the report tabled today was not from the auditor general, it was from the Attorney-General.

MR. MACDONALD: I know.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I understand, Mr. Member, that you have a quarrel with the way these reports are handled. That's one you'll have to take up with the Attorney General, not with me.

MR. MACDONALD: I won't get very far with him.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, that's a problem you'll have to solve; it's not one I'm going to solve for you. I refer you to the Attorney-General if you wish to see the report. I can assure this House, that member and everyone else that I have not seen the RCMP report: I have seen exactly what the Attorney-General read into the record today, and I saw it at the same time as you did.

MR. MACDONALD: Then I misunderstood what you said.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The only report I've seen is what was tabled in the House today; I just want to make that clear.

As far as the auditor-general's earlier report goes, yes, there were incidents of double payments and other irregularities, and I can assure the member that all of those moneys have been recovered. We are thankful that they were pointed out. Of course, the auditor-general's function is to find those

[ Page 4220 ]

things. The systems have now been improved and tightened so that.... One can't say that it will never happen again — that nobody will ever make a double payment — but the likelihood of its ever happening is very much less than it was.

There were many things in her first report that were pointed out to us. We have since filed a report back with her, outlining to the auditor-general just what steps we have taken in the ministry to correct those things which were wrong and which were weak. I have seen that report, and I am very satisfied that we have complied not only with her suggestions but with the Financial Administration Act. To repeat, the comptroller-general is also satisfied, as I am, that the systems in my ministry are now much better and much tighter, and are functioning as they should.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I was under a misapprehension. I thought that the minister had said he had read the RCMP report and the one that Mr. Doust had topped up, but apparently he hasn't. It's kind of a shame, isn't it, Mr. Chairman, that even the minister can't see these super-secret inquiries to see if he agrees with the conclusions reached, to see whether there isn't some other money that might be recovered and that should be gone after? We really do live in a very strange kind of a democracy where even the minister doesn't have access to these pertinent pieces of information.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: It is, isn't it? A great form of investigation we have going in this province, I suppose, where somebody talks only to his wife and his wife talks only to God about these things. I don't know what it is, but I do know it's totally unsatisfactory, and it cannot allay public disquiet. Any member of the public or any member of this chamber who is prepared to take the dictate of a minister — the Attorney-General or anyone else — is supinely acquiescing in his own uselessness.

The minister said they had got some money back. That's good, and I hope the Minister of Finance knows it, because we're in very bad shape. We're in a period of restraint. I'd be better off if I was in restraint myself — a straitjacket. But how much money was recovered, and from whom, Mr. Minister? I don't want the details in full, but I want to know if you got any money back from McKim or from some of the employees. How much did you get? The Minister of Finance wants to know. I want to know.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To deal with the member's last question first, the dollar amounts that were recovered, because of double payments and discrepancies, have all been recovered and it has been dealt with in confidence with the auditor-general. I have no intention of making those figures public at this time. I imagine they will be a matter of public record in due course.

MR. MACDONALD: No, the public might hear. You'd better not say it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm certain, Mr. Member, that if the auditor-general is satisfied, then I'm satisfied and the public is satisfied. I have the same regard for the Attorney General and his decision, and for the RCMP. You don't seem to hold them in as high regard as I do. I am satisfied that if the RCMP say there is no criminal intent.... That's good enough for me. When you say that I haven't seen the RCMP report and that's a shame, I don't think it is. I think it's the way it should be. I don't really think that I need to see everything that's in that report. I am satisfied that if they and private counsel assure the Attorney-General that there was no criminal wrongdoing or evidence of fraud, that's good enough for me. I have every faith that the RCMP is impartial and has conducted a very lengthy, very thorough investigation. So you may question them if you like, Mr. Member. I'm not going to question them. Their report had nothing to do with the recovering of money, as you alluded to in your first remarks.

MR. MACDONALD: It might have.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: If it had, I'm sure they would have pressed charges. But I am certain that their investigation had nothing to do with the recovery of money. The auditor general's report did and the moneys have been recovered.

[4:15]

MR. COCKE: This is a revelation. The minister stands in the House and indicates to us that we should have total confidence.... Sure we have confidence in the RCMP, but we also have confidence in our own ability to read, and what we got from the Attorney-General was an inadequate report — apart from its saying that there was incompetence all over the face of the earth. But you know, the minister then goes on to tell us about his confidence in the auditor-general. It's not shared, colleague, because the most recent remark made by the auditor-general was the fact that the more she digs, the worse it gets. That's just a matter of less than a month ago. The more she digs into that whatever, the worse it gets. The auditor-general is not going to make a remark like that unless it's pretty bad.

No doubt behind the scenes, as the Socreds always love to do, they're trying to clean up their act. They're doing this and they're doing that, but the fact of the matter is they shouldn't do it behind the scenes. Once there's an admission that there have been bad procedures or.... I call it bad behaviour, to tell you the truth; it's behaviour that demands that money be repaid. The minister has admitted that money had to be repaid. If that money has been recovered, then why was it lost in the first place? I had to say to the press that it disappeared into the blue. I can't say anything else.

We get a document today that doesn't really bear fruit in terms of what we should be doing in this Legislature. What we should be doing in this committee is seeing to it that the voters in Omineca, New Westminster, North Island and every other constituency in this province know what's going on in the Ministry of Tourism. That's what we're here for: we're here to see to it that the people who are paying the bills know what they're paying for. They're the taxpayers, to whom we are totally responsible, and we get answers to questions that are totally inadequate, under the circumstances.

The minister gets up and says, "That member for New Westminster" — I'm paraphrasing — "is full of innuendo, makes terrible charges," and so on. No wonder, Mr. Chairman. Wouldn't you? Give us the facts; give us the information. We don't need the whole report from the standpoint of every interrogation that went on, and so on, but we need the report that the A-G got. He comes in here and assures us that all is well, all is lovely in the garden, that they have some procedures that are bad, but surely someday they're going to

[ Page 4221 ]

smarten them up. I believe we should see that report here in this House. It should be tabled.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The minister says: "I'm confident." He's confident in this, he's confident in that, but his confidence isn't necessarily shared. That's all we're saying.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I believe that member has two reports confused. He is talking about the recovery of money, which I have dealt with and which was dealt with in the auditor-general's report. The report that was tabled today by the Attorney-General didn't deal with that; the report was from the RCMP and dealt with whether there was any criminal intent.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Because I'm going to read to you, Mr. Member, what was said today, just to put it on the record again.

