[ Page 8687 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 8687

Oral Questions

Ambulance service. Mr. Cocke –– 8687

New Cinch Uranium Ltd. Mr. Macdonald –– 8687

Coquihalla Highway. Mr. Lockstead –– 8688

Fraser Canyon marketing study. Mr. MacWilliam –– 8688

Louisiana-Pacific. Mr. Williams –– 8688

Reform of laws on liability. Mr. MacWilliam –– 8688

Forest fire fighting. Mr. Howard –– 8688

Care for victims of molestation. Ms. Brown –– 8689

Ministerial Statement

Quesnel sexual assault case. Mr. Lauk responds –– 8689

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates. (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 8691

Mr. MacWilliam

Ms. Brown

Ms. Sanford

Motion Picture Act, 1986 (Bill 30). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 8698

Mr. Lank –– 8699

Ms. Brown –– 8700

Mrs. Wallace –– 8700

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 8701

Motion Picture Act, 1986 (Bill 30). Committee stage –– 8701

Mr. Lauk

Ms. Brown

Mr. Macdonald

Division

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

On vote 70: minister's office –– 8705

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. MacWilliam

On the amendment to vote 70 –– 8709

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Division

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

MRS. WALLACE: Visiting in the gallery today are three women friends who came down to sample our cuisine and listen to our debate. I would like to introduce Mrs. Thelma Roberts, Mrs. Marj Worthy and Mrs. Irene McAdam.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Also in the galleries today is a member from a neighbouring constituency, my buddy riding of Okanagan South. I would like to introduce Mrs. Eileen Robinson, who is a candidate for the New Democratic Party in that riding.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, before you get to the next item on the order paper, which I gather is oral questions by members, I wanted to rise to give these hon. folks opposite a chance to get into the chamber so that various questions could be posed to them, and hopefully expect a rational answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Notwithstanding the desire of the member to give sufficient time for the government front benches to fill, the matter can hardly be described as a point of order. Nonetheless we may wish to have a report tabled at this time.

Mr. Mowat tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Labour for 1984-85.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I see nowhere in the rules or in the practice of the House where a parliamentary secretary can table something as important as an annual report. Is the Speaker clear that an annual report can be done? This is a prerogative of the Crown. I know that that member doesn't get paid enough to do the kind of extra work required of a parliamentary secretary, but surely Mr. Speaker can check the rules — maybe recess the House for five minutes as the Speaker reviews whether or not a parliamentary secretary can table a statutory report.

MR. MOWAT: On the same point, Mr. Speaker, I filed the same report last year for the Minister of Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. LAUK: So it happened. I mean, one swallow does not a summer make. I don't think we can consider that a precedent.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Little Mountain just told us that he filed the same annual report last year. I'm a little concerned about that, because I would at least like to have it updated by one year.

Oral Questions

AMBULANCE SERVICE

MR. COCKE: I would like to direct a question to the acting Minister of Health, leadership candidate. The provincial ambulance service has ordered crews and vehicles to literally cruise the streets like taxicabs and hang around in shopping centre parking lots. They're forbidden to return to their station between calls. Why has the provincial government taken this action?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's a very good question, because this is a recent development, and I have asked for an explanation. I see no particular advantage to an ambulance cruising, because one does not know where the next business is going to be. You may as well be in a central location, reasonably located to serve a broader area.

On a personal note, when an ambulance was parked in front of my home for two and a half days, I was beginning to wonder if they knew something I didn't or if it was anticipated service. That was all right, I suppose, but when we had our annual picnic last Sunday and an ambulance was cruising by the picnic grounds, I figured that they definitely had the word in.

I will get an explanation from the ambulance division, and I hope the explanation will be reasonable, understandable and convincing.

MR. COCKE: When the minister discusses it with the bureaucracy, who obviously have made this decision, I would hope that he might take lawyers into consideration. Some of them might have real difficulty in moving around because they would be chasing empty ambulances. I just hope that we hear a good deal more about this.

NEW CINCH URANIUM LTD.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I asked a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I'd be pleased to hear his answer.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I was going to wait until after question period and not take up the time, but I'll do it now. On Monday last the hon. first member for Vancouver East asked as to the suspension of a stock by the superintendent of brokers and any report made on that suspension. It referred to New Cinch Uranium Ltd. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that the superintendent of brokers' office was only involved in the New Cinch Uranium investigation in an assistance capacity to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police commercial crime section from Toronto, Ontario. The trading in New Cinch was never suspended by the superintendent of brokers. New Cinch shares were halted by the Vancouver Stock Exchange at the request of New Cinch Uranium and also Willroy Mines Ltd., who had invested heavily in the stock on January 14, 1981. This halt continued on January 15, 1981, and was removed on January 16, 1981, at noon. On or about February 5, 1981, trading in the shares of New Cinch Uranium Ltd. was halted by the Vancouver Stock Exchange, pending an investigation into recent price depreciation in New Cinch stock. The Vancouver Stock Exchange attempted to locate their records to confirm the exact date that trading was reinstated after the February 5, 1981, halt, but I was unable to get that exact information, Mr. Speaker. On February 13, 1981, Willroy Mines Ltd. brought an action to the Supreme Court of Ontario against New Cinch and 14 other defendants, claiming damages of $21.4 million in connection with the sale of shares and warrants of New Cinch. On or about June 19, 1985, the civil suit was settled out of court for approximately $4 million.

In summary, to the first question, Mr. Speaker, the superintendent's office was only involved in an assistance capacity

[ Page 8688 ]

to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in their investigation. It is not the policy of the ministry to duplicate any investigations which are being done by the police.

In answer to the second question directed to myself by the second member for Vancouver East — was there an investigation done in regard to Chem-tec and the two principals of New Cinch Uranium, namely Applegath and White — the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were conducting the investigation into this case, and we do not have the details of that particular police investigation; and again, our office did not nor will not duplicate police investigations.

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the acting Minister of Transportation and Highways. Recent reports indicate truckers are finding the Coquihalla Highway does not suit their needs in the way forecast by the government. Meanwhile, tourist traffic has been drawn away from the traditional markets in the Fraser Canyon. Will the acting minister advise whether the truck traffic on the Coquihalla Highway is meeting projections?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take that question as notice for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I do have numbers of tourist traffic using all of the highways in the interior which I would be happy to share with the member at some other time, but I will take the question as notice for the minister.

[2:15]

FRASER CANYON MARKETING STUDY

MR. MacWILLIAM: The Minister of Tourism recently completed a Fraser Canyon marketing study. I wonder if the minister has decided to table this report in the Legislature at this time?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the study has just been completed; I have yet to see it myself. I will have a copy of that report either later today or tomorrow, and by all means the report will be made public. That was the purpose of doing it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. The Coquihalla Highway has drawn tourists out of the Fraser Canyon, but it doesn't seem to provide an economical and attractive option for the truck traffic.

What action has the minister taken to help restore the tourism industry in the Fraser Canyon? Some of the canyon facilities have indicated a 40 percent to 50 percent drop-off in business. I think there has been a dramatic impact, and I would like to ask the minister what he is prepared to do to help restore this industry.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, as I just indicated, Mr. Speaker, we have commissioned a study to be done for that very purpose. As I indicated, I should be receiving that study either later today or tomorrow, so I think the answer stands that once we have had a look at that report, it will give us some clear alternatives for the Fraser Canyon highway.

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Can the minister confirm that he met last week with representatives of the B.C. plywood industry, and that they expressed their concern about the unfair competition with the zero percent loan to Louisiana-Pacific?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I met with the plywood industry last week.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister advise the House if the industry asked him to go to cabinet and reconsider the whole unfortunate loan to Louisiana-Pacific?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I had a good meeting with the plywood industry last Friday.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding they had a good meeting with the minister, and that the material they were being provided with had to be rewritten during the meeting to tally with the facts.

Can the minister confirm that the plywood industry also indicated to him that it was their view that this major grant to Louisiana-Pacific was an item that could face countervailing action by the United States, and that that was their judgment — that is, the leaders of the entire plywood industry of British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I had a very productive meeting with the plywood industry of British Columbia last Friday in Richmond.

REFORM OF LAWS ON LIABILITY

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. The Law Reform Commission of British Columbia reported last year on the poor state of B.C. laws regarding personal liability under a mortgage or agreement for sale. The commission finds that many people have been found unexpectedly and unjustly responsible for mortgages that they no longer hold. As the minister well knows, I brought this issue to his attention last year. Has the Attorney-General reviewed the Law Reform Commission recommendations, and what actions has he decided to take at this time?

HON. MR. SMITH: While it involves future policy, I'm happy to say that that is under active review, and that making some change in the future to alleviate the situation of an original mortgagor has appealed to the government, but it has to be done in such a way that commercial undertakings are not put in jeopardy, and that there is certainty in the disposition of land. The recommendation of the commission is a good one, and one that we are actively considering. So as far as I can talk on future policy, I'm encouraging.

FOREST FIRE FIGHTING

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Forests, I wonder if I could ask the acting minister a question. Given that there were two major fires last fire season in the Canal Flats area, burning some 27,000 hectares of land and costing some $8 million or more to put out, could the minister could advise that, in spite of that experience,

[ Page 8689 ]

there are still only three people assigned to forest protection in the Invermere forest district, the same number that were assigned last year?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'd be very pleased to take that question as notice for the Minister of Forests.

MR. HOWARD: Another question based upon the same factual circumstances: can he confirm that of the five forest fire detection lookouts in that district, only one of them will be permanently staffed this fire season?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'd be very happy to have the Minister of Forests look into the member's facts.

MR. HOWARD: One further question then. Could I also ask the minister why it is, given the experience last year, that the government is still gambling with the properties and lives of people in that area?

CARE FOR VICTIMS OF MOLESTATION

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources, on behalf of the children who were the victims of molesting by their schoolteacher, and who we've been told have been assigned assistance by the minister for six months. In the event that it turns out that six months of treatment is not sufficient, would the minister be prepared to extend that period of time?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, clearly a six-month question falls within a future action.

MS. BROWN: No, I said "has he decided?"

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we have to draw the line somewhere, and it would hardly be reasonable to expect that actions six months from now would not be future action. With the greatest of respect, hon. member, we have to draw.... It's a line that I seldom draw, but in this case, hon. member, six months....

MS. BROWN: Has the minister decided at this time to extend the services offered to those children to be sure that they will get the treatment for as long as they need it?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I gather we're speaking of the children at Ashcroft specifically. I would think that it is an obligation to see these children receive such treatment as may be required to assist them in overcoming their difficulties.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, yesterday the Attorney-General made a ministerial statement, and indicated that the second member for Vancouver Centre would be making a response at a later time. The Chair understood this to mean the same day. I indicated at that time that I would review the matter, and that the practice would not establish a precedent. It is my opinion that such a procedure ought only to be allowed by unanimous leave, although on this occasion I am prepared to allow the deferred response.

QUESNEL SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the House for giving me this opportunity. I read with great interest the Hansard of the Attorney-General's report on the allegations with respect to the handling of a sexual assault case in Quesnel. The allegations that were made and that I reiterated in this House with respect to the handling of the case by the judge and by the Crown stand. I have received a copy of an investigation by the Chief Judge, and I'm not satisfied that that investigation addressed the issues.

However, two points should be made. One is that the allegations were brought to the judge's attention prior to his hearing any of these matters. He was asked by the district judge to disqualify himself. It was not my characterization of that warning or directive that it concerned only one of the accused; my interpretation is that it concerned them all. In spite of that, the judge heard a case brought forward ahead of the date set for its hearing, the one of Wade Joyal. The facts as read in by the Crown and as seen clearly by the transcript were read in by the Crown in a most inarticulate and, I would suggest, incompetent fashion. But there remain the facts that are clear, as read in by the Crown before Judge Cullinane. There was a sexual assault. There was a physical assault causing bodily harm. There was blood on Joyal's clothes, and the blood was the young lady's blood. The Crown's role was most unsatisfactory. The sentence was unacceptable.

Further on the Crown's role, Mr. Speaker, Joyal and Larson, it has now been disclosed by the Attorney-General, had made a deal with the Crown that if they were to plead guilty to common assault, they would give evidence against the other two accused — "queen's evidence" is a phrase that's often used to describe this kind of bargain. Under the circumstances I would expect that the Crown would have received sworn statements from these two accused before this bargain was made. And if she couldn't recall some of the events, and that's conceded by the transcripts, couldn't they...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair seems to recall that at one time there was a statement that this matter is being considered for appeal. Is that the case, hon. member? If so, the Chair has an obligation to....

MR. LAUK: There are two persons under appeal. I am not referring to them. This is not sub judice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please, hon. member. As members can appreciate, this is a matter of some concern to the Chair and, I'm sure, to the members.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the appeals of the two accused, Reimer and Lorntsen, were argued before the court of appeal last Friday, and no decision has been handed down. While I'm sure that the second member is endeavouring not to refer to them, it seems to me that he is making allegations as to evidence and canvassing evidence, and it may well be evidence that relates to one or the other. This is the difficulty I have as an Attorney-General in responding in the House at this particular time and when I made my statement. But I do not believe that it's appropriate to canvass the evidence in this place. I would urge you so to rule.

