[ Page 8735 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 8735

Oral Questions

Awarding of ResWest contract. Mr. Hanson –– 8735

Expo 86. Mr. MacWilliam –– 8736

Sanctions against South Africa. Mr. Barnes –– 8736

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Gardom)

On vote 47: minister's office –– 8737

Hon. Mr. Gardom, Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Barnes, Ms. Sanford, Ms. Brown, Mr. Skelly, Mrs. Johnston, Hon. Mr. Hewitt, Mr. Cocke

Estimates: Ombudsman –– 8748

Estimates: Auditor-General –– 8748

Estimates: Legislation –– 8748

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

On vote 71: ministry operations –– 8748

Mr. MacWilliam, Mr. Rose, Mr. Blencoe, Mr. Howard

Tabling Documents –– 8760

MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased today to make an introduction. Mrs. Carolyn Bundy and her son David are in our gallery this afternoon. Last Friday night they were the special and very honoured guests of the Vancouver Centennial Museum. The museum has a remarkable display this month and for a few months to follow of the artifacts of, and gives an explanation of the life and the voyages of, Captain George Vancouver. In this special Expo 86 year and one hundredth birthday for Vancouver, this is a remarkable exhibition which I would commend to all members.

Mrs. Carolyn Bundy is a direct descendant of this remarkable young sailor, who at the age of 14 took to the sea and his voyages are, of course, so much a part of British Columbia's and Vancouver's history. Mrs. Bundy is here with her son. She lives in Norfolk and David is a librarian from Lewisham near London. I would ask the House, as part of the one hundredth birthday of Vancouver as well as our Expo 86 celebrations, to welcome Mrs. Carolyn Bundy and her son David.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, would the House welcome today a resident of Victoria, a Ms. Doris Chester. Ms. Chester is very active with the Maritime Museum auxiliary and the Victoria General auxiliary. Would the House please make her welcome today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome some visitors from Tenerife in the Canary Islands of Spain, visiting our province to attend Expo, accompanied by Mrs. Elizabeth Chandler, with whom they are staying. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Tanner.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to welcome to the House this afternoon a good friend of mine and of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), Mrs. Joan Saxton.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today visiting from Australia with Louise and I are Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd and Brenda Bone, two very wonderful people. I found out today something that I never knew before, that it's really not Australia, Mr. Speaker, it's Australia. They are wonderful people, and I would ask the House to make them welcome to British Columbia.

Hon Mr. Curtis tabled a statement of guarantees and indemnities issued as authorized by section 56 of the Financial Administration Act, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986.

Oral Questions

AWARDING OF RESWEST CONTRACT

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Tourism. Will the minister advise why the government used a single contractor to prepare the background study for an accommodation and reservation system here in the province of British Columbia which was finally concluded to ResWest?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm not sure I understand, Mr. Speaker, the entire meaning of the question. We put the reservation system out to tender, and there were several bidders. After much study of all the bids, contract was awarded to ResWest.

MR. HANSON: Another question to the minister. My concern is focused primarily on the single contractor that vetted the bids and that set up the proposal and the application; that group is the Sentinel Group. I'd like the minister to advise the House why the Sentinel Group of Mr. Michael Burns — Patrick Kinsella and Douglas Heal are members of that group.... Why did the government enter into a contract with Sentinel Strategies and the Sentinel Group to vet the process, to set up the selection process, and negotiate the contract?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, those people were chosen for their expertise in the computer field. As you may or may not know, Mr. Michael Burns spent many years with IBM. Because of the great expertise these people had, we used them to advise us. But the decision was made by my ministry.

MR. HANSON: The owners of the ResWest accommodation service are entitled, under their contract with the government, to charge every hotel and motel operator a $150 registration fee and a 10 percent commission on every night's accommodation booked by tourists to our province. ResWest expects revenue in excess of $3 million under this monopoly situation. Will the minister explain why the government chose the chief corporate fund-raiser for the Social Credit Party, Mr. Michael Bums, to set up this monopoly reservation system?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I've already answered that question. If the member has another question, I'd be pleased to answer it.

MR. HANSON: I have many questions, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Michael Burns's contract with the ministry was signed on January 16, 1985. It provides a fee to Sentinel Strategies Ltd. In the amount of $33, 350 for services allegedly performed in the previous calendar year. The contract dated January 16, 1985 requests payment be made by January 21, 1985. What work was performed, why was the contract designed and developed retroactively, and what was the rush which required the funds be transferred to Mr. Burns within six days?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: One must remember, when dealing with these, that it was an entirely new function that we were setting up, and we had to have some parameters in order to even go to tender on this — we had to draw up a model. As for the exact dates of cheques being issued, I'm afraid I can't remember exactly when contracts were signed. So I'll leave it at that. But they did an extensive amount of work for us so that we could even go to tender, and they also helped us evaluate the bids. Other than that, there's not much else I can say about it.

[ Page 8736 ]

MR. HANSON: The import of the question is that this is a monopoly situation. When business people in this province find they must talk to the chief fund-raiser for the Social Credit Party before they can do business with the government, the Social Credit Party has a serious ethical problem. Has this minister decided to recommend to his colleagues the previous commitment given by the Premier to establish an ethics committee governing cabinet ministers, and to set up a committee for the benefit of all the people of this province?

[2:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can only reiterate that the contract for the reservation system was done as fairly as we could possibly do it. The parameters were laid out and were available to everybody; all of the people who bid on the system had access to the same information.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: They all had access to the guidelines, to the parameters. I believe, if memory serves me correctly — I'm not quite sure — we had seven bidders on the short list, and every one of the seven bids was examined very carefully before any contract was awarded.

MR. HANSON: Will the minister confirm that the monopoly ResWest system selected by Messrs. Burns, Kinsella and Heal is also in the Sentinel Group, that they are the recipient of free government advertising by which tourists are encouraged to use their services in booking hotel accommodations, and that the B.C. Motels, Resorts and Trailer Parks Association has petitioned Expo 86 for some alternative to the usurious fees of the ResWest service?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member is incorrect, because the names he mentioned have nothing to do with ResWest. ResWest is owned by different people entirely. I've tried to tell him three times now that it went out to tender and a successful bidder was awarded. The people he mentioned helped to evaluate the bids, but that is all. And he's also mistaken when he says it's a monopoly. There are other reservation systems operating within this province.

MR. HANSON: It is of concern to the people of this province that three individuals with such close connections to the Social Credit hierarchy in the province of B.C. should be given the position of developing a monopoly contract for a subscriber that would have such an impact on the hospitality industry. What qualifications and expertise do those three individuals have in the hospitality industry that could warrant that kind of exclusive contract?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I can't evaluate their qualifications as compared with every other company in the province, but it was felt by the people in my ministry that they were best equipped to draw up the guidelines for a reservation system. Those guidelines were made public and were available to anyone who wanted to bid on the system, including the other people, the resorts and trailer parks people, that the member mentions. In fact, they were one of the seven finalists in the bidding contest, and for whatever reasons....

MR. NICOLSON: One might say the best.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That's a matter of opinion, I guess, Mr. Member.

All the bids were examined very carefully. They were on the short-list, but they were not the successful bidder.

EXPO 86

MR. MacWILLIAM: My question is also to the Minister of Tourism. Now that this assembly has declared its lack of confidence in the minister, I'd like to ask him whether he has decided to comply with the law that is governed by the Financial Information Act and to disclose the financial information on the letting of contracts and the firing of executives through Expo 86 Corporation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I believe I've answered that question to that same member in this House on at least half a dozen occasions, and I'm not about to change my answer just because he keeps repeating the question. I've answered it many times, and if he cares to look it up in Hansard, I am sure he will find the answer there.