"As I have indicated before, Mr. Doust has reported to me directly" — 'me' being the Attorney General — "his findings and conclusions. He has reviewed with me carefully both the scope of the investigation and the details of his opinion. Mr. Doust was most critical of the system of financial control that was in place during 1981-82 in the Ministry of Tourism and those advertising agencies with which it conducted business. In this he is in agreement with Mr. Hooper, the accountant, who reported and concluded that there were very inadequate systems controls on the part of the ministry, extremely poor and uncontrolled accounting in recording systems in Vrlak, and poor expense or docket control on the part of McKim.

"As sloppy and as incomplete as these financial controls may be, they do not in themselves provide grounds for involving the criminal law process."

So I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that the accounts of double payments and moneys were dealt with in the auditor-general's first report and, I'm sure, will be dealt with at length in the auditor-general's second report. But as far as the report from the RCMP goes, I see no need for that member or any other member to have the full report as presented to the Attorney General.

MR. COCKE: The more he talks, the more incredible this whole situation becomes. He says that there was this kind of coincidence, and we found them all together in one place: sloppy procedures on the part of two advertising agencies, sloppy procedures on the part of the ministry. You put that into a mix, and he assures us that we don't have to see the report. The more he talks, the more I demand to see the report.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now we find, of course, that it has gone to Doug Heal, the czar of all that this government has to say in terms of propaganda. Doug Heal, however, works for the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot). So that minister uses the Ministry of Provincial Secretary to do his advertising. But who do we find as agent of record? Holy doodle, we find sloppy McKim. And I'm not using my words; I'm using the words that were in that report. It said that it was sloppy and unacceptable. I wonder if the minister could tell us how much McKim paid back. How much did Vrlak Robinson pay back for their incompetence? I wonder why they would use an agency that is described in a report as having unacceptable procedures. Maybe the former Attorney-General would answer my question.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He thinks I'm too young. That is the first flattering thing that has been said to me all day.

I guess we've said all we can say. We're sure going to have to go after the Attorney-General for some fleshing-out of that report. The minister says that he's satisfied, but that doesn't necessarily assure me. He may be satisfied with the pieces of paper he read to us, but I can't see how he could be satisfied with those pieces of paper that talk about "incompetence" and "sloppy, unacceptable procedures." Anyway, so much for that.

I have a couple of other questions for the minister. I'd like to ask him about Beautiful British Columbia magazine. I wonder how it's doing. It's interesting that Beautiful British Columbia magazine went to Jim Pattison. I noticed on the front page of the local newspaper today that there was some criticism of Jimmy Pattison and his publishing company. I hope that Beautiful British Columbia magazine isn't going to be part of the pornographic empire that was described in the Times-Colonist today.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's what he's selling — Beautiful British Columbia, Hustler and Penthouse.

MR. COCKE: And other sleazy magazines.

Getting off that and into something that I think is just a little bit more relevant, I want to ask the minister about his report, where he indicated that it was a loser for the government — yet Jimmy Pattison still bought it. I want to ask him about these figures. I have figures here that say to me that in 1979 the magazine's budget was $1,594,993 and its revenue was $1,647,741. It strikes me that there was a profit. In 1980-81 the magazine's budget was $1,777,636, and revenue was $1,952,925. Is that correct? Incidentally, in 1979 there were 1,686,670 magazines printed, and in 1980-81 there were 1,728,640 magazines printed. I also have information that tells me that the cost of production of that magazine was $1.45, and the sale price was $1.50. So it doesn't look like a loser to me; it looks like a winner for the government. But he sold a loser to Jimmy Pattison, a guy who doesn't often pick up losers.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: There's an expert businessman over there telling me how you make winners out of losers — you clip them.

MR. REID: Just say something in here that you can say out in the hall.

[ Page 4222 ]

MR. COCKE: That member can sure dish it out, but he can't take it.

In 1981-82 the magazine's budget was $1,792,020; its revenue in 1981-82 was $1,968,495, and that was an estimate. I believe that the statistics were actually $2,022,000. That's the loser that we sold to Jimmy Pattison. Now that the first copy has hit the streets, we are singularly impressed with the work that was done. We do believe, however, that the magazine will be a real paying magazine in the future, because the demand that it not carry advertising only continues for a couple of years, as I recall. I think it was a mistake and a shame, and that we should not have let that magazine go to the private sector. There were a lot of other things that we shouldn't have let go to the private sector, but that is for them to decide, because at the present time they happen to be the government. One of their members likes it, but I can remember the days when he wouldn't have.

I'd like to ask a few more questions, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask who Cone-Heiden is? He delivers many hundreds of cases of tourism information in the United States — Ski magazine, maps and handbooks, all over the United States. I wonder if the $26,000 that he was paid last year is for delivery or mailing — however he gets rid of them — to the different chambers of commerce, and we've got lists of them. Was that $26,000 just to get a thousand cases of tourism information around the parts of the United States that we want to impress? Can the minister answer that? I believe that there were exactly 1,000 cases sent from here to Cone-Heiden, 417 East Pine Street, Seattle, Washington, and from there they go to such places as the Allstate Motor Club, Menlo Park, California; the California Automobile Association, Sacramento; Spokane; and here, there and everywhere. It sounds like a lot of money, but I'm just wondering whether or not it wouldn't probably be in our own best interests to have B.C. House in San Francisco do the job; they have access to the American mails. You could bulk-mail them there, and then send them from B.C. House, or do we have to have a fairly expensive, it would seem to me, mailing outlet that does the job for us?

[4:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to try to take the questions in order.

Again, I think that the member is referring to the auditor general's report, and all of the numbers he refers to are in there. The operative word that he uses is "was." He said "there was sloppiness," and yes, there was. "There were systems that were weak." Yes, there were. The operative words there are "was" and "were." It's all past tense. When the member asks what moneys were paid back by McKim and Vrlak, I would assure him that the auditor-general is satisfied that everything that was owed to us was paid back. I want to put on record for that member, this House and the public that every nickel that was owed to us was paid back, and I don't think the amounts are important at this time.

MR. COCKE: Is there a report to that effect?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm sure there will be. When the auditor-general gets around to tabling that report, I'm sure you'll find that it's in there. As I said, we have also responded to her report and assured her that these things have been done.