[ Page 8690 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair can only do what it has the power to do. Individual members have a responsibility.... Nevertheless, hon. second member for Vancouver Centre, in light of that situation, could I ask you, in discussing the situation, to canvass the matter without reflecting on what is currently before the court.

MR. LAUK: I will respect that, Mr. Speaker, and I will not canvass the evidence. The plea bargain is not part of the appeal; it's a sentence appeal. But I just wanted to raise that point that evidently there was not adequate preparation by the Crown to achieve the goal of having the two persons who received light sentences for reduced charges give evidence against the two who are appealing their sentence only, not their guilty pleas.

Now that is a serious error, and the answer is that nobody cared in this case. If she were a white girl from a prominent neighbourhood.... Mr. Speaker, I want this on the record, and I am going to repeat it. If she were a white girl from another neighbourhood who was raped and assaulted by four persons, can you imagine the outcry in this province? Can you imagine the outcry if it were in Oak Bay? Victoria would not settle down to this day. This case is not over, not just in the Court of Appeal.

[2:30]

No one has mentioned the young girl who comes from one of the tiniest little Indian villages in the province. I read with interest the newspaper interview, and I'll just read some of her remarks, because she didn't get an opportunity to give a victim's statement. I won't talk about the evidence that was quoted in the press, but I do want to read what she said: "After it happened...."

HON. MR. SMITH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just say again that a quorum of the Court of Appeal is considering the fitness of sentence and haven't brought in their decision. Now to read in this place a newspaper account of what this victim may have said to a reporter is not proper and appropriate when an appeal is pending.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair is in a very difficult position. I am sure the second member for Vancouver Centre must recognize the obligation of the Chair both to uphold the rules and to uphold the member's right to speak in this place.

Hon. member, I would again caution that the matter is currently before the court. The member, for example, may wish to defer or ask leave to defer on a statement until the matter is concluded. There may be some other alternative, but I would ask that the member please consider the position in which the Chair finds itself, not wishing to make an adverse ruling against a member's right to speak in this chamber or the right of a trial to proceed without comment in this chamber.

Hon. member, the Chair is in a most difficult position.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and dealing with the issue that you have raised, I have here a quotation from the fifteenth edition of May, and I am quoting it: "A matter, whilst under adjudication by a court of law, should not be brought before the House by motion or otherwise."

Then from this particular ruling this statement is referred to, and apparently this was a statement made in New South
Wales — a long time ago, in 1932, but it is as relevant today as it was then — by the late Sir Daniel Levy who was then Speaker. The Speaker said this: "It's not for the Speaker to microscopically sift the relevant from the irrelevant evidence, but to liberally apply the sub judice rule in such a way as to prevent the mischief which that rule was intended to obviate."

It carries on:

"There is nothing mysterious about the word sub judice. A matter is sub judice when that matter is pending before a tribunal having judicial powers. The reason for the rule that matters sub judice may not be referred to in debate or upon a motion is twofold. In the first place, it might be inferred that a breach of this rule would be not only a grave discourtesy to the court, but also might be considered" — this is very true, it could be considered this way, and I know the hon. member would not wish to have that happen — "as an improper usurpation of the powers of the court or an attempt to influence the court, an attempt of the Legislature to influence that very distinct and parallel part of government, namely the judiciary. And in the second place, it might prejudice that sacred right of Her Majesty's subjects to a fair trial before the proper tribunal."

I think that is the matter that is facing you this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre wishes to comment? If not, hon. member, I will have to reserve some decision and have this particular line of response conclude.

MR. LAUK: I won't deal with the matter, although I am not sure it is sub judice. The matter appeared in the press on Monday, June 9, 1986, and it wasn't my interview of the victim. It was the statements she made. It was clearly in the press on June 9, which was two days after the appeal had been reserved by their lordships of the Court of Appeal. I will not refer to it. She has not had an opportunity to be heard in court here or anywhere, and it was only through the sensitivity of one newspaper reporter that part of what she has to say has been published.

We owe it to her, and that is my point. I won't canvass it. I don't want to endanger the judicial system any more than it has been endangered. As I say, this case is not over, and we owe it to her, and we owe it to all the young women who may come after her from tiny little Indian villages all across this province. No one has mentioned her. We're protecting judges. I got phone calls last week from friends of the judges and so on. I regret very much the pain that I may have caused that judge and his family, but the issue is clear to me. She didn't give a victim's statement; no one has heard her.

I just urge all hon. members to read some of the comments that were reported on Monday and reflect upon our attitudes towards justice in this province. If this young lady's painful experience can help us in any way, it is to have particularly people in power reflect upon how administration of justice is carried out.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 8691 ]

MR. PARKS: We have with us, attending in the members' gallery, a member very active in the Social Credit Party of New Zealand. I would ask the House to join me in making welcome Mr. Adrian Bayly.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the new precedent that's been established today — that is, the deferred response to a ministerial statement — I would like to move that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) have an opportunity of replying to the deferred response of the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Clearly the matter of responses to ministerial statements has not changed. The Attorney is free at any time to make a further ministerial statement on any matter, as is any Crown minister.

MR. CHABOT: It may not be as opportune to respond at a later date as it is right now, and that's why I made my motion, which I think you should take into consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: Clearly the preface by the Chair on the matter was that no precedent was set. This was an exception. It was indicated as such at the opening, as the Blues will show.

MR. CHABOT: Are you suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that my motion is out of order, and are you so ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has refrained from having to make a ruling since we brought the new rules in, much to the credit of each and every member of this chamber. We have from time to time passed opinions which have been followed, I must say, to the credit of all, rather religiously.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the member for Columbia River knows that a back-bencher must make a two-day....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What's the matter with the House Leader? Are you itchy or edgy or something?

He knows that he has to give notice for two days prior to making a motion in this assembly. If he gets that right, then I demand equal rights.

MR. SPEAKER: No such right was afforded, hon. member.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I seek the right to make an introduction.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall right be granted?

MR. REID: In the precincts today we have two people. One of them is a well-established businessman in Newton in Surrey, Fred Davies, here with a representative from Auckland, New Zealand, Mr. Brian Jones, who has developed the new process for panel construction. Would the House make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

(continued)

On vote 5: minister's office, $188,992.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Before we recessed for lunch I was discussing some of the concerns with regard to agriculture in the Okanagan and, in fact, throughout British Columbia. I'd like to reiterate a couple of salient points from that earlier discussion in order to bridge the gap.

I had mentioned that between 1981 and 1984 British Columbia experienced the greatest decline in agricultural assets of any province in Canada. During these same years the net worth of B.C. farms declined by more than $765 million, while at the same time interest rates on farm mortgages had increased significantly. In June 1985 the Farm Credit Corporation reported that 53 percent of British Columbia farmers were experiencing what it considered either moderate or severe financial stress; 53 percent is the highest number of any province in Canada. At the same time, the average income in 1984 for British Columbia farmers was only about $8,700. I think the figures show very plainly that we have some severe difficulties in our agricultural industry.

I think the response of this government has been inadequate. In fact, it has been backwards in attempting to resolve the problems. The government has cut back on two programs, the farm income assurance and the partial interest reimbursement program, which have provided the most basic support for our farming community — cut back on those programs at a time when farmers were experiencing increased debt financing.

I guess you can't expect, Mr. Chairman, much else from a government whose Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) some time ago stated — and I'll read you the quote: "Small farmers represent only 10 percent of the vote, and they don't really count politically." I think that statement is very indicative of what the present Minister of Finance had indicated some time back.

There are solutions at hand. I think the government....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. House Leader, the member for Okanagan North has been recognized. You shall have your opportunity to stand in debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I got carried away.

MR. MacWILLIAM: You should be carried away, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we all get carried away, would the member for Okanagan North please continue.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The government should be taking measures to strengthen the agricultural credit system, through a flexible program to meet the needs of the farming community. The partial interest reimbursement program

[ Page 8692 ]

should be rehabilitated. Farm foreclosures, I think, should be prevented — or forestalled, at least — by developing mechanisms to help those farmers in severe financial difficulty to restructure, consolidate and reduce their debt load. Also I would suggest that a complete review of the farm income insurance formula be instituted in order to recognize the increases in production costs and the reality of the present situation.

[2:45]

Mr. Chairman, in view of the federal government and the provincial government plunging headlong into the free-trade negotiations.... In light of that situation we have some concerns about what is going to happen to those values that have been expressed. The marketing boards, the income assurance program, the interest reimbursement program — are those programs in fact on the chopping block? The Premier has said that everything is on the negotiating table. I'd like to ask the minister whether those programs are also on the negotiating table, and whether those programs are in fact in danger.

Mr. Chairman, the previous Minister of Agriculture said late last year to a meeting of local agriculturists up in the Okanagan that any free-trade agreement for B.C. must be comprehensive, fair, and equitable. He also said that the marketing boards provide a benefit for both producers and consumers. "They" — meaning marketing boards — "work, so why get rid of them?" I'd like to ask the present minister what his position is with regard to the protection of the marketing boards, of the income assurance program and of the interest reimbursement program, in light of the free-trade negotiations now going on.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the matters raised by the member for Okanagan North have been canvassed a number of times already. If he wants to know my response, he'll have every opportunity to read the Hansards when they come out. I don't believe in wasting members' time going over the same ground time after time, so I recommend that the member read the Blues or the Hansards when they're finally published.

On the matter of free trade, it's being negotiated by the federal government. We have our input with them, and they are aware of that.

The member mentioned reduction in farm income assurance. I don't know where he gets the information but it's not correct.

Mr. Chairman, that's all I have to say.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just made an allegation in the House that my information is not correct, and I'd like him to expand upon that statement and explain what is not correct. The background information certainly is correct with regard to those programs being on the negotiating table with the free-trade talks. I think the minister would also agree that those statements are correct. In clarifying the matter, I wonder if the minister can expand upon his statement.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, everything is on the table in free-trade talks on both sides of the border. The free-trade talks are being carried on by the government of Canada, not by the Minister of Agriculture of the province of British Columbia. I hope the member will understand that. I said his facts were incorrect when he talked about the reduction of farm income assurance. The premiums paid by government this year are higher than they were last year, and that is not a reduction.

MR. MacWILLIAM: With regard to the income assurance program and the present marketing board structure, which are presently on the negotiating table, would the minister advise this House whether he is prepared to sacrifice those programs in pursuing free-trade talks?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If the member will read the Hansards or stay in the House....

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, the minister reiterates that I have to review Hansard, but the minister's former statements in regard to this matter I don't think were clear at all. I'm trying to clarify just what the minister's position is with regard to farm income assurance and the marketing boards.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the marketing boards for the various commodities in British Columbia are in place and will carry on as they are. Farm income assurance is in place and will carry on as it is. I have no further comment. I don't know what the member is after.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Will the minister advise whether he has any economic impact studies as to the effect of free trade upon these particular sectors of the industry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, my ministry has reviewed all the implications of free-trade discussions. The province of B.C. has, through our government, expressed its views to the government of Canada and will continue to do so.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would be prepared to table the results of those studies that he indicates have been done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, no documents may be tabled in committee, only in the House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the member for Okanagan North if he would make a commitment to table, when the committee rises, the quote that he made from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and its source.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I certainly will attempt to do so. I know they've been taken from my records and I'll try to research them.

AN HON. MEMBER: You made it up.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Absolutely not. It was in the Vancouver Sun.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then table it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Okanagan North has the floor.

[ Page 8693 ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, with regard to another problem, the provincial government has been involved with issuing some loans to a rabbit-processing firm in the Fraser Valley area that goes by the name of Ra-Bitco. Apparently an interest-free loan of $25,000 was given in 1980, and in January '82 a further five-year loan for $85,000. Apparently this firm has received a total of $110,000 in interest-free loans, which apparently they have been unable to repay. It's my understanding that this government is looking at restructuring this loan portfolio and has hired a consultant as of last January. It's my understanding that one of the options was actually to write off the loans or to renegotiate the terms, and I would ask the minister what decision has been made in this regard.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, no decision has been made to this date.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I wonder if the minister can advise if grants of up to $50,000 have to be approved by the minister, whereas loans have to have Treasury Board approval. Is that correct?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The limit after which Treasury Board approval is required is $100,000.