MR. MacWILLIAM: As the minister well knows, the regulations with the Financial Information Act require the minister to submit a financial declaration within six months of the close of the fiscal year. I would like to ask the minister why he has not, at this time, submitted the information that has been requested for over a year now. Why has that information not been submitted within the statutory guidelines?

SANCTIONS AGAINST SOUTH AFRICA

MR. BARNES: A question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As of today, British Columbia and Alberta are the only Canadian provinces purchasing wine and spirits from South Africa. Has the minister decided to end the isolation of British Columbians and participate in the national campaign to protest against South African martial law?

HON. MR. VEITCH: We've always believed, in British Columbia — or at least this government has always believed — that the people are quite capable of making their own choices when it comes to purchasing products. If the hon. member is asking about future action, I won't offend the rules of this House by answering that question.

MR. BARNES: Supplementary question. People of good will throughout the world, including the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, are now working very hard to end the stain of apartheid. Why does this government continue to provide aid and comfort, not to mention income, to the South African regime?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I guess the hon. member is entitled to any opinion he wishes, but we're not supplying any funds to the South African regime.

MR. BARNES: Further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister has repeatedly held the view that sending British Columbia money to South Africa upholds the freedom of British Columbians. This is twisted, shameful logic. Will the minister explain why this government was prepared to boycott Argentine products in the Falklands dispute, but refuses

[ Page 8737 ]

to participate in worldwide sanctions against the racist South African regime?

HON. MR. VEITCH: At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, we have not delisted Polish vodka, we have not delisted Russian vodka, and we have not delisted South African wine. If and when we do, the hon. member will be one of the first to know about it.

MR. BARNES: I have a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. Will the minister indicate if he still holds to the policy that the treatment in South Africa is a question of selective ethics?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to respond to the hon. member. I never referred specifically to South Africa. I said that it was very difficult to practise selective ethics throughout the world, and indeed it is. I want you to know, hon. member, that I absolutely deplore apartheid and everything that it stands for. Make no mistake of that.

I well remember sitting on the other side of the House. I asked a question of the then minister, the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams).... I was talking about generators from Russia going into British Columbia dams at a time when they were dealing with people without trial, sending them to Siberia, and abusing the Jews of this world, and I thought that was appalling. He said that was a good question, and that was his only answer. It's a very difficult issue. I sympathize with your point of view totally.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, pursuant to standing orders, the member for Comox has advised the Chair of a standing order 35.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35 to seek leave to move adjournment of the House to debate a matter of urgent public importance.

The situation in South Africa continues to deteriorate. Even our knowledge of the situation has suffered. as the South African government has imposed fascist-style press censorship. Throughout the world there has been a strong reaction against martial law in South Africa. There has been a rededication to the cause of ending the racist policy of apartheid. Many Canadians have joined in this struggle. Our own representative on the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, the Rt. Rev. Archbishop Scott, has called for sanctions. But the Social Credit government of B.C. refuses to act. It defiantly and blatantly states that it continues to buy from South Africa, and to send B.C. dollars in aid of a regime which is an outlaw to most of the civilized world. Therefore I move that this House adjourn routine proceedings to debate the government's lack of response to the crisis in South Africa.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, pursuant to the policy of the Chair, the Chair will undertake to review the matter and bring a response back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

On vote 47: minister's office, $134.879.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman. there are a multitude of topics that I would rather like to discuss this afternoon, perhaps beginning with my love for compulsory marketing boards, particularly noting that Mr. Malcolm Turnbull of the press gallery is with us — we always josh him and say he's single-issue Malcolm.

I'd also like to pay some attention to the process in Canada for the appointment of our judiciary, make some continuing observations about the rather regrettable Senate of our country, say a few things about the current stance of Premier Bourassa in Quebec, and once again refer to the situation of British Columbia and the ownership of our inshore seabed lands: and maybe say a word or two about daylight-saving, and something about the equalization formula and equalization practices in our country; and maybe something about the fact that we're totally over-legislating throughout every free, democratic society — certainly Canada is a great offender there. Perhaps we'd also like to say a few words about property rights and our native Indian community.

But today, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. Prime Minister of our country will be addressing Canada tonight, I would like to deal with the largest salient issue in our country today, and that is the issue of our economic survival. I'm very delighted to see that at long last we have started an earnest attempt to forge a one-on-one, across-the-board free-trade agreement with our biggest and best customer, the United States of America. This has been my gospel for well over the past quarter-century. As I've indicated, I'm talking about not only Canada's economic salvation but its economic survival.

But my, oh my. what a Canadian paradox! The federal Conservatives are asserting a basic philosophy of liberalism with, mirabile dictu. the federal leader of Her Majesty's loyal official opposition either getting slivers from sitting on his philosophy or fumbling into some of the most dyslexic negativism and confusion Canadians have been subjected to in literally eons. This was rather well recounted — and I'd commend it to the members: I won't read it — in an article in the Globe and Mail a couple of days ago by Mr. Jeffrey Simpson.

But we must give full credit to one thing at least, and that is the position of socialists throughout the country. Although, with every respect to them. I consider it wrong. short-sighted, shallow and mean-spirited, it is totally consistent, mostly because the United State of America is one of the bulwarks against the Socialist International, all of whose camp-followers, I see from the papers, are going to be having a little bunfest in Peru over the next few days — including that great supporter of free trade with the United States, Mr. Broadbent. Mr. Broadbent well deserves quotation at times — this was in an article by Virginia Galt in the Globe and Mail. Mr. Broadbent said that Canadian public support for a free-trade arrangement with the United States is waning, and he urged the labour movement to apply all the pressure it can muster against the federal Progressive Conservative government. Well, it’s pretty clear what they wish to do. They don't seem to want to have anything to do with anything which would assist the average citizen in our country to be rescued

[ Page 8738 ]

from the tentacles of over-government or to secure a better opportunity to make a buck and keep it. But that's their religion. I disagree with it, but I again compliment them for their fervour.

[2:30]

We believe that economic democracy cannot be severed from political democracy, because the objective of these socialistic internationalists, including Uncle Ed, who will be representing his constituency in downtown Peru over the next week or so, was defined by Prof. G. D. H. Cole, who was then the chairman of the Fabian Society. He said it was to achieve, through state action, the coordinated control of the economic forces of society; that it aims at the reorganization of society by the emancipation of land and industrial capital from individual and class ownership and the vesting of them in the community. He continued, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), with something that you probably totally agree with, and that is that the distinction between socialism and communism is one of tactics and strategy rather than objectives. As I say, thank the good Lord that all of that is wrong. It is, regretfully, on the increase in our country, but it's still a minority opinion in our country and, thank the good Lord, in our province.

Surely even the socialists have got to recognize that Canada is in tough shape. Our share of world trade has declined 37.5 percent in ten years — down from a 4 percent to a 2.5 percent share in just ten years — and to continue with Canadian policies that would reflect that sort of direction is nothing less than a breadline mentality. So I would say, come on, Mr. Turner, skip trying to woo into your tents some of the Waffle Manifesters; think Canadian and go along with the Prime Minister, at least on this issue. He knows, you know and every Canadian knows that $1 billion of new exports means 16,000 new Canadian jobs. That's the recipe for success, that's the route to prosperity, and that's the course for a better standard of living for all Canadians.