The member commented at length on Beautiful British Columbia magazine, which was the subject of last year's estimates and really has no place in this discussion of the estimates for 1984-85. But for the record, I would like to delineate to that member, and to everyone else, that when you're talking about the costs of Beautiful British Columbia magazine you must bear in mind that the numbers don't include mailing costs, many of the staff costs — such as creative overheads — or many of the joint costs with people on Wharf Street that can't be allocated to the magazine. The numbers are very misleading, and when you put all of the costs together you will find that there is quite an operating deficit. For example, the postage costs alone are in excess of $600,000, and those do not appear in the figures that the member used.

I honestly can't tell you about Cone-Heiden, which I think is the name the member mentioned, as I've never heard of Cone-Heiden. But I feet that it's the company we use to distribute our material into the United States. It's sent in bulk to Seattle, probably to the address the member quoted. All of our literature going to all of the foreign offices in the States go via this one carrier to the address in Seattle and then are dispensed from there. But I don't have the numbers in front of me as to what we pay this firm. I can get them for the member — in fact I think they're on the way now — but that's the best explanation I can give on the Cone-Heiden incident.

MR. COCKE: I can give you some numbers, Mr. Chairman. In 1980-81 the government of B.C. paid Cone-Heiden $13,692; in 1982-83, $23,790; and in 1982-83, $26,170. I'm just wondering whether that's what he got for sending 1,000 cases forward. It sounds like a lot of money to me, and if B.C. House couldn't do it cheaper than that, I'd be very surprised.

The minister and I disagree on Beautiful British Columbia magazine. I'm not sure why the ministry-zoned briefing notes I'm reading from would say something that isn't all-inclusive. Why would they say that the thing is a winner if it's a loser? Anyway, that's neither here nor there; it's gone now, unfortunately, and I guess it's going to be a while before we get it back, if ever.

In the last month or two, or three, when we were having our little argument across the floor, I asked about Jim Pavich in California. I saw recently that his tenure has ended. I noticed that an order-in-council of February 17, signed by the Premier and the Provincial Secretary, rescinds the appointment of Jim Pavich. I say that without comment. You know, the minister told me at the time that that was one good way of hiring people, because you could always fire them very easily or quickly. He may have quit; it makes no particular difference at this juncture.

I have another thing here that I would like to ask about. This is kind of interesting to me. I wonder why it is that during March 1982 there was a very interesting situation — this is before the minister was there — in which Grantree somehow or another plays a role. Grantree wrote to Dave Barrett at the time — the Leader of the Opposition — copied in the second member for Vancouver East, and also Stu Leggatt, who was then member for Coquitlam-Moody. I gather that Grantree must be involved with Welcome Wagon. They kept asking for ministry material, and I gather were not very successful in getting ministry materials to put with the rest of the gifts to their people. A Richard Lewis said that he regretted very much to advise that he was unable to meet their request for travel literature, considering that over 20,000 new

[ Page 4223 ]

residents arrived in B.C. Well, that's fair enough; I understand that. He tells how they distribute it, and that's very straightforward. The thing that bothers me is that he then sends out a note that's copied to others, and he regrets and apologizes for copying the Leader of the Opposition in on what I consider to be benign information. Does Grantree now have any kind of a connection where they are welcoming people with our information? I would imagine that they may be something to do with Welcome Wagon. I wonder if the minister has established whether or not there is a relationship.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'll deal with the last one first. As the member points out, this goes back to March '82, before my tenure as the Minister of Tourism, but I'm advised by my deputy that the answer is no, we never have had, nor do we have at this time, any connection with Grantree, which I think is a furniture rental company. That is probably the prime reason they were turned down as a distributor of tourism literature.

I have a more full answer for the member on Cone Heiden. They distribute for us in the U.S. and maintain a warehouse facility, They save us paying brokerage charges each time a request is made for B.C. literature in the U.S.A., and they store and ship on our behalf. It's cheaper than having our own facilities and staff down there. That answers the question as to the name of that company, and I think that gives a fairly succinct answer. The accent there should be on the fact that it is cheaper than having our own facilities and staff. We save money by employing this company to distribute literature for us and to take it across the border.

I would like to comment just briefly on the matter of Mr. Pavich. It is unfortunate in one sense that he developed a health problem and found that he couldn't accept the position, but I point out to the member the value of the order-in-council and the simplicity of how it operates. I do feel very badly about not having Mr. Pavich there, but that is one of the things that happen.

I think that answers every question that the member has put to me thus far.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think one of my colleagues wants to ask a couple of questions. I have very little more that I would like to ask the minister at this time. We had a little chat about a month ago, and I think probably he's giving a few more answers now. He's at least endeavouring; I'll give him that much credit.

I want to say this, in winding up my statement: I don't believe that tourism is being well enough served. I think it was a disastrous mistake to move the advertising away from Tourism. I think it should be there. I think the excitement is there. I've always said that Doug Heal's department is pure propaganda, and I don't think it's a good place to have that particular responsibility resting. I believe it should be resting in the Ministry of Tourism, where the preoccupation is with tourism and attracting tourists to our province. You're not going to get any criticism from me about who you use down in Washington or anywhere else to distribute information about this province.

I agreed with your early statement that tourism is a most important industry in this province. I think we're underplaying it from a standpoint of restraint or call it whatever you like, and I don't think it should be downplayed in any way. I think tourism should be a very high priority at the moment. There are some things we can do nothing very much about. If they're not building houses in the United States, then we can't sell them a lot of lumber for a house they're not building. But the one thing you can't take away from this province is its beauty, its natural attraction. We're a province with five different and distinct geographic zones. We've got everything from desert to rain forest. It's a most remarkable province. The only way we can really get this thing going in terms of tourism is to make sure that everybody out there knows about us and that this is the place to come.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the government should upgrade the Ministry of Tourism. That should be an absolute priority in terms of getting the message out. I say it's desperately wrong to have moved that responsibility into Doug Heal's department, because I don't think it's right that a propaganda machine like that should be the one that's dispensing information about this province. We may as well privatize that too. I think it should be back at home, and I think the minister, whoever he or she might be, should be directly responsible for everything that happens with respect to the promotion of tourism in this province. I do think it's a priority, and I think that right now we're suffering as a result of the fact that the minister has been inhibited by this very move of all that information-dispensing to Doug Heal and his group.

[4:45]

MR. GABELMANN: I'm going to be very brief, and in a sense go not from the sublime to the ridiculous but from the general to the specific and raise what in the scheme of things is a small issue — a local one in my riding. I've been asked by the mayors and members of councils and the regional district members in all of the communities on northern Vancouver Island from Woss north — Port Hardy, Port McNeill, Alert Bay, Port Alice and the regional district of Mt. Waddington — to raise with the Minister of Tourism an issue that is only indirectly related to tourism but is also related to the parks branch of a different ministry.