MR. MacWILLIAM: For the minister's information, a firm in the Okanagan Valley that goes by the name of Silverstar Meats, attempting to locate in the Enderby area, has been attempting to receive financial assistance both through the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development and other ministries. They have run into some very severe problems in terms of trying to get some financial assistance to initiate a rabbit-processing industry. It is my understanding, according to principals of this industry, that Ra-Bitco is alleged to have been using loan money that they have received through the Ministry of Agriculture to subsidize the purchase of rabbits in the Okanagan. Again it's alleged that this is to squeeze out the new firm, Silverstar Meats, which has been attempting to establish a market in that area. I wonder if the minister can advise whether he would be willing to investigate that matter.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's amazing to me, if the member has the type of information that he alleges to have, that he has not brought it forward. We need not wait until my estimates are in the House before we can look into matters that may be adversely affecting anybody in the agricultural business.

MS. BROWN: I just have two very short questions to place to the minister. I'm wondering what's happening to the aid to underdeveloped areas — that agricultural fund which I know was eliminated. Then, I gather, there's $200,000 in the budget to be used in this way.

It's difficult to talk about it because the report hasn't been tabled for this year, and I gather it probably won't be tabled until after the estimates have been concluded. But maybe the minister could reveal something about how the $200,000 is being dispensed, what countries are getting the benefit of it and what projects in those countries are receiving assistance from us at this time.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm afraid I have to advise the member that I don't have such a breakdown with me, but I'll be very happy to provide it to her as soon as my staff can get it.

MS. BROWN: The criteria for application for that fund — would it be possible for that also to be made available? Also, would the minister be able to tell me whether requests on behalf of countries can be made by members of the Legislature, or whether there is some system of dealing directly with the countries themselves?

The reason I'm raising this, Mr. Chairman, is because I've just returned from a business visit to Jamaica, and I know that there is a project there which is being sponsored by a home for girls. One of the things that they're looking at is the possibility of establishing a dairy herd and looking for funding to carry that through. I'm wondering whether this is the kind of project which the government would be interested in and which this fund would see as meeting its criteria, in terms of this fund being of assistance.

The Business and Professional Women are maintaining and supporting a home for young adult females. One of the ways in which they are trying to do this is by being self-sufficient in terms of food. One of the things that they have in mind is establishing this dairy herd. I'm not sure whether a project of this nature would come under or meet the criteria established for receiving funding from this particular fund.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm advised that various help agencies are normally the vehicles by which applications are made. However, I don't think there's anything that prevents anyone from bringing forward a proposal. I understand that they have to be in by July so that a three-member committee, chaired by my deputy minister, can then review the various proposals and set priorities on the basis of the proposals that are made. But I don't see anything that prohibits the member from bringing something forward and recommending it to my ministry.

MS. BROWN: What I will do is suggest that they make their application directly to the minister, and I will just write a letter of support along with it. It will be before July, if that is okay with the minister.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Whether it goes directly to me or directly to the committee, Madam Member, is irrelevant.

MS. BROWN: My second point, very briefly, has to do with the flats in Burnaby which, as the minister knows, are the richest agricultural land to be found anywhere in British Columbia, and maybe in the world, since we are going into hyperbole — or hyperbowl, as one of the people seeking the leadership says.

The problem we have with the flats is that without thinking of the long term, permission was given to run a freeway, the Marine Way, right through the centre of this very rich land. What I have observed is that part of the land on one side of the freeway is still being cultivated extensively, On the other side of the freeway, that land has been abandoned. My concern is that without being protected in some way, it could be used for industrial development or something other than the growing of food, which is so important. It is very valuable and very good arable land, and it would be a pity if that land

[ Page 8694 ]

were lost to agriculture. I am just wondering whether the minister has any knowledge about what I am talking about, and whether there are any plans to ensure that that land never leaves the agricultural land reserve.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would have to assume that if the land is of that good agricultural capability it is within the agricultural land reserve and thus is protected.

No one can give anyone assurance that something will never happen. But whatever criteria are used to determine whether the plan stays in or is removed from the agricultural land reserve, I am sure it would be used if there was ever any attempt to remove the land for other uses. All the conditions and circumstances surrounding the application would have to be considered at that time.

[3:00]

MS. BROWN: The only reason I raised it is that already land was taken out of the reserve to give permission for this freeway to be put through it. That was a mistake in terms of protecting the land. It is good for the cars and the trucks and the buses and everyone else who now have this beautiful expanse of roadway to use. But in terms of using that land for growing food, it was a mistake to have permitted that land to have been released from the agricultural land reserve. To prevent another such mistake being made, I wanted to bring to the minister's attention that it is always in jeopardy. That land is always in jeopardy because it is so close to the Fraser River, and it is so ideal for industrial development. So keep an eye on it, because I intend to keep an eye on it as well to see if we can protect that land for future use as agricultural land.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of issues that I want to raise with the minister, and I am hoping that I can deal with them fairly quickly and that the minister will be able to provide answers as quickly.

The annual debate on these estimates always comes around to this business of compensation for farmers whose crops and animals are affected by wildlife. We have established pretty clearly that the farmers of this province have enough financial difficulties now without having to face the added costs incurred through wildlife damage.

I have raised this year after year, Mr. Chairman, and we have never had any action on the part of that government. I heard just the other day of a farmer way up in the Kootenays somewhere who was most concerned about the $12,000 to $15,000 annually it costs him because of damage due to the elk in the area.

At the very least, it seems to me, the government should at this point be willing to compensate farmers where we are expecting to preserve that wildlife. In other words, we have designated some wildlife species as endangered species. The farmers are not able to deal with the protected swans and some of the Roosevelt elk and others that are protected at this stage, and yet they have to bear the costs of the damage that occurs on their farms as a result of this protection.

Now it is obvious that we want to protect the animals, and it seems to me that we as a society want to ensure that they are protected. Yet the farmers are bearing the costs of this protection, and it is quite unfair. I know one of my constituents sent a bill to the ministry a few years ago representing some $7,000 because of the damage done to his fields by the protected trumpeter swans. I'd like to know what the minister and the government is prepared to do on that issue — whether anything has changed at all or whether the farmers are going to have to continue to bear the costs of that damage.

Another issue that I'd like to refer to is the closure of the Mrs. D.L. Milne Cannery up in the Summerland area, the last processing facility for fruits in the Okanagan. I think it's sad that this cannery was closed down, and I think it's a step backwards in terms of agriculture in this province when we have that sort of thing happening. I would like to know what sort of action the provincial government has taken with respect to that closure — whether they are just going to accept this or are attempting to have that cannery reopened in any way, shape or form. I think it's important, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to have the minister's comments.

The other interesting thing about this is that there is funding available for establishing processing plants in this province. At the same time, we are endangering that whole area by our unwillingness at this stage to protect the farmers in those free-trade talks. Any moneys that are expended at this time, I guess, could be considered in jeopardy. But that's an aside.

The next issue that I would like to raise relates to the crop insurance program which the Peace River farmers had to sign into this year in order to be eligible for any kind of assistance under the special drought program that was made available up there. I think it's unfortunate that so many of those farmers are going to have to immediately pay in crop insurance payments virtually all they are collecting through the special drought program. They need the money desperately. It's understandable that farmers in the area have discontinued their support of that program: (a) they feel it should be improved; and (b) they simply do not have the kind of income to enable them to join that crop insurance program. It's being forced upon them at a time when they desperately need that money to recover from last year's drought.

Number four. I've raised three issues with the minister. I'll raise number four at this stage, and then perhaps he would make some comments on the issues. The question of pesticides is one that has always worried me, and I've raised this issue year after year. I raised it under the Ministry of Forests estimates as it relates to forestry, and at the same time recognized that it is the farmers of the province who are by far the greatest users of pesticides. I would like the minister to indicate to me this afternoon that he shares my concern about the effects on the environment of the widespread use of these particular products. I would like the minister to indicate that, like me, he is not convinced that adequate testing is done, nor that alternatives are sufficiently explored. Hopefully the minister will indicate to the Legislature this afternoon that it is indeed a concern of that ministry and that additional interest will be taken in research into alternatives to the widespread use of pesticides.

It has now become very clear that about 80 percent of the cancers in the world are from environmental causes, and it seems to me that we have been far too lax in our approach to testing, in our approach to the use of various chemicals, and have spread herbicides and pesticides far too liberally through our environment. It's high time we took another look at it, and that we ensured that we did all of the research necessary to come up with the alternatives to the use of pesticides in the environment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'll take the member's points in reverse order, starting with number four — that is, the use

[ Page 8695 ]

of pesticides. I don't share the member's view that adequate testing is not done. Very extensive testing is done by Agriculture Canada before insecticides can be used. I have more faith in their testing procedures than perhaps the member has. However, I think we should always keep our minds open and try to find different and perhaps better ways of enhancing the growth of agricultural products.

There are allegations that certain chemicals are carcinogenic, but let me assure the member that if it were not for the use of chemicals in the form of herbicides and fertilizers, a great number of people in the world would be going very, very hungry, and starvation is just as serious a problem as perhaps a threat of diseases caused by herbicides. I believe in the proper and judicious use of herbicides and insecticides and I think they are a very vital tool to the agricultural community. They do have to be properly controlled and properly used.

I will stand by the decision made jointly by my predecessor, the member for Chilliwack, and the federal Minister of Agriculture that drought assistance programs should be tied to crop insurance. If we do not do that, we will have the real prospect of destroying our crop insurance program. Because if those people who paid for crop insurance were to benefit from their purchase of crop insurance and their expenditure and other people who did not were to receive the same benefits, then very, very soon the crop insurance program would not be subscribed to by anyone. I think that the people who do take out crop insurance would feel very upset indeed if protection was provided for those people who chose, as a management decision, not to purchase crop insurance.

The cannery that you mentioned was closed by the owner. It was noneconomic. I was not aware of the situation until you mentioned it. I'll be very happy to have a look and see why it closed. I understand it was noneconomic, but unfortunately I have no knowledge of it at this time other than a few words given me by my staff. But I'll have a look at that situation.

Wildlife compensation: really, compensation for wildlife damage to agricultural crops is a matter for the Ministry of Environment. However, I will support the need for protecting the investment of the farmer, particularly when animals are transplanted from different areas, such as elk in certain areas. I do have a problem in the Princeton area with elk feeding on the very precious hay which is grown by the farmers for feeding their beef cattle.

I understand that Environment is still wrestling with the problem. We not only have it in terms of elk but in terms of deer in orchards and many other conflicts and interfaces. I do support the farmer's position; he must take whatever normal measures are needed to protect his crops from normal wildlife in the natural environment around him. That is one of the costs that he would have to realize as he gets into the business. But from time to time the management of wildlife is such that populations increase, and it is a threat to agricultural communities. I will continue to support the farmers' position with the Ministry of Environment.

MS. SANFORD: Regarding the crop insurance, I just wanted to point out to the minister that it's unfortunate that so much of the money that they're getting under the program in order to keep them alive and surviving financially will have to be fed back into the crop insurance program at this time. I'm not saying that crop insurance is a bad thing. I think maybe the minister misinterpreted what I was saying at that point.

I want to refer also to the fact that the minister talks about Agriculture Canada doing the testing of all of these herbicides and pesticides. That is not the case. The testing is done by laboratories for the companies that manufacture the pesticide. I think there is a very big difference between having Agriculture Canada do this testing and having labs that are working for a company manufacturing the product undertaking the testing. We already know about the falsified results that were produced by some of these labs in order to satisfy the people who were employing them, namely the manufacturers of these products. As a result we were given herbicides and pesticides with falsified results in terms of the safety of the product.

Getting back to the Peace River for a moment. I'm wondering whether the provincial government is undertaking in any form any additional assistance that might be required or will probably be required by those people as a result of the U.S. farm bill. The U.S. farm bill is the one that the United States has brought in in order to compete with or undercut the prices that the EEC — the European Economic Community — are able to pay their farmers for the production of grains. There is no doubt that the grain producers in Peace River are going to be facing about a 25 percent cut in the price that they receive for their product. I know the federal government is looking at this and has indicated they might have a bit of interest in this area, but I'm wondering if the provincial government has undertaken any studies of the impact that it might have, if there are any kind of programs being developed that might assist those farmers, because it's going to have a major impact on that Peace River area.

The next issue, Mr. Chairman, relates to Vancouver Island specifically, and relates also to the beekeepers on Vancouver Island. I don't know if the minister is aware that there is a big concern in North America concerning a parasitic mite that has infected the bees of North America; at least in the United States it's been a major problem. As a matter of fact, in the state of Florida they killed off all of their honeybees in an attempt to destroy this particular mite.

[3:15]

On Vancouver Island, where we produce about 1.5 million pounds of honey.... And most of it is sold on the Island, by the way; you can compare that with the 1.6 million pounds that's produced in the rest of British Columbia. You can see it's an industry here that has some merit and has some value. The beekeepers on Vancouver Island feel that we have an ideal opportunity here to guarantee a mite-free bee if we prohibit the import of these bees from the United States. They feel that if you ensured that the bees were not imported onto Vancouver Island we then would have a supply of bees that were free from this parasitic mite.