The best and probably the only viable option today is free trade with the United States. Without it, Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly that we are on a collision course to economic disaster. But imagine, just imagine, at long last being able to give the forgotten Canadian, Joe Consumer, a break. How terrible and how awful and how dreadfully un-Canadian that would be. Oh my, oh my, oh my! Imagine having to see our GNP nationally, and within every province our PNP, on the increase. Imagine the vanishing Canadian, the middle-income earner, having to put up with some more disposable income. And imagine being able to buy a pair of bottom-line running shoes for 15 bucks instead of 25, as they are now, or a fridge for $500 instead of being soaked for $700. Imagine our country enjoying a higher capital inflow. Imagine seeing everyone being able to make a better go of it, with the Maritimes becoming economically emancipated, and they and the people of the Prairies and B.C. at long last being able to escape the turgid and self-serving economic policies of central Canada. Imagine stopping downturn after downturn after downturn and getting Canada, in the world sense, out of the parking lane and into the passing lane. We have to say, Mr. Chairman: go for it, go for it, go for it, because there is no practical alternative.

What's the option? Buy from ourselves? Western Canada and the Atlantic provinces continuing to throw a bunch of meat into the central Canada cage, to perpetually support tariff walls and all the tariff-protected, hothouse central industrialists? — children's shoes, refrigerators, window glass are some examples. Every year, half a billion dollars more goes into Ontario from B.C. — apart from equalization payments — from the Prairies and from the Atlantic provinces than ever comes out. B.C. people pay about 14 percent of all federal taxes, yet B.C. receives an average of 7 percent of federal Department of Supply and Service contracts.

We have just got to face the realities, Mr. Chairman. These are not the days of John A. B.C. Is no longer 1 percent of the Canadian economy; it's up to 11 and pushing 12, and that's evolution. But there are still all those reincarnate Kings Canute who say no, the tide will never rise. But it has, and it is going to rise more. The country is in change, so let's make that change for the better. No longer can Canada enjoy the luxury of fireproofing the few at the expense of the many. The high-tariff route, the economic curtains, the incestuousness of protectionism is just nuts: it loses jobs; it cripples recovery; it is fiscally irresponsible; and it's been proven to be no longer sensible, practical or realistic economics.

Once again we hear the howls at the centre of Canada, and indeed the howls from the socialists in our country: "Free trade could ruin us. The greatest price Canada might have to pay for free trade would be a loss of political autonomy: the right of a sovereign nation to legislate in its own backyard." That's hogwash! Yet that was the exact headline and editorial comment from the Toronto Star, Canada's largest-newspaper, way back in a November 1984 editorial. Sure we all know the U. S. is an elephant. But Canada's no pip-squeak, and we must never forget it.

I say that Canadians have got the will, they've got the desire, they've got the capacity, and it's in our bones to continue to maintain our independence. We have and we can and we shall get stronger and not weaker. We believe very strongly in Canada's backbone; it will not only survive, Mr. Chairman, it will flourish. Even the European Economic Community has shown us that free trade between a group of large and small nations doesn't have to lessen a smaller country's autonomy. We have to remember that ours is really only small in population, not in resources, not in potential, not in know how or effort. But what we need is an economic benefit and an economic boost, which will make us stronger and certainly not weaker.

Another urgency is for us to dynamite the current logjam, because other First World nations are forming trading blocs, to the increasing exclusion of Canada and the United States. Each year the European nations call for fewer and fewer Canadian products; for, in spite of our historic ties and best efforts, we continue to sell less and less to the 12 countries of the European Common Market and their peripheral trading partners. There is no way that gate can be realistically expected to open wider in the 1990s or beyond that.

Then there's the Pacific Rim, where in the past couple of years or so there has been a series of very significant moves towards the creation of a new political and economic cohesion, with reconciliation steadily progressing between Japan and China, Japan and South Korea, and Japan and Singapore. In other words, the handwriting may well be on the wall re some much more difficult future trading patterns with East Asia. I emphasize this: we certainly would like to and expect to continue to trade with the European communities and with the Pacific Rim, and increase that trade as much as we can.

It's totally unrealistic to expect that any special treatment or assured market for our manufactured products can come from them. Their interest is raw materials, and even the

[ Page 8739 ]

London Economist, in an article that I read over the weekend, appreciated that last week, in supporting free-trade between Canada and the United States, it said it would even given GATT a lift. So we've got three choices: the European Common Market and its peripheral nations, Japan/China and the forming Pacific Rim bloc, or the United States.

There is no fourth viable option with the debt-ridden countries beyond those trading blocs, because Canadian manufacturers have got to have cash and not IOUs; nor can we survive by only selling to ourselves. If we don't wish to just continue to cut and to catch and to dig and to ship for the next century, now is the time for us to act, and there is no way that we should be faint-hearted.The Economist also wisely counsels by observing that being timid about our plans for a Canada-U.S. free-trade pact can only increase opposition to it, which is absolutely correct.

We've got to get these two connected economies together, get them into tune, and that, I would say, would be darned beautiful music. Also, we've got to start eliminating the nontariff barriers, the ones that imperil...

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Would you mind going on hogwashing from your own seat instead of there? Do one or the other, hon. member. I don't like hearing you from there, but I find you objectionable from here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken, and the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) knows it's most unparliamentary to interrupt, and even more so from a chair other than his own.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's all right. I've known him for a long time — no surprises.

Okay, Mr. Chairman, we've also got to start eliminating the non-tariff barriers. Those are the ones, as we all know that imperil our lumber, rock salt, steel subway cars, sweet foods and even raspberries. All of those old saws on the status quo stuff, which has got us to where we are now, and I certainly hope will not continue to put us into that kind of position, are just totally mucking it up for both sides.

We've got to take a look at the Canadian manufacturer. He's trying to justify long-term heavy investment and expanded production facilities without any comfortable assurance that his market could exist in five years. What do you expect him to do? They hold back, they stop more jobs, they stop more productivity, they stop more prosperity. That's why the typical modern Canadian company is condemned to think small and base its main production and profit margin just in the Canadian market, no matter how efficiently and competitively it might manufacture and market its products elsewhere, which is the reason why one daily reads of Canadian companies opening branch plants in the United States rather than expanding at home.

Think also of the enormous amounts of Canadian dollars that have flocked like one-way migrating geese to the United States: huge outflows representing unlimited, otherwise Canadian jobs. Look also at another non-tariff barrier: e.g., the buy-American policy of the United States, which requires, as the members well know, that any manufactured product purchased totally or in part with U.S. federal funds has to be 50 percent U.S.-made in content, and finally assembled there. Then in the states, some 37 of whom have local procurement policies. with penalties of up to 20 percent.... And I can tell you, that's enough to send a few chills down a few spines of surely even the most fervent status-quoers.

We can't buckle; we've got to respond. As the Premier pointed out to Vice-President Bush — and one doesn't have to be a genius to see this — in the long run this is a goofy process for both sides. That's why we are preaching status quo until such time as saner heads prevail and we can get on with the proper job. This mire of trade barriers and trade tariffs is just a swamp, and we've got to get out of it. Canada needs some good deals. but not cap-in-hand type of deals like the Bombardier contract with Belgium to sell about $50 million of Canadian jeeps, providing the Canadian government and other Canadian companies sweetened the pot by purchasing in return $150 million in goods and services, with a net Canadian outflow of $100 million.