The problem is that the economy of that part of Vancouver Island has been very narrowly based on the traditional resources of fishing, mining and forestry. All three of those resources are in decline inasmuch as job creation is concerned. The communities have embarked on a very vigorous campaign to develop the beginnings of a tourism industry on northern Vancouver Island and have felt that there has been very little or no support for those initiatives from the province. They cite as examples of that repeated requests by local government to improve tourist facilities such as recreational vehicle campsites, improved maintenance and access to major parks in the area, which certainly include the Cape Scott Provincial Park in which there is virtually no maintenance being done except what the Armed Forces happen to do on occasion in Cape Scott Park. There are no provincial government campsites north of Campbell River. There are absolutely no provincial government campsites anywhere on northern Vancouver Island. With the exception of a couple of small, private sites that are being developed, there are no facilities for recreational vehicles. It's the kind of area that attracts tourists who go for the outdoors, fishing and activities that are very much parks and outdoors related. I simply want to make an appeal to the Minister of Tourism, on behalf of those local communities and their tourism agencies and advisory boards and the various groups that are involved in promoting tourism for that region, that he, in discussions with the minister responsible for parks, treat seriously — in a

[ Page 4224 ]

non-ideological way, if possible — the whole question of development, maintenance and improvement of camping facilities.

There's no argument from me, ever, about the issue of encouraging private camping facilities. I don't object to that. One of the ironies, I suspect, is that the private campsite developers do better when there are provincial campsites around, because people go to the provincial government campsites, they find them full, and they spill over into the private campsite operator's location. When tourists look at the provincial government road maps or the parks branch maps of the province and look for government campsites on northern Vancouver Island, they find none — any private sites that might exist, and there are very few and they are only beginning to develop, and aren't indicated — so they don't go, because people want to go for camping either with recreational vehicles or tenting. That has a severe impact on those private operators who are attempting to set up facilities; it also has an impact of the viability of those communities who depend upon the diversification of their economies. I would urge that the Minister of Tourism recognize and accept these arguments that are made locally — not from any ideological perspective, because they are being made by councils and regional board members from every political perspective. Requests are being made sincerely that one of the major components for improvement of tourism in the northern part of Vancouver Island would be a response by the parks branch to the creation of not many, but some provincial campsites, and also the maintenance of the existing park facilities such as Cape Scott Park, which is a magnificent tourist destination, but the trails aren't maintained and are inadequate. I am dramatically understating how bad it really is there. I make that appeal on behalf of those people who are interested in developing tourism on northern Vancouver Island.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'd like to thank the member for North Island for those remarks and for bringing the wishes of the people, especially the elected people in his area, to my attention. Let me assure that member and all of the people from the north end of the Island that I will take his remarks very seriously, and I will meet with the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) to see if something can be done to promote the type of facility that he mentions. I realize their importance too, as more and more people use this means of travel and accommodation.

I would also like, on his behalf, I know, and that of everyone in the Ministry of Tourism, to congratulate Campbell River for their appointment of Mr. Norman McLaren as a full-time convention manager. He has been a very active member of the Provincial Tourist Advisory Council. He's been invaluable to me and my ministry. I think they couldn't have made a better choice. I'm very happy to see Campbell River actively pursuing the convention and visitor business. I wish Mr. McLaren well.

Just in closing, I would like to respond to a couple of remarks made by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) before he left. I think every member in this House agrees with him that it's a great place to live; I don't think he has to sell us on this province. I've lived here all my life and I don't think there's a finer place on earth to live. I just want him to know that that sentiment is shared by several people other than himself.

He talks about input to the marketing and advertising of tourism. Let me assure him that our people do have control of the advertising and the thrust of it, and the direction of marketing in this ministry. We've been working very hard and diligently in the past few weeks to put together our advertising package for the coming year. I would invite him, and every member of this Legislature, to attend the launch of our 1984 marketing program next week in the Hotel Vancouver at 9 o'clock in the morning. If he is truly interested in seeing what we are doing in tourism this coming year, could be please be in the Hotel Vancouver next Wednesday morning at 9 o'clock. I'm sure that he'll be very pleased and enthused at what he sees we have in store for tourism in 1984.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be fairly brief. Tourism is important to many parts, if not all parts, of British Columbia. It's certainly an important aspect of the economy in my riding, particularly the Sunshine Coast, Powell River and Texada areas — particularly the Sunshine Coast. In that area we've had great improvements in accommodation and fine places for people to eat. We have opportunities for fishing, boating, hiking and all of the things that people have been talking about this afternoon. I know the minister is aware of that. We do have a problem. I wonder if the minister has addressed himself to one of the major problems — a 36 percent unemployment rate in my riding. This is not counting the people out of work at the present time because of the lockout, which is just about to end presumably — sometime.

I want to know, in view of the recent horrendous ferry fare increases and reduced scheduling to areas like the Sunshine Coast and Powell River, which have had a definite effect on the tourists coming into my riding.... We can tell by the figures from the B.C. Ferry Corporation, which are public knowledge, the number of people using the vessel on each trip — walk-on, vehicles — every day of the week, by the month or by the year. We can tell very readily. I can tell because from time to time, believe it or not, I get invited to attend and to speak at chamber of commerce meetings.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I go. I go to NDP meetings, chamber of commerce.... I've never been to a Socred meeting. I'm never invited to them, Mr. Chairman.

MR. REID: You should go to one.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would. If they'd invite me as their guest speaker, I'd love to go. Anyway, the people who normally belong to a chamber of commerce are the small business people in a community. They know very well....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We have some NDP members in the various chambers of commerce in Sechelt, Gibsons, Texada Island and Powell River — a few.

Mr. Chairman, these people know very well the effects of the increased fares, and particularly of the reduced scheduling. This is really a killer in terms of the tourist industry on the Sunshine Coast. I have discussed this on many occasions with the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), who is sitting in this House at the present time. For example, there's the late sailing to the Sunshine Coast. It's part of tourism. I want to know if the minister has approached

[ Page 4225 ]

his colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Highways, or made any representation at all to the board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation — you know, Mr. Stu Hodgson, chairman of the board, and Mr. Baldwin, general manager. I'm able to talk with them all the time. I get all kinds of information, and sometimes they'll make small adjustments in terms of assisting the ferry service to the communities that are served in my riding. They are very approachable. I want to know if the minister has made any approach at all to these people on behalf of the tourist industry on the Sunshine Coast.