Mr. Chairman, what has happened is that the provincial government has been saying: "Well, sure, but they can do it on a voluntary basis." But you can't have an area that is quarantined, if you like — if you could use that term in this particular case — if you're going to have it on a voluntary basis. I'm wondering if the minister will look at that. I know that the beekeepers are very concerned about it. I'd appreciate some comments on that as well.

The other issue that I wanted to raise with the minister, which is getting a lot of publicity these days, relates to irradiated foods. There again the minister may be quite satisfied with all of the studies that have been done on the impact of irradiation on food, in order to try to preserve the shelf life of that food. There's no doubt that there is enough evidence

[ Page 8696 ]

that indicates concern about this particular process. I think the minister responsible for Agriculture and Food should be looking at it and should be willing this afternoon to give us his thoughts on irradiated food and the sale of that food in B.C.

It's not a new process, Mr. Chairman. I don't think that it is by any means a clear issue at this stage that it is perfectly safe to irradiate foods with massive amounts of radiation. There's no doubt that these irradiated foods are changed in nature as a result of that irradiation. A million rads are used at times in order to preserve the food. As you know, there is a plant that's being established in Richmond, which will be opening very soon, with respect to irradiated foods.

The chemistry of the food is changed; that's clearly understood. There are also what is termed URPs, Mr. Chairman, that appear in irradiated food and do not appear in any other food — only that which has gone through an irradiation process. The URPs are unique radiolytic products. These products, I think, are still unknown enough in terms of their long-term effects on people who eat irradiated foods that the minister should be looking at it and should be concerned about it. The very least that we should do is to ensure that food that has been irradiated is at least labelled, and we haven't had that assurance yet in this province.

Now there's an international symbol that is used. I would like to see not only a symbol but wording to the effect that the food has been irradiated and that it is the use of cobalt and other things that are used to irradiate that food. Nutritional values are affected when food is irradiated, and I think that should be of concern to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. So there's enough unknown about the impact of irradiated food that I would like to have the minister make some comments on it as well.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member has brought up an additional three subjects. Regarding the U.S. farm bill and the effect it's going to have on grain prices in Canada, I can't answer that question. I do know, however, that as a result of the U.S. farm bill and the reduction in price which is then being bottom loaded by the government of the United States, the grain producer there will not receive any reduction in his income.

I don't know if the government of Canada can compete with the treasury of the government of the United States or not, but I guess that's what we're talking about. We in my ministry are in dialogue constantly with the federal government. The federal government is planning some action; it hasn't been resolved yet just what it will be. But I would hope that at some point we can get away from the problem of taxpayers in one jurisdiction competing with those in the others, and let our farmers compete with one another, because our grain producers can certainly compete with any in the world.

The problem with the little mites on the bees I don't know very much about. My ministry field and special crops branch is investigating and working with the bee industry or the honey industry on the island to try to first of all define what the problem is, how serious it is, and then if there is a serious problem, to take whatever action is indicated at that time.

I don't know much about irradiation of foods, although our people are aware that there could be some potential problem. I'm not saying there is, but there are things that we don't know. They are also having dialogue with the Ministry of Health. I don't know what URPs are. I know that URPs and SRSs and NDPs can be a problem from time to time, but just how serious I don't know.

MS. SANFORD: It's nice that the minister wants to be facetious this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, but there is a lot of genuine concern on many of these issues, and it seems to me that the flippant way in which he responded at that point is an indication of his interest in this whole area not only of irradiated foods but of agriculture and food as far as the province is concerned. It only confirms that the motion of non-confidence in that minister that we introduced this morning was the right thing to do.

As far as the impact of the U.S. farm bill on the Peace River farmers, the answer is: "We're not doing anything." That's what I got out of what the minister said.

As far as the bees are concerned: "We will take whatever action is necessary;" but he has not indicated that he is prepared to prevent the importation of bees from the United States on to Vancouver Island to ensure that we have a mite-free bee here on Vancouver Island. It could be a big asset to the producers here, because then they could ship those bees....

Well, he gave me no indication that that would be the direction in which he would head in terms of protecting the bee keepers on Vancouver Island.

Moving on, Mr. Chairman, we have heard from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture that they feel that there is some urgency to the introduction of agricultural protection legislation. That has not been forthcoming this session. The session is getting on and we have not seen any legislation which will ensure that those farmers are protected under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Last year the farmers agreed to support amendments to the Municipal Act regarding greenbelts, green zones and that kind of thing, on the understanding that the government would in fact introduce agricultural protection legislation. They are now appealing and saying that it is an urgent matter, and I'd like to know whether or not that legislation is ready, whether the government intends to introduce it before the end of this session and proceed with it, or whether it's another broken promise to the farmers of this province.

The other thing I would like to raise, Mr. Chairman, relates to the ALDA program. I've had brought to my attention that off-farm income of spouses of farmers who are applying under the ALDA program is considered as part of the criteria for obtaining that ALDA loan. Now it is unfortunate that farmers whose spouses might work off the farm.... Most of them have to work off the farm these days in order to survive. Perhaps a nurse or a teacher might be working off the farm. That income prevents the farmer from qualifying for the ALDA program. I would like the minister to consider eliminating that criterion of eligibility for the ALDA loan.

The next issue relates to the agricultural fair. There is space that is being sold at the agricultural fair, and I would really like to know what happens to the money that is brought in as a result of the sale of that space. Does it goes back into the Ministry of Agriculture, or is it used to offset the costs of establishing that fair?

I wonder if the minister could also tell me what is happening with the soil conservation program. There is money set aside under the ARDSA program this year to try to begin a program in this province, belated though it is, of soil conservation. It is a very important issue, Mr. Chairman, and I

[ Page 8697 ]

would like the minister to give us some information about what is happening in that program.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the agriculture protection act is not ready yet. I had a discussion with the executive of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture in Penticton about three weeks ago. They know exactly where we are with it and are not unhappy. They realize that with the change in the ministers during the time when the bill was being developed, there were delays. I don't think it is going to be ready this session, but they understand that and know that we are working on it. It has to go through the legislative process, and if it passes all the tests required, then it would be forthcoming. But other than that, I can't really discuss future legislation, because it is still being developed.

A $50,000 or more family off-farm income disqualifies a person for the ALDA program. Less than that and I guess they are not disqualified.

Food Pacific '86 is being operated by a Crown corporation called B.C. Food Exhibitions Ltd. Moneys have been advanced to that organization for the purpose of putting on a fair. Any revenues coming back will come into that Crown corporation and will either be returned to the government or some of it will be left there because we are planning on having such an exposition every second year, and there will be some ongoing costs of B.C. Food Exhibitions Ltd. I don't know in detail what financial arrangements will be made, but the money does come back to them, and the decision as to where it goes after being returned to B.C. Food Exhibitions Ltd. will be made at a later time.

[3:30]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know about the full-time equivalents in the ministry at this time. I know that there have been cutbacks in field operations throughout the province. The full-time equivalents are listed this year at 498, yet the salary amount that is included for those full-time equivalents has gone down significantly. I am wondering how the minister intends to ensure that there are 498 full-time equivalent staff when in fact the amount of money set aside to pay for them has dropped.

Another question relates to the aquaculture program. Could the minister advise whether it is a $1 million program within the ministry, or is it $700,000? Because I have seen two conflicting figures on this, and I would like to know exactly how much money the government has set aside for that aquaculture program.

The other thing that I would like to raise with the minister is an appeal, I guess, to expand as much as possible — through the community colleges or through whatever other method the minister can establish — training programs for farmers. Farming is a very complex operation even at the family-farm level these days. I know that many farmers could benefit from training programs. I spoke to a veterinarian not long ago, Mr. Chairman, and he indicated to me that it is lack of knowledge in many cases that causes the problems that he is called out to attend to. He is called to a farm and finds that the animals are all suffering because of malnutrition and because of lack of information in terms of the ability of that farmer to ensure that the animals are property nourished. It's impossible for the veterinarian to make those cattle and those animals well unless the farmer understands what nutrition is all about. That's the kind of thing, and it seems to me that this is an area where the training program could be widely expanded and farmers encouraged — maybe some kind of financial encouragement — to undertake a year, or two years even, of courses which would ensure that they are efficient and as effective as they can be on the farm.

Maybe the minister would like to comment on those.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Last year, 1985-86, we had an allocation of 498 FTEs at roughly $7.5 million. This year it is the same number of FTEs, and the cost is just about $17.7 million, so there is no reduction in the amount, according to the information I get from my staff. Last year our budget for agriculture was $300,000. It's increased by $700,000 to a total this year of $1 million.

Training programs. All I can say is that — not directly through my ministry, although we do have assistance in terms of technical advice to people throughout the province who are field officers — the Fraser Valley College is instituting an agricultural program. I guess there is some controversy as to whether that campus should be at Chilliwack or Abbotsford, but there is a program being developed. Our people in the ministry will be working very closely with the college to provide some training services to young farmers. Perhaps we can also help them with more sophisticated management programs than they've had in the past.

MS. SANFORD: There are only another couple of issues that I would like to raise with the minister. I guess these are more of a philosophic discussion than anything else. It seems to me that we as a society, and certainly the minister as the minister responsible for Agriculture and Food, might consider looking philosophically at the whole issue of food production in a slightly different way. I know it's difficult for the minister to change his philosophy or even to consider a new philosophy at this stage, because I think most of those ideas over there are pretty ingrained. But we have people like Bishop Remi de Roo, who raises.... I hear a groan over there already. It's unfortunate. As I said, I was right. They're not prepared to consider any new philosophies or any new approaches to the whole question of agriculture in this province. But we have situations where we are mining the land; we have situations where we're putting on far too many pesticides; we have situations where there is salination of the soil because of the excess use of fertilizers. We have situations where damage is being done to the very land that grows our food. We also have situations such as Bishop Remi de Roo points out; we live in a world where people are going hungry, and at the same time we have farmers who are going broke. Now I think if the minister considers that for a period of time, maybe we can get some new ideas and some new directions in terms of agriculture and the way that ministry should be operating as a result of that.

But why is it that we continue to mine the soil and, in many cases, abuse the soil? There's an excellent article that I read not long ago which describes cultivation and traces the root of the word "cultivation." It comes from "cultus," which means to care, and it means to care for the land on which we grow our food. It talks about the most successful kind of farming being the farm where the farmer relates to his land and relates to the product that he grows, and is not totally consumed by the technological changes that take place and by the total necessity to mine the soil in order to survive financially.

[ Page 8698 ]

There are a whole lot of philosophical issues — and I realize that — that have to be considered in discussing this kind of approach. But farming is a valued way of life; it's not just a business. I think that too often these days we look at farming as a business rather than as a family operation where we care for the soil, nurture the soil and ensure that we don't abuse or mine it. The accusation has been made by people other than me, people like Senator Sparrow, who headed the Senate committee that looked into soil erosion in Canada and talked about the problems relating to mining the soil. What happens is that we take a very short-sighted approach and look at the problems of today without looking down the road. When you think that in 70 years the prairie provinces have lost half the topsoil that took 50,000 years to create, then you know it's time we had a new approach, and a new look at the Ministry of Agriculture and its approach to the farming community in this province.

Vote 5 approved.

Vote 6: ministry operations, $73,305,168 — approved.

Vote 7: Milk Board, $337,134 — approved.

Vote 8: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, $1,062,157 — approved.

Vote 9: agri-food regional development subsidiary agreement (ERDA), $8,500,000 — approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Later today, Mr. Speaker.

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Second reading of Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no quorum. A quorum call shall be made.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MOTION PICTURE ACT, 1986

HON. MR. SMITH: It's a pleasure to rise to speak on Bill 30, which looks even better in light of the last week. The purposes of this act are simple and straightforward. It is to continue the procedures for the regulation of motion pictures intended for public exhibition, to introduce a new scheme for the regulation of adult videotapes and to limit their availability to young persons.

This did not come about by any flash of bureaucratic lightning, but as a result of a tour and listening to the people in the field and in the industry. By the industry I mean the retailers, the major distributors, the many groups that attended. Some of them were women's groups, some were religious groups, some were community groups, some were a mixture, and many of these people also had presented good briefs before the Fraser commission.

As a result of that tour and hearing a number of submissions and briefs, we came up with what I believe is a bill that balances the various interests and gives the public a regulatory scheme which is workable. Indeed, the video industry itself very clearly wishes to have some regulation. We had cautions, of course, when we were out there from the business community and also from a number of concerned residents. People warned us not to set up a scheme that would be overly bureaucratic and cumbersome and expensive — some censorship scheme. We looked at the experience in other countries such as Britain and Australia where all video material, regardless of content, is subject to classification and censorship. This points out the problems associated with over-regulation. We also looked at American experience and Canadian experience, and we decided that this B.C. model would be a very good one.

In British Columbia, there are approximately two million videos in circulation through about 725 retail outlets. To regulate all videos, regardless of their content, would constitute clear over-regulation. A large portion of these videos would be identical to films that are already passed by the film classification branch. Most do not contain any contentious material. I see no reason to spend public money to have all of these reviewed and to have people going around pulling discs out of stores and putting little decals on them.