That's not good business. nor is it progress. Look at the investment capital outflows over the past five years. They're terrifying: 1980. $2.35 billion; 1981, $5.9 billion; 1982, $200 million: 1983, $2.975 billion; 1984, $3.8 billion; 1985, $4.9 billion. Statistics Canada tallies show us that our country’s net loss of investment capital totalled a shocking $20 billion in five years. It's estimated that about $75,000 can create one permanent job: $20 billion would therefore reflect an export of 260,000 Canadian jobs — more than a quarter of a million Canadian jobs. Little coincidence that unemployment across the country responded in kind by rising from about 865,000 in 1980 to 1,328,000 in 1985. That's an increase of about 50 percent in five years. You can see that those figures correlate totally.

[2:45]

The London Economist also says: "You've got to get on with it now, and get on with it quickly." They're right. It can be done. The Israel-United States free-trade package is a darn good precedent. Negotiations began in January 1984; they were concluded eleven months later. An agreement was signed in April 1985 and went into force that August, just 18 months for a two-way free-trade agreement to be phased in — over a ten-year period in their case. Surely we can manifest that same kind of conviction, courage and determination in our country. But as we know, the opponents are exacerbating on each side of the border. There's no way they're going to take it lying down. My old friend Jimmy Bardsley says: "When the going gets tough, the tough get going." I think it's about time we in our country showed our mettle.

May I also say, three cheers for our Premier Bill Bennett for providing such strong and early national leadership on this most commanding issue of all. These kinds of opportunities don't spring up every day; they spring up about once a century and we've got to grasp them. We've got to disregard the shrill of these so-called economic nationalists, but in real life protectionists; the tariff-barrierites and the hothouse status-quoers, the consumer subsidized inefficient and the uncompetitive on each side of the border. Put them and all of the Ed Broadbents of this world where they belong. and that's in their place, because eliminating these iron curtains will be the only way to permanently secure a market for Canadian manufactured goods for the first time in Canada's history. Anything less in the short run lacks foresight and courage, and anything less in the long run would for us be disastrous economics.

I make no apologies for very clearly indicating this to the House, and it's not new that I have a bias here. Yes, I do; it's very real and very practical. I want our country to go forward

[ Page 8740 ]

and not backward, and I make absolutely no apologies for that. I emphasize it. I'm proud of it, unlike the socialists over there, and I don't believe Canada has any other realistic choice whatsoever. I'm looking more for our children and grandchildren than increased unemployment, lower standards of living and higher taxes in an increasingly stagnant economy. Now is really not the time for Canadians, like our socialistic friends over there, to spend the rest of their lives looking in rear-view mirrors.

Before sitting down, Mr. Chairman, I would like very much to both congratulate and express my thanks to all of the people within this small ministry. They're dedicated, hardworking and intelligent public servants, and British Columbia is truly indebted to all of them.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister got up in his place and made a very convincing case for the abolition of his ministry. Why in the name of all that's sensible or right or just are the people of British Columbia having a whole ministry established to listen to that kind of rodomontade, which was all that it was? The minister gets up and the phrases roll off. He says: "Relieve us from the tentacles of over government." It should begin with you. Why shouldn't it begin with the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations? How much can we save there? How much over government are we being subjected to by that minister, for no discernible reason whatsoever? Everything that this department is supposed to do is done by somebody else.

I don't know what in the world we've been through in this. We've listened to every cliche except "A rolling stone gathers no moss." I'd hate to think what the real Rolling Stones would think of that mossback. It really is time that the people of Point Grey in Vancouver retired their senators.

This minister gets up and says: "Oh, Canada's in terrible shape." That's right, the unemployment is growing, there are huge deficits, we're losing out in external trade, and you know what he does? He blames Ed Broadbent. Ed Broadbent hasn't been the government. Look in a mirror. Look at yourself. Look at Maggie Thatcher. Look at Ronald Reagan. If this is what you want for Canada, you can have it. Look at their unemployment, look what they've done in terms of social justice and enriching a privileged few at the expense of many, many down below who haven't enough to eat and no home to live in that's worth calling a home. Is this what you want?

You want to enter into free trade with the United States without any idea whatsoever what the implications of that are. I want to know what you're talking about, and you don't know. Mulroney doesn't know. The minister doesn't know. You're going to the table with the sharp Yankee bargainers and you'll say, "We're in favour of free trade, " and you don't know whether that's going to involve our social security laws, what it's going to do to our culture, what it's going to do, say, to our beer industry. You talk about how we can buy a fridge maybe cheaper, but you can't buy a fridge cheaper if you haven't got a job. You don't know where you're going, any more than Mulroney does. You've swung from being a Liberal to being to the right of Mulroney.

I can't believe what I'm listening to here. Naturally property rights appeals to that minister, because most of the property rights are now held by large corporations and financial institutions. Wouldn't the lawyers and these privileged institutions love to have property rights — their property rights — permanently embodied in the constitution!

Wouldn't it make the corporate lawyers happy to be able to go and defend their options and their warrants and all the rest of it?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Who owns Canada? It isn't the people of Canada.

You blame the Broadbents and the socialists for everything, when you have been the government. The ilk that we're talking about have run this country into all of the problems you describe — not Ed Broadbent, not the socialists that you like to decry.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't know, I leave the.... I thought you should have said something.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Skelly) will come to order. So will the minister. The member continues.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, let me just finish by saying something about South Africa and saying it in a very serious vein. As the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) said, it is not just this group and other people being emotional who have said that we should bring carefully directed targeted pressure against South Africa now in order to prevent in the future a bloodbath. And that group is not a group of wild-eyed dreamers; it was led by Sir Malcolm Fraser, who was the conservative Prime Minister of Australia. They appealed to this government and that minister, and they came along with a practical appeal that we should do something to play our part. They appeal to us, and what to do they get? Some speech about Poland and Russia and so forth. We all know the situation in Poland and Russia, but there's an immediate need to do something to prevent that country falling into chaos and totalitarianism and bloodshed, quite apart from the justice of the situation, which may pass right over the minister's head. So you reject this appeal by these very eminent people and the thoughtful people throughout the western world who are trying to say to you before it's too late: "Bring that pressure." Unless there are ameliorative reforms quickly now that lead to the abolition of apartheid, that's what you're going to come with: the worst possible consequences.

So I say that this department and the minister I'm afraid are supernumerary, Mr. Chairman, and a waste of the public's money, and Point Grey should retire its senators.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's interesting to hear the hon. member in his defence of non-free trade with the United States. That's the established policy of all of the socialists in our country. We know that — everybody knows that, but perhaps it should be told a little more strenuously than it has in the past. He started to talk about, my goodness me, what's going to happen to our social programs? I'd like to assure the hon. member that the social programs require dollars and cents and productivity and wages to pay for them. They could be in dire straits without that happening.

There was a very good article by Mr. Ronald Anderson, and he was talking about the programs that we cherish and support in our country: unemployment insurance, pensions,

[ Page 8741 ]

medicare, subsidized access to higher education. He made the point, and correctly so, that that's a way of life for Canadians, and they want to retain it. But it's costly, Mr. Member, and it's very questionable whether we're going to be able to afford that. On the track we're now going we could not, in my view; it's impossible. He said this: "If Canadians wish to preserve their humane system of social welfare programs, it's not at all certain that the best way of achieving this is by trying to maintain conditions as they now exist." It cannot work. It cannot continue under the present ground rules.