I have to admit that many people who make their homes on the Sunshine Coast — I hear this from time to time at ratepayers' meetings — are not particularly interested in tourists. From time to time tourists, seem to clog up the ferries and the highways, and they would rather they stayed home. But that isn't the general outlook in the area, I must admit. These people who complain about tourists are usually tourists themselves at least once a year somewhere. It works both ways.

I do want to make one final point. The Social Credit candidate in the last election happens to be a manager and part-owner of a very large tourist facility at Powell River, and he's hurting. He admits that he's hurting. Here is a good possible candidate for you in the next election, and you're putting him out of business. You should be ashamed of yourself over there.

So, Mr. Minister, talk to that minister over there. Have your talk with the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Are we going to get some proper and decent scheduling and fair rates on those vessels serving my riding?

[5:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions which ask administrative actions of a different ministry would be out of order. The minister may wish to reply, but our standing orders are quite clear as to what may discussed in Committee of Supply.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for pointing that out to the member. However, I want to assure him that I talk fairly regularly with the minister responsible for the B.C. Ferry Corporation and with the manager of the Ferry Corporation, Mr. Hodgson. He is very aware of the role that the ferries play in tourism, not only on the runs you are talking about but on other ones, and I'm very thankful for that. He is aware that the ferries are there for more than just to move commuters back and forth. I appreciate the member's comments. I think that if you monitor the ferry schedules — as you say you are doing — over perhaps a little longer period of time and come to either me or directly to the minister or to Mr. Hodgson, I'm sure that we will take that into account. It's very serious. If indeed it is affecting tourism in your area, then we should know about that. So I appreciate your saying that you monitor these things.

I want to point out to you, too, some of the work that the Expo task force has been doing in your area. They have been doing a lot of good work. It should be on the record, and your people should know about that in developing programs in your region. Expo-Oasis on the Sunshine Coast and the Powell River Expo committee are both very active and working very closely with our people at Expo. I just wanted you to be aware — I'm sure you were — and to put it on the record that we're very active.

You mentioned a facility in the area, a large hotel. I'm aware of it, although I've never stayed in it. You should be aware, and I guess you are, of the tremendous potential in your area for scuba diving. The fellow who has the hotel promotes it very actively. We market this very vigorously for you too, wherever we can. especially in publications that deal with diving, all over the world. According to the experts, it's in the top 2O or so diving areas in the world. Not only do we market it aggressively, but so do people in the area, including Mr. Price, whom you mentioned.

I think I have answered most of your questions.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A short comment. I didn't get into the scuba diving and all of the other activities in the riding, which I could have. I'm very familiar with it. I used to scuba dive myself, and I taught the sport for many years.

Mr. Chairman, I want to put on record that I am aware what the Expo committees are doing in my communities. They do keep me fully informed, and their activities are reported in the local papers as well.

For the record, Mr. Hodgson, Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Lund from the Ministry of Highways are coming up to my riding on the 25th of this month to discuss better scheduling so we can get a few people and keep some of these facilities open in my communities. I arranged a meeting in three different communities.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, following on what my colleague from Mackenzie has been talking about, we of course have Islands 86 here. They have been basically concentrating. It would seem, on getting together lists of attractions and getting those attractions publicized, as far as Expo 86 goes. I have had some discussions with the president of the local chamber of commerce, who shares some of my concerns relative to transportation and accommodation. I know that there are some plans to try for bed and breakfast, and those kinds of things, and that will certainly resolve some of the problems. We are proposing to bring some 15 million people to Vancouver Island in a period of four months, and that's a pretty massive undertaking without some very definite planning being done as to how we handle those people. I can just imagine the horrendous problems that could result if that planning isn't in place.

I know it is not this minister's responsibility, but one of the things that came to my attention very recently was a young woman who was thinking of offering her home for bed and breakfast during Expo 86. She had taken in a 15-year-old child from the Ministry of Human Resources who was staying in her home, and who took her car and wrecked it. As a result she has lost her safe driver's discount. One of the questions she posed to me was: "If I offer my home for bed and breakfast during Expo and a stranger comes in and takes my car, am I going to lose my safe driver's discount?" That's just one example of the things that can occur.

For many years I have been an advocate of package tours, particularly for Vancouver Island. One of the reasons why I say particularly Vancouver Island is that if you have package tours you do not need to take up all that space on the ferries for buses and private cars. You can bring them across as foot passengers, meet them and deal with them in that manner. Also important is getting the greatest dollar return that we can for the area where those tourists visit, and this doesn't necessarily apply only to Expo 86 but to any point in time. I have discussed this with both of this minister's predecessors, I

[ Page 4226 ]

believe — the present Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Minister of Tourism subsequent to her. I have seen too many people come to Vancouver Island who probably think that they're going to some isolated area, and they come in with a vehicle equipped with everything they'll need. The most money they spend is probably a few dollars for fuel and maybe for a couple of souvenirs. We don't get our best return from people who come in like that.

What we really lack on Vancouver Island is some kind of a coordinated effort whereby we can put together the attractions of various parts of the Island and provide a prearranged tour that can be sold ahead of time — one where we don't tie up the ferries with all kinds of vehicles and have people wandering from place to place dealing with this or that little map, or this or that little brochure; people who plan ahead of time what they're going to do, and do those things, people who use our hotels and have opportunities to shop, all the things that happen when you go to Europe or any other area on that kind of tour. You leave far more money behind if you do that. I would hope that with a couple of years of lead time this minister will be able to bring that about. As I say, I have discussed that with both of his predecessors, and it still hasn't happened anywhere in B.C. to any great extent, and certainly not on Vancouver Island.

Working toward Expo 86, I think, would be an ideal opportunity to work out those kinds of package deals so that we would know ahead of time how many people we're going to have at any given time and where those people are going to be. We would be able to accommodate them without the utter chaos that would result, say, on B.C. Ferries for local residents who have doctor's appointments in Vancouver, or are planning a holiday on the mainland, and can't get aboard the ferry. Those things can cause great difficulties for local Island residents during the peak tourist season.

I have talked with that minister's colleague — who was in the House but has now left — about the need for some kind of system of one or two ferries a day on which reservations for local people can be made. I know that is not this minister's responsibility, but I think that in working these things out that minister is going to have to deal with his colleagues to try to ensure that Expo 86, if and when it happens, is a pleasant memory and not a nightmare.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to assure the member for Cowichan-Malahat that many, many people are working already at putting tours together, and have been for a long time, but especially for Expo — not only the Islands 86 people, who are trying to coordinate all activities on the Island, but many of the tour operators are booking tours in here already for Expo and have actually booked the accommodation. So it is happening.