[3:45]

The video industry itself has long been concerned about the current status of the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code and the fact that there have not been clear guidelines and still aren't until the legislation before Parliament is passed. Indeed it will after that. The industry proposed and supported a system of regulating adult videos at source — that is, at the manufacturing level — before they're introduced into the retail market.

Based on those recommendations and representations, we have a good regulatory scheme. That regulation will be the responsibility of the director of film classifications. She is already in place and already has a staff. The act defines the material that's absolutely prohibited, including sexually-explicit scenes involving young persons under the age of 18 and sexually-explicit scenes involving violence and other acts that are particularly repugnant to the bulk of the population.

The act also defines the type of material which has to be submitted for classification. All distributors of video material, the companies which duplicate master tapes for distribution, will be required to be licensed and to submit copies of their adult tapes for approval by the film classification office prior to distribution. At the same time, all the retailers will be licensed, and a retail outlet may not offer an adult video tape or film for rent or sale unless it has a special adult film retail licence. The licence will have conditions attached. The main condition is that they won't be able to display or offer for sale or rental the video to minors.

I would have preferred not to have had to require the regulation of all video retailers; that is, those who choose not to carry adult videos. That would have been my choice. But in order for this scheme to be effective it is necessary to have

[ Page 8699 ]

a universal licensing system. We will ensure that the licensing fees for non-adult videos will be significantly lower than those for adult outlets. These licensing procedures and the power of the director of film classifications to suspend or cancel licences will provide an effective administrative sanction to ensure compliance with the new law. So it's a licensing scheme, instead of the Criminal Code, which we will employ, and I think it will be very effective.

An indication of the seriousness with which the government views this matter are the penalties provided for in the act. Where a prosecution is necessary and appropriate, the maximum fine under the act will be $10,000 or six months' imprisonment, or both, but the major sanction will be the licence.

I think this bill strikes an effective balance between the clear public demand for the regulation of sexually-explicit video materials and the protection of freedom of speech, because this act also recognizes the need to protect materials intended for legitimate artistic, scientific or educational purposes.

In establishing in law criteria for editing or prohibiting materials in film and videos, the new act meets the requirements, we believe, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In conclusion, this legislation is an important step in limiting the availability of pornography in this province and doing so in a rational and supportable way.

As part of the appropriation to be made under this act, my ministry will be undertaking a public educational program aimed at encouraging individual responsibility for the control of pornography, and informing the public of the new law and the responsibilities of retailers under it. In light of recent reports concerning young people being major consumers of pornography, and particularly video pornography, I am concerned that we encourage parents to be more aware of what their children are viewing and for them to exercise appropriate control.

This act will prohibit retailers from providing adult materials to the young. But it is still ultimately a parental responsibility, and we must not lose sight of that; the state cannot do everything that parents are unable to.

On the basis of my discussions with individuals and groups throughout this province, I know that this approach to regulating adult video material has the support of the general public, and I am confident that we will have the support of this House as well. I move second reading.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is in support of Bill 30 in principle. We feel it is as the Attorney-General has stated, a rational response to the demand to curtail particularly pornographic materials relating to children and violence.

I have a word about free speech which I wanted to enter into the debate on. The difference in this bill and the one recently tabled in Ottawa reflects, I think, an effort on the part of the Attorney-General to solve the problem, rather than, as in Ottawa, to create a political move of some kind. I would urge upon the Attorney-General that he take a copy of this bill and send it along to the Minister of Justice in Ottawa.

However, there are some difficulties with some of the sections of this bill which will be raised in committee. The question of freedom of speech always arises when governments start to regulate the production of literature and other forms of communication. We in a democracy always feel that it is our primary responsibility as individuals to make decisions about what we will read, watch and hear.

It is offensive to most people in a democratic society to have Big Brother government tell you what you want to watch or what you can watch or hear. Freedom of speech, however, is guided, if you like, by a sense of responsibility, and the question of harm to people is a government responsibility. Pornography involving children and violence clearly is a harmful activity within our community, and there is a widespread demand for governments to act in controlling it.

The question of freedom of speech therefore has its limitations. The law of libel and slander is also a limitation on freedom of speech, and the law of sedition and so forth is a limitation on freedom of speech. Few, if any, public leaders would attack those laws, arguing that it curtails the Charter's right to freedom of speech and communication.

So in that sense we agree with the Attorney-General's approach to this very complex matter. The definitions are always difficult, and we all know, from studying the history of censorship, classification guidelines and so forth, and also the Criminal Code provisions with respect to obscenity, that definitions are very difficult. The words can never be as precise as we would like to have them, and people sometimes fall within them or are prosecuted or regulated in a way that was not anticipated by the legislators.

So I think it is important to put on the record in Hansard what is contemplated by this bill, and certainly in reply the Attorney-General can correct me if I am wrong. It is an attack on the sexually explicit material concerning violence and children. That is the primary attack. The other matters that are mentioned in the bill, such as incest and bestiality and necrophilia, are matters which I suppose might as well be in there, but they are not matters that I have seen come up in the public debate as being a problem in society. In other words, I assume from that that not much of that junk appears. But it is wise to place it in there.

I can foresee difficulty in interpretation of the definitions, insofar as the definitions include a widespread description. It can be interpreted, for example, that a film.... A recent Italian film Oedipus Rex concerns incest. Someone can interpret the definition to include Oedipus Rex. That has to be reviewed by perhaps not the film classifier we have today, but a film classifier years from now. Bernice Gerard, let's say, becomes the film classifier. How would Bernice Gerard look at Oedipus Rex? Oedipus Rex concerns incest; that's offensive. It seems, and only seems, to be included in the act. That is not, I am sure, contemplated by the legislators on both sides of this House in supporting this bill.

It becomes a more practical problem when you have outlets such as the retail outlet Videomatica, which some members in this chamber patronize. Videomatica is one of those outlets renting videos that provide classical films and also films that are foreign-made and not necessarily shown in our theatres. Therefore the fees involved for reviewing those films that may be unique, imported by Videomatica for a limited audience, could be so high that those of us who want to watch foreign films may not have that unique opportunity if such an outlet is shut down. I'm getting to the practical aspects of it; I'll deal with it in a little more detail under the sections where I think this problem may arise.

The other question is that it should not be interpreted that this bill in any way focuses in the same way as the recent bill tabled in the other House this week. That bill is totally unreflective of Canadian standards. It is a cynical, political

[ Page 8700 ]

piece of nonsense. It did not address in any way the problem, and it has ignored virtually all of the findings and recommendations of the Fraser commission. The Attorney-General has already put some distance between himself and that proposal, and I concur in that.

Those are my remarks on the principle of this bill.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I think first of all we should probably pay tribute to some of the people who have struggled over the years — and it has been years — to get this piece of legislation on the floor of this House. I can't believe it actually is here. I suspect that I'll pinch myself and find that I'm asleep somewhere, dreaming that we are finally, at last, dealing, even in an imperfect way, with something that so many people have worked so hard to achieve.

So I think we should talk about Jancis Andrews and we should mention the Coalition Against Pornography. We should mention the Fraser Institute and some of the people who served on.... No, not the Fraser Institute, sorry. Don't mention the Fraser Institute, please! Let's not mention the Fraser Institute, but certainly the Fraser commission, Joan Wallace and some of the people who served on that commission; and also the Justice Institute, which held a number of important conferences and brought Professors Donnerstein and Malamuth here for a one-day conference on this important issue.

It's been a long time. It's been a very slow process. There have been a number of court cases that had to be dealt with. There have been some that haven't been dealt with. We've gone through Red Hot Video, and even up to the present day we still have problems in terms of some of the material which is being used and shown and rented through some of the video outlets.

[4:00]

But I'm really pleased this bill is here and that the opposition is supporting this piece of legislation. We have been told over the years that, like the poor, pornography is going to be with us always, that we can't do anything about bringing it to an end; we can't eliminate it; we can't eradicate it. That argument has always been used as an excuse for doing absolutely nothing. I'm glad that as a result of the continuing pressure brought to bear on this government by a number of people in the women's movement, as well as concerned men in other areas, the government has decided to try to limit anyway, if not eliminate, the development and the production and propagation of pornography. I agree that there are some problems with the bill, and we are going to discuss them when the bill goes into committee, but I want to thank the minister for not making the mistakes made by the federal Justice minister in introducing legislation that went too far. Certainly he is quite correct in saying that the legislation brought down by the Justice minister two days ago makes the opposition to this bill that was building disappear — I hope — because it is so much more rational and so much more sensible in its approach than that of the Minister of Justice in the federal House.

I am particularly interested in the section of the bill dealing with public education. I have some concerns about the very limited funds that have been earmarked for this, and hope that when the minister closes debate — or maybe when we debate that particular section — he will indicate whether this is just the beginning in terms of funding, whether this is just seed money, and whether there is a lot more money out there that the government is prepared to spend in the whole area of public education. That's important; that's even more important in many ways than legislation dealing with limiting. What we don't want to happen is pornography to go so far underground that it can't be touched by any kind of laws at all. The one way of protecting ourselves against that is through the whole process of a good and effective public education program.

A number of groups met with the human services committee of the opposition and raised concerns about the cost involved in having their material looked at by the classification board. The minister was not clear in his introduction as to whether the full cost would be borne by the government, or whether some of the smaller groups.... I'm thinking of groups like Women in Focus, for example. Their funding is so limited it's almost non-existent. They are primarily involved in the business of making movies or videos specifically dealing — they have women film-makers, particularly — with issues of concern to women, including the whole area of female sexuality. They have some concern about having to submit these films for censorship because of the cost. What would happen to a small, poorly funded organization like Women in Focus if they had to submit all of their production to the classification board and if there were a cost attached to it? I know Sara Diamond also raised some concerns again about film-makers who do not have access to large budgets and large sums of money and about the costs that would be tied to having everything classified.

I know that my colleague mentioned Videomatica, and there were some veiled threats about Videomatica having to close. I would be hurt if that happened to Videomatica, because I buy all my operas through them, and they are one of the few places in town that carry these particular videos for sale. I'm not as concerned about their adult movies — if they couldn't bring them in anymore. I'm not as concerned about that as long as they could still bring their operas in, so I'm being very selfish about this. I know that I was approached by telephone about this, and two questions were raised. Would all of their tapes have to be viewed? Would everything that they bring in have to go before the classification board? And what about the cost involved? They too operate on a limited budget, so they would have some problems in meeting the expense.

Other than that, I am prepared to deal with the legislation in committee and to repeat that I am happy that it's finally here, that I recognize that it's a small step but it certainly is a step in the right direction. I think that if the government is serious about its commitment to its public education program, we might find in time that this kind of legislation is no longer necessary.

MRS. WALLACE: Just very briefly, I want to commend the Attorney-General for bringing in this piece of legislation. As he may recall, I dealt with this subject matter last year in the form of a private member's bill in the hope of prompting him into such action, and I hope that it perhaps worked. I'm very glad to see the legislation here. It certainly has some problems. It's a very difficult piece of legislation to draft because you're required to walk such a fine line between what is necessary for the protection of British Columbia citizens and the rights of individuals. I think we can offer some improvements and we're going to try to do that. I hope the minister will keep the same open mind to the suggestions we make in committee as he has to the constant urgings from this side of the House to bring this legislation into being.

[ Page 8701 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: Just in closing debate, I very much appreciate the comments of the three members who have spoken. Some of those comments I'll probably deal with more specifically in committee. The public education part of the bill is a serious one, and we will certainly be budgeting to spend some money on that in this fiscal year. It's not a window-dressing matter. We consider it an important approach.

I think the member for Burnaby-Edmonds will find that the groups she's concerned with — groups like Women in Focus — which might have to come forward and pay fees, if they did have to come forward with any of their material.... It's not certain that they would, because much of it would fall within the artistic category. Certainly the vintage films and the art films would not be ones that the motion picture branch would be interested in reviewing, but if a viewing was involved in something like that, the fee would be waived; there's provision under the act to waive the fees. We're not interested in trying to regulate vintage or art films that come in, particularly motion pictures that are known and have already been reviewed by this very same branch as films for movie showing. We're really looking at new releases.

Of course, hon. member, unless they fall within the definition of an adult video in the act, we're not going to review them at all. We're only reviewing the adult material. In practice I think this will work well.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 30 to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 30, Motion Picture Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

MOTION PICTURE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mrs. Johnston in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LAUK: Madam Chairman, I'm having some difficulty in the definitions section because this relates to the question of reviewing fees, and with smaller operations this may be impossible.