This is our only opportunity, and it's a golden opportunity. That's why I would implore you people to volunteer your support for it. Why be against it just on old ideological grounds? That's really what it boils down to.

"The major impact of free trade, " quoting a Mr. Newall, would be to create a much larger opportunity for us to pursue so we can create more winners. One prime benefit would give the Canadian producers a better chance to penetrate the huge U.S. market.... Is that greater prosperity would generate more revenues to undertake Canada's political independence."

Please don't say the sky is failing; it isn't. This is the route to take. But it's a paradox today that it's being opposed in certain sections of the country — again, not surprisingly. by you people over there.

MR. BARNES: First, Mr. Speaker, with leave I would like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: I would like to advise the House that a member of the Washington state House of Representatives is with us, visiting with friends from the state of Virginia. Mr. Jesse Wineberry is a member of the Washington House. He just sent me a note to tell me that he himself has sponsored anti-apartheid legislation, so it's very appropriate that he happens to be here today.

To comment briefly, Mr. Chairman. on the position the government has taken with respect to sanctions against South Africa, I am particularly pleased that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is having his estimates discussed today, because you will recall that between 1972 and 1975 the government under Dave Barrett — a socialist government, to use the minister's expression — did remove South African wines from the government distribution branches. Obviously that was only a token gesture, but it did make quite clear the government's position with respect to the oppressive measures that the South African government was using against three-quarters.... Actually it was higher than thato 25 million people were being oppressed by something less than four million at the time. And that was an abhorrent, unacceptable condition, one that the world was just beginning to awaken to and beginning to realize that most countries in the world were participating silently in. Those symbolic gestures had to begin.

[3:00]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

This was 12 or 13 years ago, but today the problem still exists. It has escalated to a point where large numbers of lives are being lost: most of those are little children, women, people who have no means of defence and are basically being held imprisoned by the physical layout in those South African townships where there is usually just one road in and one road out. They are being controlled by a government that is perhaps one of the most well-equipped military organizations in the world.

Mr. Chairman. I just want to suggest to the minister that although it may be policy of his government not to impose sanctions against that country.... As I pointed out earlier in question period, the government did make one exception with respect to the Falk-lands situation. However, as the minister himself has pointed out, it's a case of selective ethics, the direction the government wishes to go.

But let's not forget. as a Whip during the days of the Barrett government I took it upon myself to boycott — not even knowing at the time that I was doing so — not to participate in ceremonies to do with a tennis tournament where South African players were involved. My only concern was personal, not to be involved. I quietly left. And as it turned out, the press got hold of it and found out that in fact I had taken an action which should have been taken; but I had no intention of taking it on behalf of the government, only on behalf of myself. But what I found out was that that action made national headlines. It was in the headlines of the papers in the province of British Columbia. I started to get a lot of mail, This is the point I want to make: the minister may not be aware of the sentiments of the people of British Columbia. Not just the politicians or the government, but the people themselves support the idea. I'm sure, three to one. That action be taken against South Africa. This is one of those cases, Mr. Chairman. where I believe and I hope the government will recognize the opportunity to act in a non-partisan way. This is an issue of fundamental rights and freedoms that we're talking about. I'm sure that members on both sides of the House are concerned about this. notwithstanding what the government says about not getting involved.

I’ve talked to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch) on occasion about this issue. His concern is that if we withdraw support in South Africa it's going to hurt the people we care about the most. But the people themselves are saving impose a sanction. The people who are hurting the most are themselves saying impose a sanction. They're desperate, because they know that they're in a situation they will never be relieved. Of unless there is this kind of action and this kind of sacrifice. Sure, it's going to have an impact, perhaps negatively, on some countries in terms of their economy. But this type of commitment is far cheaper and far more honourable than the consequence of hanging on to those investments and trying to extract dollars at the expense of the blood of these people. This is the issue. It's a matter of the world finally coming together and saying: "Look, let's do something together for humanity." Let's begin to turn things around, Mr. Chairman.

We're having peace marches all over the world. People are concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We are concerned about the environment, about the ecology. We are concerned about the quality of life. We are beginning to be concerned about one another, and realizing that we are not living in isolation. We are indeed concerned about international trade, as the minister has pointed out. and we would like to have more opportunities and more avenues open. But in the meantime, how can we tolerate this kind of abuse of humanity by a group of people who are only interested in perpetuating themselves in power at all costs; where people

[ Page 8742 ]

do not have the right to vote, do not have fair representation; they do not have proper education, proper nutrition, proper opportunities to develop in society. It's unbelievable, but that situation is almost beyond description by those of us who live in this society. We cannot begin to imagine that situation. I certainly don't pretend to understand it. But just on the fundamental right that everybody should have to participate in a government of their choice and be able to do it in a democratic environment, that in itself should be enough to cause this government to take action.

So I appeal to the minister to go to the people if he's confused or feels that he would be taking an action that would be contrary to what the people of British Columbia want. I'm sure you will find that it is no accident that just about every province in this country has begun to act in response to the request of those eminent members who are citizens who are attempting to try to ameliorate this situation, trying to avoid, as the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said, the bloodbath that is inevitable. What other reason would this government have to be so well equipped with the high technology weapons that it has, in order to defend such a small population of people against people who are fellow citizens, who are in fact unable to defend themselves? Why has this government taken this action? We should be concerned about this. It has gone far too far.

It is not a time to call names; it is a time for sanity. It is a time to realize that if we did nothing else but bring some semblance of sanity to those people in South Africa, we would be demonstrating that there is some hope for the concept of the United Nations, of people beginning to work together. It may be that first step towards a new world order, that new direction that we are talking about. Because God knows, something has to happen sooner or later. Why are we resisting? It is not just a case of ideology, it's a case of fundamental rights that everyone should have regardless of ideology, Mr. Chairman.

So I would appeal to the government: do not take this as a conspiracy of the left to try to impose some unfair restrictions on a country, that this is a matter not our business. It is everybody's business. I think if you look around and begin to listen, you will see that just about everybody is concerned the world over. There is nothing safer, Mr. Chairman, for the minister to do now than to respond to the people, rather than to hold back for some unexplained reason and thus avoid the kind of unfortunate insults that become the inevitable consequence when there is no other option, no other course; when desperation reaches the point that it has in South Africa and people such as Bishop Desmond Tutu begin to recognize that when their backs are up against the wall, people have to resort to violence, You're beginning to hear Christians say that there comes a time when the sword may be the only way. I don't think people do that very lightly, especially people who believe that violence is never the basis upon which you can build anything. I certainly don't believe it's a base upon which you can build anything. It always concerns me when I hear peace-loving people, people who are basically humanitarian, who care about the community and the integrity of humanity, begin to think that we can win wars by violence.

I would suggest to the House, to the committee, that we should begin to think beyond the immediate economics, the immediate kinds of concerns and values that we feel we need in order to maintain the standard of life that we have right now. There is a risk to that standard of life, and the risk could be by default, the lack of action on our part, the mindless lack of awareness that can happen. Perhaps the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations will be good enough to respond to this very serious situation. British Columbia and Alberta are the remaining provinces that have not seriously recognized they have an active role, not a passive role, to play in this situation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I take no issue whatsoever with the member concerning this being a most grave issue of fundamental right and freedoms. I completely share his views in that respect. As I said in question period, I consider apartheid to be an abomination. That's not news to this hon. member, as he well knows. Furthermore, it's very easy for anyone, on seeing some of these ghastly pictures and hearing what's happening in that country, to weep over the possible consequences. I've spoken up about somewhat similar issues in different areas of the world that equally trouble me, some of them maybe even more so. South African wines, hon. member — I don't buy them. I boycott them, as you apparently boycotted the South African athletes. I've made that decision here. I don't have any difficulty with that decision. Quite frankly, I'm proud of it. Yesterday I didn't have any difficulty watching the soccer game with Russia playing. Maybe I should have had a few more concerns there.