You will never get everyone travelling on organized tours, as we know, but they are becoming more and more acceptable to North Americans. The Japanese and the Europeans have been travelling that way more than we have for many, many years. But I should add that the trend now, even in the Orient, is more to individual travel and getting away from tours. Some of the travel agents there are now booking more individual travel than they are tours out of Japan, which would have been unheard of a few years ago. So exactly which way the trend is going.... Maybe we're leading the way; maybe we're just catching up. I'm not sure. But there are more and more tours planned.

1 can also tell that member that the Ferry Corporation has extra capacity that they can press into service for '86. I am told by the minister and the manager of the corporation that they don't feel we have any worries about being able to handle the traffic that will come to us. I can also assure that member and the rest of this House that we are working toward a reservation system which will be in place later this year. It will be a reservation system that will encompass the entire province and, as I said, will be in operation well ahead of Expo 86, so that we should.... I'm confident that we will have the bugs out of it and it will be up and running a good 20 months, or at least 18 months, ahead of Expo. So you raise a good point, and we are very cognizant of it, and we will have it in place.

There will be other forms of transportation too, I should add, such as the hydrofoil and some others that are in the works but are not definite yet. So there is an awful lot of planning going into the things that you mention. I want to point out to all members that we in Tourism are asking every region in the province to come up with their own projects — their own exciting things to happen in their area so we can keep the visitors here. Once they've spent their three days at the world's fair, we want them throughout the rest of the province and visiting us rather than going elsewhere. Many of the regions have responded very favourably. Islands 86 is one — Mel Couvelier is the chairman. The Cariboo has responded very well — they're recreating their gold rush — as has the Okanagan — and most of the other regions have committees in place that are working on just that.

As for the other point you mentioned about car theft, I think I'll leave that to another minister to address, if you don't mind.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a little bit about the craft industry in the province and will maybe start out by saying how disappointed I am at the decision to close down the ferry terminal craft markets. They were very useful for a number of different reasons. For one thing, I think it cut down on the amount of boredom that people had who were waiting for the ferries. During the summer when there is often a one- or two-hour wait for the ferries, I would notice people sauntering through the craft markets. They would purchase some things or they would talk to the artists and artisans and learn a little bit about B.C. crafts. I recognize that they were of uneven quality. Some weeks you would find all the very best of pottery and weaving — I know I have quite a few pieces of pottery that I purchased both at the Tsawwassen terminal and at the terminal at Horseshoe Bay. But in addition to that, it was an opportunity for a craftsperson who doesn't have access to a boutique or a store to get her or his products on public view and to get them sold.

I think I heard a vague explanation as to why this service was terminated, but I just want to say I think it was a bad idea to terminate it. It was good for the craftspeople, and it was good for British Columbia. It was good for all of us to have it there. It certainly was interesting to the tourists. The prices were very reasonable. They were actually below what you would pay in a store, or even if you went to a craft fair. That was because the overhead wasn't high.

[5:15]

1 noticed at Swartz Bay, for example, a number of the stalls were occupied by senior citizens. I know there was an elderly couple from Saanich who used to work in wood and did beautiful wooden bowls and wooden carvings. It was

[ Page 4227 ]

really a pleasure for them to be there to talk to the people who came through, and it was a pleasure for us to see them at work. I don't know whether it's restraint or what the real reason was for shutting down that particular facility, but I think it was a very unfortunate one.

The second point I want to raise about crafts is that they are very important in terms of the tourist industry in this province. In British Columbia Saltspring Island and some places in the interior are famous for their weaving; Cowichan for knitting and weaving too; Hornby and Denman, among the Gulf Islands, for their top-quality pottery. All over Canada and even in other parts of the world where you travel, people talk about the pottery of Wayne Ngan and some of the other great potters who operate in British Columbia. I know how difficult it is for our craftspeople to get their wares sold and to get themselves known. Circle Craft, for example, has been struggling for years to put the craft industry on some kind of good economic footing. Aside from the Christmas craft markets, it's very difficult. The artisans who sell their products and their art at the Burnaby craft market, for example, look forward to the Christmas market and find that the rest of the year is not as lucrative. As a matter of fact, a number of them have now started travelling to Alberta and to other provinces to visit craft markets there.

I wonder if the minister could tell me what the Ministry of Tourism is doing in terms of getting the word out about the quality crafts that we produce here in British Columbia. When I was in Sweden a number of years ago, the government had its own huge store in which it didn't necessarily sell the crafts but certainly had all the crafts of different artists on display, so that tourists would have an opportunity to go through that and get an idea of the crafts of Sweden so we would know what to look for in terms of quality and even a little bit of the history of each craft and a bit of biography of some of the craftspeople. I'm wondering if the Minister of Tourism would tell me what we're doing here in British Columbia for this particular industry, especially now when it is really becoming the livelihood of so many of our artisans.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll answer the last question first. My ministry, jointly with the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, funded a TIDSA study that was completed roughly a year ago — I can't give you the exact date — on the crafts and marketing of same in British Columbia. We presented the study to the B.C. crafts organization, and this study told them how to organize themselves and how to market their products. I have no report on what has happened since we turned the study over to them. We don't have any specific brochures in our ministry on crafts, but we do urge all visitors to the province to look at the crafts and tell them what is available in British Columbia.

As far as the craft booth at the B.C. Ferry Corporation, I have been in communication with the minister responsible for the ferries, because I receive a fair amount of mail on the subject — not a horrendous amount, but several letters. The B.C. Ferry Corporation's policy regarding the craft booth is under review with the aim of modifying the existing arrangements in the interest of all the artists, the tourists and, of course, the taxpayers. So they are, I suppose at my urging, taking another look at it, and I hope to have something to report in the very near future on that. I don't disagree with the member that they were good things to have; I'm urging the corporation, and they are taking another look at it. In the near future I should have some positive news for you.