The question of Videomatica has to be broached. I don't have shares in Videomatica, I don't have a business interest in it, but it strikes me as a classic example. This is a single business. It's importing films that are not likely, as the Attorney-General said in debate, to have been reviewed already for theatre distribution, and therefore the cost of such reviews could be prohibitive. That could include almost all of their films. Foreign films quite often depict explicit sexual scenes, and I'm not sure what "explicit sexual scenes" means. Is it actual sexual scenes, or it is simulated explicit sexual scenes, which you find quite often in modern films from Hollywood, Paris, Rome, London? Some of these films are not already reviewed for distribution. So a small operation like Videomatica has to send, let's say, dozens of these films to the classifier for review. Perhaps a policy indication now about whether or not the fee would be waived or not could be made for such a small business.

As I say, if you go to subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (b) of the definitions section — "incest or necrophilia...." What about Oedipus Rex? Does that have to be reviewed? That play, 2,500 or 2,300 years old, depicts incest. There's also the question of those who appear to be under the age of 14, or who appear to be under the age of 18. There are problems with those definitions.

Perhaps policy statements or guidelines should, in consultation with the classifier, be published as soon as possible, so that the industry knows where they stand and what films to submit. I take it that you're not going to have policemen wandering into these outlets, random-checking films and so forth. You're going to rely, because of the heavy penalty of losing a licence, on the judgment of the retailer and the distributor to submit these films for review. They've indicated to me that they're just going to have to bundle up all their films and send them, unless there are some published guidelines fairly quickly. Those are the areas that I would question, and I ask the Attorney-General to provide us with his thoughts on these matters.

HON. MR. SMITH: Madam Chairman, in response to the general question of how the administration will operate, you will not be required, if you're a retail distributor, to submit all your current stock. In time we're going to publish a list of adult material in current stock, which will be circulated to retailers. We've already gone quite a distance in getting that ready. So the retailer will get a list saying: "This is adult material." Therefore, when the act comes in, that adult material will have to be put in an adult section, in accordance with the regulations, and not made available to children. We'll also circulate a list of stock that has, in our opinion, prohibited material as well; and we'll give a chance for this to be removed. That is going to be handled in that fashion.

The new material that comes in, that hasn't entered the province before, is only going to be submitted and looked at by the branch if it's adult. If it's an Oedipus Rex, it's not going to be looked at by the director, because the director is already aware of Oedipus Rex, and is aware that it has artistic, historical and educational value and qualifies under 5(5). Of course, I'm not telling the director how she would rule; I'm just suggesting....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, of course, a Shakespearean scholar like yourself would probably, I would think, be a....

[4:15]

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, a scholar of Bacon or Edmund Spenser or Ogden Nash, or whoever did write it. I'm sure that he'd be a compellable witness, and a very useful witness, when it came to giving us evidence of the artistic merit of Oedipus Rex.

There is the scientific exemption in 5(5). And then — I realize I'm anticipating sections — there's also the exemption for film societies, which will cover, I think, some of the groups that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown)

[ Page 8702 ]

was concerned with in her remarks in second reading. You also asked me about.... What did you ask me about?

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: What is "explicit"? We will have to define in the regulations some of this terminology. We will have to set out guidelines as well. We intend to do both. And we intend to have a clear definition of what explicit sexual activity means — as clear as it can be defined.

The attempt here is to be clear, and everything that is not defined in the Act will be defined in the regs, and there will be some guidelines spelled out as well. I don't think that I should probably attempt to give those today, but I'll just undertake that we will give you both guidelines and clear regs.

MS. BROWN: The question raised about "appear to be" in subsections (v) and (vi) is very important, I think, in terms of retaining that. It was raised before the Fraser commission and I know it has been raised with the Attorney-General a number of times that even using people above the age of 14 or 18 but dressing them in such a way that they appear to be children is an issue which is of major concern to us. So I think the question of "appear to be" is one that has to be protected. It cannot be lost when the regulations.... Okay. And the same thing with the snuff films where murder is simulated. The simulation or the appearance is as damaging as the real thing, and you have to be sure that when the regulations are drafted those two areas are retained in the regulations.

MR. LAUK: Surely my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds....

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you rising to object?

MR. LAUK: Yes, I object to them both. This is a conspiracy here. Surely my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds is not suggesting that the five hundred and.... What about Rambo and all the rest of that junk? Is that a simulated snuff film? He kills 37 people before the credits are over. You see the bullets going through the heads and everything. Now that is simulated snuff films in a sense. Or do you mean a film that is designed to give the audience the impression that an actual killing is taking place? Is that what the Attorney-General understands?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Would the Attorney like to address that question?

MR. LAUK: Did you hear my question, Mr. Attorney?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I did. Don't underestimate the power of concentration even in this place.

The snuff films will be covered in 5(3)(g) because they are materials which include scenes of brutality or torture, maiming or dismemberment of persons or animals that are portrayed with such a degree of reality and explicitness that the scenes would, in the director's opinion, be intolerable to the community. So it is not a fair stretch from that to say that.... That was designed for the snuff films, that section. If you are sawing off somebody's arms during lovemaking, you are obviously caught by that section. It doesn't really leave much to the imagination of the director of film classifications. I mean, it's so explicit. It's unbelievably explicit.

MR. LAUK: I had one more question, but I am going to abandon it for fear of another answer along the same lines.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. LAUK: Madam Chairperson, I wish to move an amendment to section 5(3)(i). I want to ask the committee to delete paragraph (i) which states: "Conduct or an activity that is prescribed in a regulation made under 14(f)." I have a similar amendment for 14(f), if I could table that. Delete (i).

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: This section really does offend the concept of taking away from the Legislature the power to review again, with perhaps updated information on community values, and changing standards of quality and types of films and materials that are produced.

The director can "remove or require the removal of, by erasure or otherwise, any portion of it that depicts... (i) conduct or an activity that is prescribed in a regulation made under section 14(f)." That's how it reads. Now that gives the cabinet the power to prescribe any conduct or activity that it feels like. It's a wide-ranging power, and it's totally unacceptable in legislation anywhere, particularly in legislation that's so sensitive and....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Could we have one meeting, please. I'm sorry, Mr. Member. The second member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am trying to attract the attention of the Attorney-General, as indeed you are, sir. Thank you very much for your good offices.

I mentioned this briefly in conversation with the Attorney-General. I find it offensive, as a legislator, to have that kind of a section in there. Section 14 (f) refers to the power of the cabinet to prescribe conduct or activity for the purposes of section 5 (i). It should not be left to the cabinet.

If the government is of the view that there is something that has fallen outside of this act, then the government should bring in an amendment in due course and have it properly aired and debated in public. This situation here allows the cabinet, in secrecy, to decide what conduct or activity should be prescribed under section 5, which may or may not require the director to "remove or require the removal of, by erasure or otherwise," that portion. That could be anything, as I say, and I urge the Attorney-General to accept the amendment.

HON. MR. SMITH: On the amendment, I have to say that when you brought it to my attention originally, what you were objecting to, if I can call it the so-called omnibus regulatory provision.... Your comments had some merit. Since then, we've had introduced into parliament Bill whatever-it-is, an act to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the obscenity sections, and there are new categories of prohibited visual material that are set out in that bill. If those provisions

[ Page 8703 ]

should be passed by parliament, and they may not be totally in that form.... They include other forms of conduct that would have to be considered by the criminal law, and therefore would certainly have to be considered by our director of motion picture classifications. How is she, then, to deal with matters that are not enumerated in section 5(3) already? The only way she could do so would be under the omnibus provision, whereby cabinet could make a regulation.

So I will certainly say in this House that as far as I am concerned.... If I'm the minister advising the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to pass a regulation under that section, the only regulation I would so advise would be to cover a provision of the new Criminal Code changes, which as well withstood assaults under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as undoubtedly there would be. I think it's probably desirable to retain that omnibus provision for that purpose, because you cannot keep amending your legislation to respond to the Criminal Code. There should be parallel coverage. I think there has to be. You can't have regulating and classifying films for one purpose and allowing things that are prohibited by the criminal law. Were it not for this bill, hon. member, I think I would have been inclined to accept your amendment, but regrettably I must speak against it.

MR. LAUK: That is regrettable, Madam Chairman. I don't like the Attorney-General's convoluted argument and I don't accept it. I don't think the Criminal Code amendments have any bearing on this section. The issue clearly is, should this Legislature delegate all of its authority in this area to the cabinet? That's what this section does — all of the Legislature's authority is being delegated to the cabinet. It's most certainly going to be challenged under the charter, and it's going to be challenged under traditional common law constitutional interpretation. It offends the rule of delegata potestas non potest delegari, which is on the Attorney-General's lips every day. And the classifier is to operate under this statute. The classifier should have no interest other than in using her judgment, on a broad scale, of what the laws of Canada should be. It's much more precise than that. I know full well that the Attorney-General does not expect that statute to pass in Ottawa, particularly in its present form.

[4:30]

It's very offensive to this chamber, no matter how responsible the Attorney-General of the day, to suggest that this House delegate all of its authority to him and to cabinet. I'm really disappointed that the Attorney-General has not seen fit to accept the amendment. And to say that we shouldn't leave ourselves open to amendments to the Criminal Code — as if they're made every day! In the obscenity sections there have been, I think, two amendments in 20 years or something. They're not made every day and it's nonsense to suggest it as a reason for us to hoist over all of our authority to decide on these issues.

MR. HOWARD: Awesome powers.

MR. LAUK: Absolutely awesome, sweeping, jack-boot powers that this Attorney-General wishes to take away from the Legislature.

MS. BROWN: I would have thought, Madam Chairperson, that in a matter as sensitive as this the cabinet wouldn't want to take that kind of responsibility, quite frankly; that they would rather have the House make those kinds of decisions. I'm wondering whether we're giving the Attorney-General enough time to really think this thing through. Maybe we should move an adjournment or something so that he could consult and check with the law books a little bit more clearly — delegata delegari, or whatever these things are that lawyers do when they get together.

What my colleague from Vancouver Centre says is true: that in fact cabinet has the right to change regulations and amend and decide what is and what is not obscene. Really, that's too much responsibility to be placed on the shoulders of cabinet. That's the kind of decision the House should share. I'm sure that when the Attorney-General thinks about this more clearly he will agree with that. I know that the director doesn't want to have that responsibility on her shoulders. She certainly doesn't want to be in a position where she's accused of setting the standards, of establishing just what are and are not community standards. I'm sure she wants to rely on the collective wisdom of the Legislature in making those kinds of decisions, and so should the Attorney-General and his cabinet.

HON. MR. SMITH: I think we have to be able to respond to this additional tier under the Criminal Code if it should become law, and for that purpose the power is there, but it would be a power that I would think the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would be very sparing to use. It has been our approach to try to spell things out in the act as much as we can and to have a....

MR. LAUK: What if the next Attorney-General is Doug Christie?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, Madam Chairman, I am glad in any event that they have acknowledged regardless that this government is going to be re-elected, and that pleases me considerably.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, you can also ascend, you know. You don't have to be removed. But that would be an announcement for another place, like a small atoll in my riding at 5 a.m. with seagulls present only.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't know. Are you rising on a point of personal privilege?

I must say, though, that this power seems justified particularly in light of the flux of the Criminal Code and the injection of a new tier. But that is all I would ever recommend it be used for.

MR. MACDONALD: I think that power is absolutely egregious for any government to ask that it.... By regulation they can proscribe people seeing or reading something without that being spelled out.

I am just adding my voice to what has been said by my two colleagues. It is an extraordinary power, and if this were taken before any court it would be struck down. It is totally wide-open. By regulation you can..."conduct or an activity that is prescribed in a regulation." It could be anything. And when you get into this business of censorship —

[ Page 8704 ]

whether you call it by licence or not, it is really censorship we are talking about — you've got to be very careful and sparing in terms of what you restrict. You could very easily be carried right back to the Victorian age with heavy obscenity laws and far more vice and violence and Jack the Rippers and prostitutes than we see today.

I am not a pro-censorship person anyway, and here you come into this House and have such a wide-open power as that given to government. I am not sure how that Charter of Rights is going to work, but if I were a judge looking at this under the Charter of Rights, I would say no government should be given that kind of power. It is just outrageous. I think that section should be stricken out. Goodness me, this thing goes far enough as it is, does it not?

HON. MR. SMITH: It would be the unreasonable exercise of the power that would be impugnable under the Charter, not the delegation of it. If a regulation were to be passed by a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that proscribed the activity of whittling, a perfectly reasonable activity in many parts of the province, then no doubt the forensic persuasions of the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) would be sufficient before any court to strike down such a regulation as being unreasonable under the Charter. That's how it would operate. But the delegation section, in the absence of an unreasonable regulation, doesn't violate the Charter.

MS. BROWN: I am at a loss to understand why the Attorney-General would jeopardize quite a reasonable and rational piece of legislation by being stubborn about this. Really, that's what we are dealing with: stubbornness. It is not that the Attorney-General is illogical. We are dealing with a very logical human being here who has managed with a great deal of assistance and aid to put together a pretty reasonable and rational piece of legislation. Rather than taking the time to consult with the wise people who drafted the legislation and look at the real merits of the amendment being moved by my colleague from Vancouver Centre, with a view to admitting that a mistake has been made, that in fact this particular section does contravene — as my other colleague from Vancouver Centre said — our sense of what is censorship and what isn't.... Just accept the amendment, which simply says delete it.