You use the words "conspiracy of the left." I'm not using those words. I know you're not speaking from that perspective, and I'm sure you're aware that neither am I. I can tell you, hon. member, that the Premier has received a wire from the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark articulating, in general terms, Canada's position, and Mr. Clark indicated in that wire that more specifics will be forthcoming. I do believe — and correct me if I'm wrong; I may be incorrect in this — that my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said this is the policy of the government at this time, leaving it up to the citizens of this province to make that choice. We couldn't leave it up to the citizens of the province to make that choice concerning the installation of Russian generators, but it can certainly be left up to them not to buy South African wine, and I commend them. Maybe there's more here that gets into the mix from British Columbia to South Africa. I regret I don't have those specifics — I'm not one of the economic ministers — but I'm sure those are going to be looked into. It's not going to be forgotten.

It's an extremely serious current issue in the world, and how well Bishop Tutu is articulating and decrying the absolutely mindless violence of putting tires around peoples' necks, putting gasoline on them and lighting them, and of burying people alive. Extremely unattractive. Unattractive is the wrong word; it's gross, it's disgraceful, it's horrifying. How did it come about? For the reasons you have articulated.

You know, Mr. Member, that ever since I entered political life I've been an optimist. I think you fit the same category too, although it's a little tough at times. Mankind is basically good. It doesn't matter what his colour is, what his race or religion is, what his politics are. Leadership sometimes does funny things, but mankind is basically good. I'm darned sure this dreadful, macabre situation in South Africa will right itself, and for the better — for the good of everyone who lives there, and certainly for the good of all mankind.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, we hear that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is going to boycott, personally, the purchase of South African wines.

[ Page 8743 ]

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: He doesn't buy it. Here is a minister who has the opportunity to have some influence with respect to taking actions that would in fact show the white, domineering, oppressive government in South Africa that at least we in this part of the world do not support what they're doing. Your not purchasing South African wines, Mr. Minister, is a very small token when you are in a position in government as a Minister of Intergovernmental Relations to ensure that we as a province discontinue the purchase of not only wines but all other South African goods. This minister should not only be pressing his government to ensure that that sanction takes place, but he should be working as hard as he possibly can in order to convince other countries, such as the United States and Britain, to follow suit.

[3:15]

We have the Eminent Persons' Group established as the result of a Commonwealth parliamentary conference in 1985 to look into the possibility of a peaceful solution to the policy of apartheid in South Africa. They have just come back with their report, which clearly states that there is no way that the present government of South Africa is moving towards changing its policy with regard to apartheid. The recommendation of the Eminent Persons' Group, representatives from the Commonwealth countries around the world, is that it is time every country concerned about what is happening in South Africa take action by imposing sanctions against the government so that the government will recognize that unless it changes its policy it is going to lose the support of the entire world — except maybe British Columbia, because British Columbia is continuing to purchase wines and other goods from South Africa.

It's not good enough, Mr. Minister. You are in a position of authority and privilege in this province where you can take some leadership on this issue. You are the people that said you would boycott products from Argentina during the Falklands war. But now people can make a choice; isn't that nice!

This minister is ineffectual in showing any leadership in his responsibility as Intergovernmental Relations minister. He's sitting back, supporting the views of most of the people on that side of the House on this issue. I view it as a disgrace.

MS. BROWN: I want to compare the way the government of British Columbia is behaving around this issue with the way another province, Ontario, is behaving. I had the good fortune to have been invited to participate in a special celebration sponsored by the government of Ontario, the metropolitan area of Toronto, the city of Toronto, the United Way of Canada, the government of Canada and a number of other groups and artists and other people in Toronto during the week starting about May 25, specifically to commemorate the loss of life in the struggle for freedom in South Africa and that province's opposition to apartheid. It culminated in a dinner on May 30 at which 2,500 people were present. all of whom paid $100 to be there as part of a fund-raising occasion and an occasion to honour the keynote speaker, who was His Grace the Hon. Bishop Desmond Tutu.

Ontario went even further than simply having a minister of intergovernmental affairs speak on their behalf. In fact, the Premier of the province, Mr. Peterson, opened the Legislature for the first time in 49 years to a spokesperson who was not an elected person, not a visiting government official from another country or province, and allowed His Grace Bishop Desmond Tutu to address the Legislature. The Premier of Ontario, Mr. Peterson, invited people from in and around the province to be there to sit in the public galleries, and invited a number of people to sit on the floor of the Legislature. Again, I was very honoured to have been included in that group.

The province of Ontario is not afraid, is not ashamed, has no concerns about making its feelings known in terms of its abhorrence of apartheid — not of South Africa, but of the actions of that government — because the province of Ontario recognizes that, as with every other country, not every South African, and not every white South African, supports apartheid or the actions of that government. So the province of Ontario was quite prepared to state publicly, not just through words but through actions as well, and in a number of financial ways, its opposition to that government's policies in this particular area. The province of Ontario recognizes that two wrongs don't make a right. Unlike this minister, it doesn't say that because the Soviet Union does something wrong or because Poland does something wrong and we don't boycott them, when South Africa does something wrong we shouldn't support sanctions against them either. When one is dealing with a specific issue such as apartheid in South Africa and the reasons why this government should take a stand on behalf of the people of British Columbia, people who have made their feelings known about their opposition to apartheid, to have the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations cite other governments that are a] so guilty of offences against their people and the failure of the government to do anything about that as a reason for not doing anything in this instance doesn't make any sense. It certainly doesn't say anything about the principles, integrity or courage of this particular government.

I think some of the statements made by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations would seem to indicate that he knows the price that the people of South Africa — black and white — are paying for apartheid. But maybe he needs to have his memory jogged just a little bit. I want to remind him, if he doesn't already know. that this struggle against apartheid goes back to 1912. We're not talking about something that happened in the eighties, seventies or sixties, or even the fifties, forties, thirties or twenties', the struggle goes back to 1912. The first public protest against the pass laws was launched by the black women of Johannesburg in 1915. That's how long this struggle has been going on.

Since that time, not just the people within Africa, not just the people of colour around the world, but many nations have grappled with this issue and tried to come to some kind of decision about how best to help the government of South Africa change its mind and its ways in terms of the way in which it relates to the majority people, the native people, of that country. And they have failed. I'm the first one to admit that all efforts on the part of all nations have failed. We have not been able to move that government. In fact, they have become more entrenched in their opposition to freedom, dignity and liberation for the black peoples of South Africa. They have become more brutal, they have become violent and they have become more vicious in their attacks on the black people of South Africa. As my colleague from Vancouver Centre pointed out, they have gone from attacking adults to shooting children. We're dealing here with legislated murder — approved, endorsed, condoned and sanctioned by the government.

[ Page 8744 ]

Nobody is asking the government of British Columbia or the government of Canada to send troops into South Africa. Nobody is asking the government of British Columbia or the government of Canada to send guerrilla fighters, guns or bullets. The attempt still is to find a peaceful avenue through which to communicate with the government of South Africa and get them to see the evil of their ways. We're still talking peace here, Mr. Chairman, and one of the peaceful ways that work.... We know it works by the kind of opposition campaign which the government of South Africa is launching against it. One of the peaceful methods that we've asked this government to participate in is the boycott.