MS. BROWN: Just very quickly, Mr. Chairman, there should be on the ferries, or wherever the Ministry of Tourism displays its pamphlets, more information on the crafts of British Columbia. We've done a pretty good job, I think, of advertising Anne Hathaway's Cottage and the Butchart Gardens and that kind of thing, but there isn't anything that tells the world out there about the quality of crafts that we produce in this province. I think that the ministry certainly should look into the business of producing either brochures or displays on all of our ferries or somewhere to get that message across.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the minister's attention that Burnaby has the Summer Games this year, and we hope that the Ministry of Tourism is going to do everything within its power to see to it that that message is carried wide and far, so that all the tourists who are passing through will pop in and visit with us, and see our athletes at work and at play. Burnaby is trying to develop a tourist industry, and I hope there is a commitment on the part of the ministry to help us in this particular endeavour.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Again on the crafts, one of the reasons we haven't had the crafts — or what is available — on display is the reason I alluded to: because they are so diverse and have been so unorganized, if you like, or disorganized. Perhaps out of this study that we ve funded, and have tried to show them how to better organize themselves, we can come to a place where we can better market what's available out there. If they can get their act together — I guess that's the phrase — just a little tighter, maybe we can do that. Yes, I can assure you we will promote the Burnaby Summer Games, because they are a great event in any community in which they are held. They are a great boost to the community, and we can't talk about them too much. Please be assured that we will tell everyone possible about the Burnaby Summer Games.

MR. HOWARD: I think we need to appreciate that tourism basically is not a wealth-producing segment of the economy, except to the extent that crafts are produced and sold. By wealth-producing I mean it is not an industry that takes a natural resource and produces from it something of a material nature that has a value-added aspect to it. It is a type of economic activity that attracts people to come from other areas and bring with them the money that they may have acquired out of wealth production in their own countries or in other provinces. In turn, we in British Columbia are attracted to go to other places from time to time and thus take our money there.

So in a sense we are in a continual kind of balance-of-payments contest in terms of what the net money might be to British Columbia, whether on the plus or the negative side. We are continually trying to promote and attract people from other lands, other provinces and other parts of North America to visit here and explore and enjoy the wonders and the beauties of this province. People are attracted for different reasons. Those who come to the lower Vancouver Island area may be attracted because of the climate or the visual aspects, or things like Butchart Gardens and so on. Those who come to the northern part of the province are attracted for different reasons, and probably represent a different grouping of people. I think we need to continually look at tourism — not in the sense that it's an investment of public funds that can appear on one side of the balance sheet, and we can look up

[ Page 4228 ]

the figures on the other side and see what the net position has been. In fact, it should not be approached in that light. It has to be approached, I think, in the sense of attracting and promoting and advertising and doing the best we can to see that people do come here; that we have thus an expanded appreciation of British Columbia among those who have come here, and that they will pass that word on to their relatives, friends and neighbours when they do go back home, increasing by word of mouth what exists in this province.

With that concept in mind I want to be, as other members have been, somewhat "constituencily" parochial about it and discuss in a public way with the minister some of the attractive aspects in the northwestern part of the province that I think are not pushed and promoted enough, and the amenities that would add to the attractiveness which are not there. We have argued this point before; I know this is not in the minister's purview, or in his domain as a ministerial responsibility, but it is in his domain as a supplemental aspect of tourism. I'm talking about the Ferry Corporation. We have argued for some time that Kitimat should be a destination point — a port of call — for B.C. Ferries. It was examined by cabinet a number of years ago, and approval in principle given to the idea. Then a number of factors came into play, so that it's apparently put to one side right now. That would add a facility that would attract people to that area as distinct from just taking the ferry to Prince Rupert and perhaps then to the Queen Charlotte Islands, or further on the Alaska marine highway, as it's loosely referred to, or the Alaska ferry system.

Connected with that is the potential of Lakelse Hot Springs just a few miles from Kitimat. It's something I've discussed in this House on other occasions and engaged in conversations about with the people in the Ministry of Lands', Parks and Housing, who have Lakelse Hot Springs under their authority. That could be a companion tourist attraction — a hot spring in the northwestern part of the province of capacity sufficient to attract people to come and bathe there as a spa. Apart from its agricultural and horticultural potential, it does have the tourist attraction aspect to it.

Not far north from Terrace are the Nass River lava beds, the result of an outflow of lava some centuries ago, probably — I'm not sure of the exact date — which covers an extensive area in the Nass Valley. It was a lava flow which — so the native people claim from their heritage — effectively pushed the Nass River from the south side of that valley up into the north side and covered a rather large area, extending some miles in either direction with lava flow. It's an attractive and unique area to be examined.

[5:30]

We have in the northwestern part of the province — so I am told, in any event; I haven't had any countering argument to it — the only active volcano in existence in Canada. It's not active at this moment, but it is considered by geologists and volcanists who study these things to be a mountain that is an active volcano. It isn't a central volcano cavern at the top of the mountain, but there are a number of volcanic ash cones on the periphery of Mount Edziza, close to Telegraph Creek. There is a tremendous example along the cliffs of the grand canyon of the Stikine River of the successive lava flows that have taken place over the centuries since lava started to erupt from the area of Mount Edziza. It is reputed to have about a 300-year cycle to its eruptions. A gentleman with the geological survey branch of the government of Canada, whose name I have forgotten now, estimated that we are at about the mid-point of that cycle. I'm not suggesting that we are attracting tourists here to watch the display of fireworks and lava flows from there, because they'll have to wait a little bit of time for that to occur. But it is an extremely unique area which is not promoted or advanced. It is somewhat difficult to get to, yes, but I have found in travelling all throughout the northwest, and other parts of B.C. as well, that those areas which are more difficult to get to are usually the more interesting to visit. With some promotion we could attract more people, and because of their uniqueness and their beauty and their history, it would leave, I would submit, a much more lasting impression with people than, say, the Butchart Gardens, as beautiful as that is.

There is also recreational potential to the area. I give as an example in the wintertime, the ski hill at Smithers. That could be encompassed within a promotional aspect to get additional people to come there. In fact, with a little bit of imagination, I'm sure the ministry could work with the ferry corporation, the Greyhound bus line, Farwest Bus Lines, which is a local bus line that's there, Canadian National Railways, CP Air, or whoever the transportation companies are, as well as local charter aircraft people to work out a very economical package tour that would permit people to encompass within one package the opportunity to see and to visit some of the very unique places that exist in the northwestern part of the province.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I think we could — and we did, I think, indirectly without foreknowledge and intent — advance the cause of hunting by camera or exploring wildlife habitat with camera rather than with guns, because the only people we attract now are those who want to shoot something. We need an aspect of promotion to those who want to photograph something that is unique to that area. We could have done that through Beautiful British Columbia magazine. I don't know whether that possibility exists now that it is an exclusively commercial enterprise. As I understand it, Beautiful British Columbia is now competing with Penthouse and Hustler — I don't know what those other magazines are that are being carried by the person who owns Beautiful British Columbia. Different people want to buy different kinds of magazines. I'm digressing a bit. We should advance the concept of hunting by camera, as is done with some success in parts of Africa, I understand. It needs commitment to that concept, and a declaration of commitment to that concept and some work in that area in order to see that accomplished. Quite frankly, I don't think it can be done purely within the Ministry of Tourism, because, as I said, from my perception of our requirements, it would involve the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and certainly the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing on a couple of items that I have mentioned. There may be other ministries as well. I would urge upon the minister to move consistently in that direction.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's comments about his area, and I know it is a very beautiful area of the province. I'm sure that all members in this House could get up and talk at length about their areas. Believe me, we are concerned about marketing every area in the province.