When there are regulations to be drafted and decisions made about community standards, what is obscene and what is not obscene in this province, this Legislature, this House, this body, will make that kind of decision, not the Attorney-General and his colleagues in cabinet.

That's not an irrational request. That's not even unreasonable. So why would he jeopardize a decent piece of legislation simply by being stubborn on this issue? It doesn't make any sense at all. I would like to suggest that the Attorney-General give this matter some more thought.

While he's thinking, I'll continue to speak — if he needs more time to do some more thinking. Would the Attorney-General like some more time to examine the matter further?

HON. MR. SMITH: No. I would suggest that we just move on from that section for a minute and go to other sections and come back to this, because I may have a solution to it.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We'll stand down section 5 and proceed to section 6.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on section 8.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General will read out the motion.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes. The motion is as follows: To amend section 8, in the proposed section 8(l), by deleting everything after "theatre" and substituting "unless he is licensed to do so by the Director in respect of each location from which the business is carried on."

On the amendment.

HON. MR. SMITH: If I can speak to the purpose of the amendment, this proposed amendment is required because it's necessary that the director have the power to require a separate licence for each theatre and also for each video outlet. That was not clear, it was thought, from the previous draft.

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Sections 9 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I move the complementary amendment that I mentioned vis-à-vis section 5 to section 14 by deleting paragraph (f) of section 14, which states, "prescribing conduct or an activity for the purposes of section 5(3)(i)," following on my first amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 14 and the amendment stand down and then go back to section 5, hon. member?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, stand down section 14 and the amendment.

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Just pause for a moment; I'm going to propose a change.

If I could, with leave of the committee, move to section 14 for a minute, which we stood down, I want to propose an amendment to 14, which will deal with section 5 as well, which may satisfy the House — if I can go to 14.

[4:45]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would move an amendment to 14(f), adding the following words to 14(f): "...proscribing conduct or an activity for the purposes of section 5(3)(i),

[ Page 8705 ]

in order to be consistent with the Criminal Code." I have the proposed amendment here, which I'll initial. While the members are looking at it, I'll speak to it for a minute and explain its purport.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I took it that the Attorney-General was saying I would make this amendment. My amendment is still on the floor. That amendment is not acceptable to us, to this extent. We appreciate that the Attorney-General will go that far, and barring him not going as far as we want him to go, we're glad that he has proposed that. But we'd like to vote on our amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the amendment to section 14.

MR. LAUK: Can we go back to section 5 and vote on the amendment?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, I think the member is absolutely correct. I believe we should take them in order and vote on the amendment to section 5 first.

Amendment to section 5 negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 10

NAYS — 20

Section 5 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the amendment to section 14 from the Attorney-General.

MR. LAUK: No, no. On a point of order, I have moved a motion to amend paragraph (f) by deleting it; that should be dealt with before any other amendments.

Amendment negatived on division.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would move the amendment under section 14(f) standing under my name.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment for section 14 is by adding, in section 14(f), the words: "in order to be consistent with the Criminal Code of Canada." These words are after the reference to section 5(3)(i).

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, Motion Picture Act, reported complete with amendments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. SMITH: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is not granted; the bill must be considered reported at a further date. Order, please, hon. members. One moment. Because leave was not granted, we must go back to the preceding motion. The preceding motion, of course, would be: when shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

On vote 70: minister's office, $186,423.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just a few remarks to open my estimates. I'll make them as brief as possible, and then I'm sure that some of the members opposite will want to ask some questions.

First of all, just a few remarks about Expo 86, without any question the largest and most exciting project ever undertaken in this province. I do not want to take the time of the committee to recite statistics that are well known to everyone, but suffice it to say that Expo has proven to be a great success with the people of British Columbia and, indeed, Canada and the rest of the world. At the moment, we have some 16.8 million visits paid for and in the bank, and the projected number of visits now exceeds 17.5 million. In my own personal opinion, we shall reach the 20 million mark before the fair closes on October 13. The benefits to the economy of British Columbia cannot be overemphasized. A number that seems to be left out when people are quoting statistics is the fact that Expo 86 will generate some $3.5 billion to $4 billion in economic activity in this province alone. In fact, it will generate over $600 million in taxes alone in this province, revenue that would not be here for the province if it were not for Expo — $600 million in taxes.

It is putting British Columbia on the map as no other event could possibly have done. The profile and recognition

[ Page 8706 ]

that we are getting world-wide would not have been possible without an event such as Expo. On the opening-day ceremonies alone, which were of course attended by the royal couple.... Over one billion viewers worldwide saw that opening on television alone. We are on virtually every magazine cover, or in magazines, newspapers and radios throughout the world. So in international recognition alone, Expo will pay dividends for many years to come.

California has been a particularly key market to us. Our marketing success there, I think by now, is well-known. More than 30 percent of all Expo inquiries are coming from the state of California, and we are pleased to see that. We will undoubtedly end up with in excess of 2.5 million visits from the state of California alone. Already we have over 150 buses northbound from the U.S. per day in the month of May, which is about four times the normal average. Vehicle and passenger traffic is up 50 percent from the United States over a normal month of May.

[5:00]

The inquiries at the Douglas information centre are up 113 percent. So I want to leave the statistics there and just say that the benefits to us, both from industry and business, through the business visitors program, which falls under another ministry, and the long-range benefits from tourism, and the multiplier effect will pay off handsomely for British Columbia for many, many years.

There is no question that tourism will figure very prominently as a major contributor to the new B.C. economy, and Expo starts us on the road to that goal. It leaves a tremendous legacy, and I think we can't overemphasize what it will do for the redevelopment of our principal city of Vancouver, as we form a new provincewide convention network, starting with the new convention centre in Vancouver and the new one proposed for Victoria, bringing in Whistler and, of course, the convention centre in Penticton and others proposed for the interior. It puts us in a tremendous position to benefit from the convention business for many years to come, and we will be making announcements on that in the very near future.

The redevelopment of downtown Vancouver, again while falling under another ministry, will do wonders for that city. One has only to look at the plans that the B.C. Place corporation has for the redevelopment of the North Shore and False Creek, and you can't help but get excited about that.

As I said, Expo has provided a showcase for British Columbia businesses, and it has given us an opportunity to show decision-makers from around the world why they should be relocating in our province. Many of them have taken advantage of our invitation to come and visit us and see not only what we have at Expo, but what we have throughout the province. The effects of Expo are already being felt in other areas of the province, Mr. Chairman, in the interior and on the Island. Business is up.

The ministry's major focus continues to centre on development of programs and activities directed towards post-Expo opportunities. So while we have Expo generating all this enthusiasm and extra traffic, we are looking ahead to next year and the year after to develop opportunities in tourism for entrepreneurs and to plan new promotional initiatives to take advantage of the wonderful springboard that Expo has provided.

Our Partners in Tourism program goes a long way to doing this. It was a concept that we introduced last year. It was very successful, and in fact it was oversubscribed. So this year we have expanded the program to the point where on a fifty-fifty basis of marketing with the private sector, we will have combined spending of between $6 million and $7 million. We started the program off with a $700,000 initial investment, if you like, or startup fee, and this year it will run between $6 million and $7 million, 50 percent of that being our share.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Wait. I'll tell you when I need some help.

We have conducted a tremendous amount of research in the last year to target on our principal markets, and we intend to continue that. But we also are able to report that it has been very effective and is being accepted by the industry and by our neighbours in the great northwestern area of this continent. We have some ambitious new joint programs with Alaska, the Yukon, Washington state and others in the planning stages now — another part of the plan to continue the growth of tourism post-Expo.

More private sector partners are also being sought out to expand the impact of our marketing and our advertising. Our Superhost program, which was designed to offer training to the hospitality industry, has been a great success. Again, without boring you with statistics, some 55,000 British Columbians have taken the program and are very enthused about it, and it seems to be working well. By the end of 1986 we will have put 75,000 people through the program. I'm pleased to report that I think the true measure of the success of the program is the fact that we are getting requests to show other people in other jurisdictions around the world how we did Superhost, and we are very pleased to do that. Imitation is obviously the sincerest form of flattery.

MR. LAUK: There's only one cabinet minister here to support you.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't need any more support. You can go if you want, Tom. You kept him here long enough. You can leave.

Our information centre program with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce is working very well. We introduced a network concept covering 140 visitor information centres. It includes a program to standardize the appearance, the services offered, the interior design, etc. all across the province. I've had the pleasure of opening three or four of these centres and I can say that they do the province proud. In fact, I opened one last week in Vernon and it has to be the standard by which all others will be judged. It's on the northern outskirts of Vernon. I compliment everyone who had a hand in that. It was done mainly by volunteer labour, by the chamber of commerce, the Vernon house builders and others getting together, along with my ministry, to put up one of the finest information centres in the province. So the whole concept is working well, and I congratulate those in the chamber of commerce who are working hard to make it work well.

We have a new highway signage policy in place.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You will have your turn in a moment. The member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) says: "Partnership with their MLA." I want to make it very clear to all the people of Okanagan North that

[ Page 8707 ]

their MLA had absolutely nothing to do with it. But he did show up for the opening and tried to hog the TV time. He did all right.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, we've got to make this interesting somehow.

Mr. Chairman, we have worked closely with my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) and his ministry to introduce a new tourism signage policy and information program for the province. In phase one the major tourist information signs have been erected at 40 locations throughout the province. These are the regional signs which will appear at the entrance to each of the nine tourism regions. The balance of the signage policy, which includes the district and individual signing, will follow in a few months. We're working that policy out at the moment. I'm pleased to say that almost all of the regional signs are in place and most of them were in place in time for the opening of Expo.

What we're doing with both the signage and information is to present a uniform appearance throughout the province that will be instantly recognizable to all of our visitors.

I've touched on the convention facilities and the recent consolidation under B.C. Place, which will lead to a new provincewide convention and meetings thrust. Conventions B.C. will market facilities under control of B.C. Place as well as the facilities in Victoria, Kelowna, Penticton and elsewhere. By the time we have this in place we will have the most powerful convention product available and we'll probably be able to market more efficiently than most other jurisdictions.

Again, the film activity, which comes under my ministry, is continuing to aggressively promote filming in British Columbia, and to promote B.C. as a prime film production site. In the past year an estimated $70 million was spent in B.C. by producers who find the combination of technical expertise, competitive rates and unparalleled scenery make B.C. an ideal location. Such films as Rocky IV, Masterpiece of Murder and The Girl Who Spelled Freedom were filmed in B.C. last year, making this the best year on record for film production. Identified plans of producers who plan activity in 1986 and 1987 indicate increased spending this year even over last year.

We have recently reorganized the development division of the ministry in order to take a more aggressive role in the development of the product: that is, British Columbia. The division has a series of objectives and strategies which are complementary to those of the ministry's marketing division and which have been worked out in consultation with the private sector.

The development division is focusing on post-Expo development as well. This includes a series of initiatives to ensure development of plant and facilities as well as packaged opportunities for visitors to B.C. We will continue to coordinate its efforts with the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, which has the prime responsibility for administration of the tourism subsidiary agreements under ERDA, and which will put $30 million into tourism development over the next four years.

Several development concepts with significant potential are under active consideration by the division, including the Fraser Canyon marketing development plan, mentioned earlier today, and many other carefully targeted opportunities.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I know I was boring the members opposite. They don't seem to be pleased with this exciting Ministry of Tourism, and I'm sure they will just be full of questions for me, so after those brief remarks, Mr. Chairman, I shall sit down and eagerly await their questions.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I'd like at this point to announce that, pursuant to schedule 5 of the standing orders, I am the designated speaker for the response, and therefore I'm entitled to 30 minutes.

In opening the response to the minister, I'd like to say that as the debate leader for Tourism for the opposition it also gives me pleasure, on behalf of my colleagues and in fact on behalf of all British Columbians, to join with the government in heralding the opening of Expo 86. I think this is a time when we can all stand together, united in our mutual desire to see Expo become the success that it has the potential to be.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that it's our hope that all British Columbians will participate fully in Expo and assist in B.C.'s invitation to the world. We feel that Expo stands as a tribute to international goodwill and a demonstration of brotherhood that continues to survive despite recent escalations in worldwide tensions. I know that this House as well as this province stand together in a salute to a truly outstanding international event.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to turn our attention to some general concerns regarding tourism throughout the province. I've learned through my experience that the trick to whitewater canoeing, for example, is to paddle a little bit faster than the current is taking you. If you go just a little bit faster than the current, then you go where you want to go. If you just go at the current's speed, you're at the current's mercy.