We're asking the government of British Columbia please not to do business with South Africa in certain specific ways. One, we're asking the government of British Columbia please not to purchase any alcohol. Now alcohol is not a life sustaining force. It is possible that there may be a minority of people in this province who could not survive without South African wines, and if that is the case and we can identify those people, then I think that out of a sense of compassion the government could exclude those people from the boycott — if and where and when they exist.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Are you serious?

MS. BROWN: But what we are asking this government to do.... And I have never been more serious in my life, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Surrey. Now this member may come and stand on the floor of this House and play games. When I rise to speak on the floor of this House it's on issues that I'm serious about.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. REID: Go on back in the tunnel.

MS. BROWN: Go on back to where?

MR. REID: Go hide yourself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the hon. second member for Surrey maintain order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I accept that the first or second member for Surrey doesn't care about what happens to black people in South Africa, and I will protect his right to continue not to care about those people, because this is a democracy, and no one is going to expect decency from every person in this Legislature, or from every person in this province. If the two members from Surrey are not interested and do not care about this issue, that is their right, and as a matter of fact they have my permission to continue to heckle if that is what they would like to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Unfortunately, they do not have the Chair's permission.

MS. BROWN: Well, fine. If the Chair wants to withhold permission for them to heckle, that's fine.

I want to go back to saying to the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations that the request for a boycott is based on a number of considerations: one, that it is a peaceful way of registering one's disapproval of the government's action; two, that it is an effective way of helping the government, because it is hitting the government of South Africa in its pocket, and it's an effective way of getting that government to reconsider its policies of violence and cruelty toward the black people of South Africa; and three, it is a way which, as I said, does not visit a hardship on the people of British Columbia.

As I said before, Mr. Chairman, there really isn't that much that we as Canadians can do to help the black people of South Africa, if we want to be absolutely clear about it. One of the only avenues open to us is through the boycott. We're not going to send them guns, we're not going to send them bullets, we're not going to go down there and fight with them. We're not sending them armies, navies, air force, any of this kind of thing. We have only one really effective means of registering our disapproval of the actions of the government, and registering our support for the struggle of the people of colour in South Africa — because it's not just black people who are trampled by apartheid; all people of colour in South Africa are the victims of this policy.

[3:30]

We're not asking the government to have as much courage as Ontario has — we wouldn't go that far. We're not asking them to invite Bishop Tutu to come and state South Africa's case here. We're not asking for that level of courage from this government. We're not asking this government to send funds or assistance or even a message of support today, ten years to the day after innocent people were gunned down in Soweto. We're not asking for that level of courage from this government, because we know what this government is capable of. We know this government's limitation. We've had to deal with it. I've had to live under this government for well-nigh 30 years — for over 30 years, give or take a couple of years. But we're asking also that this government not do business in the area of agriculture with South Africa, that they not purchase agricultural goods from South Africa, that they do not purchase other goods. I'm talking about Outspan oranges and things of that nature. We do get a number of things in the area of agriculture.

We're asking that this government, in short, not do business with South Africa. We're asking this government to remember that in 1963 — 23 years ago — the government of South Africa, without recourse to law or the judicial process, incarcerated and today keeps imprisoned Nelson Mandela, one of the people who spoke for and worked for freedom in South Africa. We ask this government to remember that in 1960, without provocation, at Sharpeville, the government of South Africa turned its guns on innocent and unarmed people. We ask this government to remember, Mr. Chairman, that most people in South Africa who are black or people of colour still do not have the right to vote or the right to even the basic education which they need to live where they want in their own country; they are not protected in any way from the cruelties and the violence of that government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time.

MS. BROWN: In exchange, Mr. Chairman — and I know that my light is red, and I am winding down — I am asking this government to make one small gesture: not to go as far as the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark, and his government has done, not to go as far as the Prime Minister has done, but to make one small gesture; and

[ Page 8745 ]

that is today, the anniversary of the massacre at Soweto, to indicate that this government is willing to stop purchasing alcohol and other goods from the Republic of South Africa.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thank the last two speakers for their very thoughtful and very sincere observations. I indicated vis-à-vis the one specific issue of South African wines that I boycott them, and I advocate that people in our province boycott the purchase of those wines.

It's a very difficult thing in this world to at some times come up with an immediate response that is truly effective. There might be much better ways to do this to assist in bringing about a successful resolution than just dealing with a South African wine.

I can remember that when Mr. Khadafy was dealing in murder of the worst kind. At that very point in time the United Kingdom was training Libyan pilots and selling mutton to Libya, if I remember correctly — I think it was mutton — at about 10 percent of what it would cost to purchase it in the United Kingdom. When that air strike happened. I said to myself, if you happened to be in a position of authority, wherein your say would be the only say or wherein you could persuade your colleagues to respond, what would you have done there? Well, I thought. the best thing that could have ever happened there would be for all the nations of the world to agree that the commercial airlines would not fly into, and would indeed embargo, that country. But that didn't happen.

Vis-à-vis the British Columbia procurement policy, the only one that I'm aware of — and this is why, as my economic colleagues have earlier mentioned, they're looking into it — is South African wine, Maybe there are others that want to find that out; and having done that, then determine exactly the precise action to be taken. But I mention to the hon. member, as she knows, as I know and as everybody in the House knows, that there is no provincial capacity whatsoever to embargo private imports, not embargo private imports. So I would reiterate: the government is waiting to receive more precise information, which I gather will be shortly forthcoming, from the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark concerning Canada's position and the provincial role. Canada, no doubt, is also giving great continuing attention to its precise position. What Canada has done is certainly not a total embargo. I heard on the news earlier this morning that Canadian sulphur is still finding its way to South Africa, so indeed the route that has been taken by the government of Canada, like it or not, is selective. And maybe there's still some reason for reasonable selectivity; maybe there is not. But first of all we have to receive some more of the internal facts in our country as to precisely what is happening and what can happen, and take a very careful inventory, as I've said, of the government purchasing policies in B.C. I reiterate to the people of this province, and this is me speaking: don't buy South African wine.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. SKELLY: It's good to hear that the minister's own view is that he doesn't buy South African wine or believe in buying South African wines or spirits. But the simple fact is that the liquor distribution system in this province is the major purchaser of South African wines, and they purchase those wines at the expense of the taxpayers in this province. If the minister himself stops buying South African wines, I don't think anybody will notice it except as a symbolic gesture. It's important to that extent that a minister of the Crown in the province of British Columbia would stand up in this Legislature and publicly state that he does not intend to purchase South African wines and spirits. I think that that's an important personal gesture.

But unfortunately this government purchases thousands upon thousands of litres of South African wines and spirits, and they purchase it with the money of the taxpayers of the province that they are entrusted to expend on our behalf. It's when the government of British Columbia makes a gesture.... It may only be a symbolic gesture, because we're not the major purchasers of South African wines around the world either. But when the government of British Columbia makes that gesture, then it becomes important to the people of the province and the people of Canada, and it's an important gesture that is recognized by those people who are so desperately fighting for freedom in South Africa. It's the symbolism and the importance of that gesture that counts. It counts on behalf of all of us as citizens of this province, because our province will then have been seen as standing up and taking a position on the issue of apartheid. To date, the government has not taken the position that, I feel, hundreds of thousands — a majority — of British Columbians would like to see it take.