[ Page 4229 ]

We do put a lot of the onus onto the regions of the province to get their brochures and information together to feed us. Of course, we contribute to these regions to quite a large extent. We fund about 50 percent of the regional manager's salary. The regional person in your area is Wendy Moore — I'm sure you're aware of that — and, of course, your president, Bill McAloney, in Smithers. They work together in Region G, I believe it is, to promote exactly the things you are talking about. That's why we have the province broken into regions — to try as a ministry not to single out any one region for any special treatment but to treat them all equally.

We are, to go back to the beginning of your remarks, constantly reviewing our activities in promotion and in marketing. We are monitoring the effects of our advertising, our participation in trade shows and our convention activities. So as marketing techniques or the preferences of people change, we endeavour to stay on top of that by constantly monitoring what we're doing.

I won't comment at length on the Kitimat ferry terminal that you mentioned, because that is under the purview of another minister and is perhaps best raised in his estimates, so I'll let him talk about it. Suffice it to say that there are many bus tours that do use the ferry system — the Port Hardy-Prince Rupert run in both directions — and all of these tours go through the member's riding, although not through every....

MR. HOWARD: That's exactly what happens.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, I think that many communities in the province are under the same pressures and have the same problem: "How do we keep the tours for an extra day?" I hear what you're saying. There are many attractions in your area that may be able to keep the tourists for an extra day, and they must be promoted. The private sector in these areas has to play a role, too, along with the regional people and the Ministry of Tourism. The private sector has a very active role to play in the areas of which you speak.

Just to comment, finally, on your remarks about Beautiful British Columbia magazine, I think the quality of the magazine — they've done two issues now — is as high as it ever was, and I'm told by the people there that they're very proud of the fact that they think it'll get even better. They are promoting exactly what you're saying — hunting with a camera in this province. I'm sure they will continue to do that. From the editions I've seen, I think the magazine is still a valuable asset to this province.

MR. COCKE: I just want to say one word parochially about my little old New Westminster. Obviously, when the cabinet were making their stupid decisions about what was going to happen to the downtown area of New Westminster, and when they sacrificed the ICBC headquarters and then started on their road to disaster all along our waterfront, part of that program was to remove one our very attractive tourist attractions. People came from all over to eat at the King Neptune restaurant. The King Neptune restaurant became one of the casualties in this program that was supposed to bring new life and the dawn of a new age to downtown New Westminster. So they floated it down the river on a barge, and to this day it hasn't reopened anywhere.

I'm just wondering if the minister has any ideas with respect to maybe undoing some of the wrongs that predecessors in this government perpetrated on our sweet little community. I think that Denis Almis has been sitting around for some years waiting for somebody to come along and say: "Hey, you can get this thing going again." I don't know what they can possibly do at this juncture. I only say that some of the developments of government policy impact on this important industry. I'd just like the minister to know that I would like him to see what's happening. It's under different ministers and different ministries, but at the same time it definitely impacts on tourism.

Just a final word, Mr. Chairman, and that is that I would love the minister to be able to reassure us in terms of where Expo 86 is going. The report on Expo could be coming down the pipe in a very short while — on April 9, I understand — and I hope that the sage words of Jim Pattison will be offering at that time will be something that we can all enjoy, rather than — as the minister describes other reports — something that someone he fancies has read and accepted. I would like this particular report to be a public report. The Leader of the Opposition has asked that the whole question of Expo be subject to a public inquiry. I think the least we can expect is all the information that the government will be getting with respect to anticipated revenues, capital expenditures and operating expenditures. Generally speaking, where is Expo going?

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, one of the members opposite mentioned packaged tours, and certainly they're important for people of limited means. In focusing on 1986 and years thereafter, I hope the Tourism ministry keeps in mind the tourist attractiveness of the new light rapid transit system. It's going to be the greater Vancouver skyride of the future. Travelling across much of the lower mainland two and three stories up on a beautiful day is going to be one of the finest experiences anyone could have. It's a bargain trip, certainly from the waterfront in Vancouver all the way to Surrey and back again in a matter of, say, an hour. It will become one of the feature attractions of most of the package tours. I'm convinced of that. It's an extremely quiet ride. It's a ride, from a moving vantage point, all across the developed area of the lower mainland. It's a ride which runs up over and along the height of the peninsula on which much of Vancouver and certainly Burnaby and New Westminster are located. It's going to be one of the best tourist experiences that anyone could have, and it's going to be one of the least costly items in package tour budgets. I hope the Tourism ministry bears that in mind, particularly when they're advertising relative to 1986 and subsequent years.

[5:45]

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) bemoaned the fact that downtown New Westminster was dying for several reasons. One of the factors which will help to turn that trend around is light rapid transit. The section between the two stations in New Westminster may well become a covered in all, and since that incorporates or backs on many of the older buildings in downtown New Westminster, I think that area of redevelopment also holds great potential, both for New Westminster commercially and for tourism. I thought I'd add that optimistic note, Mr. Chairman.

HON, MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for his comments. I

[ Page 4230 ]

can assure him that the ALRT system is an integral part of Expo 86 and will be promoted as such. I agree with him that it will become one of the main attractions. It is very necessary to the fair, as it links the two sites — the Canada Harbour Place and the Canadian pavilion — with the main site. I should add here that that part of the ride is included in the admission to the fair.

It's nice to see many members in this House, I should add, realizing the value of tourism and getting up to add their comments, both positive and otherwise, to this debate. I think that they, like so many people not only here but around the world, are realizing the tremendous value of tourism.

Regarding the final remark by the member for New Westminster on the report from the chairman of Expo to the Premier, I think that we all share his hope that the report is positive. I certainly do. I think I have outlined sufficiently here the value of this fair and the tremendous economic benefit it will be to British Columbia.

Vote 60 approved.

Vote 61: ministry operations, $7,730,710 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.