The year ahead, Mr. Chairman, is a stretch of white water that our province has entered, and I think with the opening of Expo, with the opening of Canada Harbour Place and regional tourism promotions, it does suggest that it could be a very exciting ride indeed. There's going to be a lot of shouting and splashing along the way, but I think our job is to do more than just sit back and enjoy the trip. We have to paddle a little bit faster than the current so that we can clearly set our course, a course that will bring us hopefully safely out of the whitewater ride of Expo 86, and will leave us heading steadily downstream with a commanding hand. That's what my hope is. Unfortunately my fear is that the Minister of Tourism may have lost his paddle.

I'm afraid, Mr. Chairman, that he's been enjoying this whitewater ride of Expo to the point where he's swapped his paddle for a whoopie cushion and may soon find himself drifting aimlessly, as we could put it, in the lazy, sweeping circles of the backwaters downstream from Expo. I submit that without a strong paddle to forge his frail craft back into the mainstream of tourism, he may in fact be jeopardizing this province's long-range success at tourism development.

Seriously speaking, metaphors aside, what I am saying is that we can't afford to neglect the groundwork and the long-range planning needed to ensure the future success of tourism in British Columbia. My fear is that this minister has been so overwhelmed with today that he's forgotten about tomorrow.

[ Page 8708 ]

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that the responsibility of the minister is to encourage and to develop tourism throughout British Columbia, not just in one particular geographic location in beautiful downtown British Columbia, but throughout this province. It's also his responsibility to develop long-range objectives and plans. I submit that this minister is failing in that responsibility. I really don't believe that the minister fully understands the great potential of this industry. We have heard a lot of lip-service, but we haven't seen a lot of action.

[5:15]

MR. ROSE: Trumpet player. That's why there's the lip service.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Trumpet player. That's why there's the lip-service. Well, I can attest to that because I played the horn too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why pick on a trumpet player?

MR. MacWILLIAM: I never pick on a trumpet player.

Mr. Chairman, I really don't feel that the minister fully understands the potential of his ministry to provide a major thrust for job creation in the future of British Columbia, because if he did, Mr. Chairman, I think he'd be yelling a lot louder and playing a far greater role for tourism development in this province right now. He should be speaking out strongly about the critical importance of resource conservation, which is the lifeblood of a healthy tourism industry. Instead his silence in this area has been nothing short of deafening.

Mr. Chairman, tourism is the third-largest revenue-generating industry in British Columbia. It's poised to be number two. Revenues currently exceed $2.3 billion; that's 1984 figures. It constitutes about 5 percent of the gross provincial product. Yet the budget for the Tourism ministry is an embarrassment; it's minuscule. It's one-third lower than that of the fledgling Ministry of International Trade. It remains less than the government budget for its newspeak propaganda through government information services. Less than one-twelfth of tourism tax revenue, generated by tourist-related businesses throughout this province, is actually put back into tourism development. I think the minister has been given a Mickey Mouse budget, to put it lightly, to run an area of the economy that may well be the major job creation thrust in the province of British Columbia in the immediate future.

Mr. Chairman, it takes dedicated, knowledgeable people in the ministry, and we've got a lot of that expertise. But what I fear is lacking is the funding for those people to do the type of job they could do if they had adequate resources available. I think the minister is failing his own staff.

I want to give you examples. Where was the minister on the South Moresby dispute? Where was the minister's voice with regard to protecting the tourism interests in South Moresby? He doesn't seem to recognize the potential of a world-class heritage site. What about the Stein River? He was silent on the Stein River and the environmental and tourist-related concerns on that. Utilization of the Stikine and the Spatsizi plateau as tourism generators — not a darn word was said by the Minister of Tourism regarding the preservation of those critical resource inventories that are being compromised through other development interests. Where was the minister, Mr. Chairman? His silence was deafening. He was too occupied with today, with Expo, and he has been failing the other tourism interests in the province.

Last year, Mr. Chairman, I challenged the minister to take a more active role in the development of courses, in the development of educational programs in tourism. I haven't seen any activity in the past year that suggests the minister has listened to those words of advice. I would like to ask the minister what he has done about ensuring that workers in the tourist-related industries are better trained. At this point we have very little opportunity for those workers to be trained in the tourist-related services, very little opportunity indeed.

There are a few courses at BCIT, but as a whole our educational institutions lack a concerted focus in hospitality training programs. Last year we also talked about an aggressive program of marketing and tourism development. The critical need to go toe-to-toe with the Americans in competition for the tourist dollar, I think, is very important in light of the competitiveness of this industry. We haven't seen much increased emphasis in that area.

What we have seen is a 22 percent increase in expenditures for the minister's office. We have seen a 37.5 percent increase in general administration costs. Yet at the same time, when you compare those figures to last year's figures, there's been only a 3 percent increase in the tourism marketing funds. Mr. Chairman, the money is not going where it should be going, and that is into the marketing and advertising area. What seems to be happening is increases in the administrative budget for the minister's office, and yet only a 1 percent increase in tourism development funds.

The figures speak for themselves, Mr. Chairman. I say to you that the minister has just been feeding the bureaucracy of his administration. He has not been putting the money into where it is really needed. In fact, in 1986 dollars, when inflation is considered, there is less money in tourism than there was last year.

I would like the minister to explain why there has been a 22 percent increase in salaries and benefits for the minister's office. I would like him to explain why there has been a 56 percent increase in operating costs to the minister's office. I would like him at the same time to explain why in the ministry operations there has been a 4 percent decrease in staffing costs, and yet a 119 percent increase in operating costs. I would like him to explain why in tourism marketing there is a 15 percent decrease in staffing costs and a 7 percent decrease in operating costs. How can you justify increases in your own office expenditure when the rest of the cost allocation to your ministry have been decreased?

I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, if the minister can't see that these reductions are compromising the ability of his administration to develop adequate marketing programs and plans for tourism development. I think the figures speak for themselves.

Moving on to another area, the minister has been asked numerous times over the past year to provide financial information on the terminations of directors of Expo 86. Approximately 40 directors have been terminated — fired or let go in some other manner. The reasons for these terminations have never been given. They've been requested time and time again from this House, but that minister has stonewalled every legitimate request we've put forward to him. Financial information on severance has never been supplied.

The minister, I must submit, is obliged to provide this information under the present Financial Information Act. He

[ Page 8709 ]

is under legal obligation to supply that information, and he has not done so. I've got a list of firings here that extends the whole length of the page, and I would like to ask that minister why he has not submitted any financial information on the severance packages of each of those individuals. He knows full well his financial obligations. He knows full well that he is legally obliged to submit a full, detailed report of the Crown corporation he's directly responsible for, that Crown corporation being Expo 86. He knows full well that six months from the end of each fiscal year the corporation which he is directly responsible for is legally obliged to submit full financial information on its activities during that year. The minister has refused to do so, and I suggest that he's in breach of legislation of this House.

Without going any further, this minister is in contempt of this House, and I submit an amendment to the motion: that vote 70 be reduced to the amount of $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the motion was moved, but I didn't hear a seconder to the motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is seconded by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace).

MR. LAUK: I'd like to know whether the Minister of Agriculture is properly dressed. On many occasions in this House Speakers and Chairmen have taken pains to try to help people who cannot dress themselves to wear appropriate....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: What does he call that hanging around his neck, Mr. Chairman? That is not a tie.

Interjections.

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

On the amendment.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think that a few remarks in answer to that outburst are in order. I'll try to take them in the order that they were given.

First of all, I take exception to the remark that I and the people in my ministry are sitting back and enjoying this trip and not thinking about the future. Obviously he wasn't listening to my opening remarks. We have made extensive plans for the future of tourism in this province, including the continuation of our very successful travel planner, which is in its second printing and which is second to nothing that's ever been done before in this province; and including the Superhost program, which is the most successful of its kind anywhere in this country, and anywhere as far as we can determine. He talks about no training in the industry. It's the most successful training program that's ever been put into place. We have put 55,000 people through the program.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, you will all have an opportunity to stand.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't recall interrupting when the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) was making his remarks, but if he wishes to he can go right ahead.

We have done more market research to find out the needs of tourism in the future than has ever been done, and we're putting that research to work. We're not just putting it on the shelf. We made it available to the whole industry and to that member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I will get to that, Mr. Member — the costs on Expo.

The Partners in Tourism program is going to ensure the future of tourism and tourism development and marketing in this province for many years to come. I talked about Conventions B.C., which is booked well into the future. And he talks about how we're not looking down the road to see what's happening.

On the development side of the ministry we've taken a whole new direction and expanded that part of the ministry to become more efficient in improving the tourism plant in British Columbia. We have more activity going on in the Ministry of Tourism in this province than ever before, and when we get to the cost of my office I might add that we're doing it with fewer staff than ever before. Yes, I have added one FTE to my office, Mr. Chairman; that's why my costs are up. With Expo year and the activities in my ministry, I was one person short in my office. I make no apologies for that. As for his claims of feeding the bureaucracy, that's absolute nonsense. If you take a look at the staff in the Ministry of Tourism, it's probably the leanest and most efficient ministry in government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: All right, one of the leanest and most efficient in government. Yes, I did add one FTE. Without it we could not cope with the increased workload.

He talks about the budget in my ministry. The money is going into the areas that it should: marketing and efficient operation, not into feeding a bureaucracy. My budget, while I would always love more.... I appreciate the member's help in trying to increase my budget, but our marketing budget, which he says is totally inadequate, is second only to the province of Ontario in this country. So we do take tourism and the marketing of tourism very seriously. Yes, it's the third-largest generator of money, and growing rapidly. It's a larger budget than in any state in the United States for the marketing of tourism. I think that's proof that we do take it seriously. And it's growing each year — not by leaps and bounds, but it is growing.

[5:30]

The assertion that I don't take an active role in such discussions as south Moresby, the Stein, the Spatsizi, etc. is absolute nonsense. I'm sure the member knows — or maybe he doesn't know — how a government works and how we make decisions in cabinet. I'm positive my colleagues could assure him that I take an active role in any discussions regarding the environment and tourism, and of course many

[ Page 8710 ]

other subjects in cabinet. I think our government has made some wise decisions regarding the environment and the ecology of this province. The Wilderness Advisory Committee and the decisions made are good examples of that. The Queen Charlotte Islands are an example of that. I'm proud to have played a part in those decisions. No, I do not come out publicly and argue with the decision made by government, because I'm part of that position.

Now we get down to the item that seems to be bothering this member more than anything else, because he has asked me numerous times in this House about the terminations of directors at Expo, and the financial information. I guess it bears repeating one more time that the policy of the Crown corporation of Expo 86 is that we do not discuss the reasons for termination of any employees. We never have since the outset, and we're not about to now start giving you reasons, Mr. Member, that certain people were let go from the corporation.

On a project the size and the complexity and the timetable of Expo, there are bound to be corporate casualties. There have been, and we do not discuss the reasons for those. They're just part of the project, and it will remain that way. As for the financial information, I have requested that information of Expo, and it will be forthcoming.

AN HON. MEMBER: We heard that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, you'll hear it again, too, Mr. Member, and this is the last time I'm going to say it. I have requested it. I didn't want to take staff away from the opening of Expo. They were on a very fast track and working very hard and diligently to open that fair, and now they're working very hard to compile financial and technical data which will show us where we're going in the fair. They are also putting together the information that I requested, so that within the very near future I will have that information.

All we are talking about is the very detailed information, such as contracts over $500. We're talking about terminations, whether a person got three months' severance pay or two months or four months, and we're talking about expense accounts. Other than that, all financial information has been available to the government. The auditor-general has been through Expo and gives them a clean bill of health — in fact, even commended them on their financial information.

The very, very specific detail that you're talking about will be made available to government, probably sometime next month.

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 19

MR. CHAIRMAN: The House Leader. The member for Skeena rises on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order is that I think we need to declare officially the vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, we can certainly see the socialists are up to their usual fun and games, and that's all it is. It's just straight, raw politics; nothing but straight politics, funny-farm politics on the part of the official opposition.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. House Leader.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That goes for all hon. members. Please come to order. The Chair recognizes Mr. House Leader on the order of business.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm entitled to speak, am I not, Mr. Chairman, as government House Leader? Thank you very much. There is another gentleman standing; perhaps he could take his seat.

AN HON. MEMBER: On which vote?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On which vote, Mr. House Leader?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, first of all I'm going to move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, the point of order I was trying to raise before you recognized the government House Leader is that I submit to you that it is your obligation now to rise and report that vote 70 has been reduced to $1. That's the result of the committee vote. You can do nothing else. You have to apprise the House of that, and the motion sought to be moved by the government House Leader, smuggled in, is completely out of order and has no relevance, because it then tends to supersede the decision of the committee. I submit that that's your duty and obligation at this point, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just one moment, please, while I consult with the Clerks.

[ Page 8711 ]

The Chair recognizes the motion made by the government House Leader that the committee rise and report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved on division.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.