The government has taken a position in the past. I'm told they took a position in support of the boycott of Argentine goods during the time that the government of Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. a British colony in the south Atlantic. It's interesting the timing when the government took that position. Mr. Chairman, because I think that timing is important. It didn't take that position when the death squads were operating with impunity in Argentina, arresting without charge, holding without trial or process, torturing tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent Argentineans and in fact putting to death thousands upon thousands of Argentineans. Then the government of British Columbia did not stand up and make a statement on the human rights of those Argentineans that were being violated. The government of British Columbia did not take their position on the boycott of Argentine goods when thousands upon thousands of mothers were demonstrating in the streets of Buenos Aires, in front of the government buildings in Buenos Aires, to protest the desaparicidos, their children, their husbands, their spouses. When thousands upon thousands of women were demonstrating in the capital at Buenos Aires, this government took no steps to do anything, not even a symbolic gesture of boycotting Argentine goods, to demonstrate their abhorrence at the violation of human rights in Argentina. It was only when the Argentinians invaded a British colony in the Falkland Islands that this government took its action and expressed its support for the Canadian boycott of Argentine goods. I guess it shows something about this government and its concern for human rights, Mr. Chairman. We on this side would like to see this government take some action, which will be a symbolic gesture at best, but will show the people of Canada, British Columbia and the world that we abhor the kind of apartheid policy that is taking place in South Africa, that has been in place in South Africa back to the turn of the century, and that we are absolutely opposed to that kind of policy.

When the New Democratic Party was in government between 1972 and 1975, Mr. Chairman, we did take that position. We took South African wines and spirits off the shelves of liquor stores in the province of British Columbia. And we said that not only does the consumer have to make a

[ Page 8746 ]

choice on this issue, by ordering those wines and spirits specially — because they were still available in this province — but those who supported the South African government. those who wanted to purchase South African wines and spirits and demonstrate their support for the apartheid system, had to do it as a gesture of their own. What exists in the province of British Columbia today is the government making a gesture on our behalf, a gesture that supports apartheid, that supports the regime in South Africa, in spite of what this minister may say on his personal behalf. What this government is doing directly supports the South African government, directly supports the system of apartheid.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Contrary to some of the remarks made by my colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) that the members for Surrey don't care — and I would hope that those comments were made tongue in cheek, because certainly any thinking person must care about what is going on in South Africa.... Really, I have no problem at all in supporting most of the arguments put forward by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds that we look very seriously into the amount of business being done by the province of British Columbia with the South African government.

You know, it's impossible to condone the actions of the South African government against their black population, and we now see whites pitted against whites and blacks pitted against blacks. Who can possibly be happy with that type of situation? It's absolutely unacceptable, in my mind. As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, the gesture would be symbolic, but I believe it would be very important. I would certainly ask our own members to look at appropriate actions that could be taken on behalf of the people of British Columbia to let them know of our displeasure.

[3:45]

HON. MR. HEWITT: It is very difficult to talk about a situation that contains a lot of anguish and heartbreak, and physical hurt, the one taking place in South Africa. But I for one have not been able to resolve in my own mind that economic sanctions will help the people of South Africa. If you took the stance that I guess many have taken around the world, and the stance that some of the...

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, it's very difficult when you have black people sitting across from you, and you are taking a stance that indicates that maybe you are in favour of apartheid. That is not my stance.

MS. BROWN: Do you want us to leave or change colour?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, madam, I do not want you to do that. I want you to listen to a comment that I'm trying to make that, in my mind, is very difficult to make, but one that it would be nice if the whole world would look at in reality as opposed to emotion.

The very people whom many of us are trying to help the average black person in South Africa — can be more than injured by economic sanctions that will bring the country to its knees. For example, the value of their currency today has dropped substantially, and will continue to drop. South Africa, like many other nations, imports many of its goods. As the value of their dollar drops, they either have to cut out services, which may be in the areas of medical assistance, transportation services or housing for their own people — black and white included.... They may not be able to provide the service that should be provided because their product is not being sold on the world marketplace because of economic sanctions. We will have denied entry into our countries of products that black people of that country may have produced. At the same time, the value of their currency drops. As a result, imported products become more and more expensive. So what we do is add chaos and confusion, total confusion, with people saying: "I don't understand this. Why am I laid off from my job? I had a job last week. I want to see apartheid go, but I'm not working this week, and I have a wife and three or four children to support. I have a daughter or son to educate. Now I'm no longer working, and unfortunately the state cannot increase social assistance to me because it's going further and further into the red."

AN HON. MEMBER: They never had it in the first place.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think it's fair to say — and I've taken some interest in this and read a fair amount — that up until, I guess, about a year ago there were some major moves away from apartheid. These major moves were endorsed by, as a matter of fact, Rev. Tutu, who had shown how far he was against economic sanctions at that time, and he was saying: "We are moving in the right direction." At that time he was preaching consultation, peace — discuss and work out the problems; and I think it's fair to say that many of the issues that he raised as a concern were followed through by people in political office.

I don't have the answer, and it's a very difficult subject to deal with because in trying to speak out with common sense you can possibly be identified as somebody who supports apartheid. I certainly do not, nor does any other colleague on this side of the House. We feel sorry and, I guess, to a certain extent ashamed at what's happened; but as the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) has said, it's changed from an issue of apartheid, white versus black; it is black men killing black men by putting a rubber tire around the neck of another black man, pouring gasoline over him and lighting him as a torch. That is most distressing, because usually the man who is put to the torch is a member of the police force, in many cases trying to keep law and order in his own country. It's white against white. You've seen the extremist right attacking the government of South Africa because they think they're moving too far away from apartheid.

I don't know what the answer is. I guess only one person knows, and maybe some day he'll come back and give us all some guidance, because we seem to be like a ship adrift without any rudder. The major concern I have is that of law and order in the country.

I admire those who attempt to resolve these issues with reason, with discussion, with deliberation, rather than resorting to violence and chaos in the country. I would only hope that maybe that's where we can play our role: not just stopping South African wine coming into this province but playing a role as Canadians and as a provincial government, with representation and lines of communication with the federal government, to try to act as peacemakers. Over the years that's what we've been identified as. Canadians and Canada have been identified as peacemakers involved in the United Nations and NATO, always as ones who've said violence is not the way, sitting down and trying to resolve the issues and

[ Page 8747 ]

moving slowly and steadily towards a goal which will ensure that South Africans, black and white, are equal in their country. That would be a tremendous goal for us all to achieve. To those opposite who feet that maybe I'm not being sympathetic to the cause of South Africa, I can assure you I am; but I'm also very concerned about the chaos and the total ruination of a country if common sense does not prevail.

MR. COCKE: First I'd like to congratulate the member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) for what she said. I feel that that kind of acknowledgement is what we need this afternoon in this House.

I would also like to allude to the member who just took his seat, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who gave us a history lesson that I just can't understand. The people in South Africa — that is, the people who believe in liberty and freedom — have been begging for the kind of actions that we've been asking for this afternoon. They want the boycott. They want something to bring to the attention of that government the fact that the world does not accept their behaviour.

Just let me allude to a couple of areas. We saw what happened when the United States decided to embargo Cuba for what they felt was a political cause. We saw the devastation. We saw the same thing happen in Chile and the total devastation in terms of the Allende regime. If we in our society are able to accept certain people doing certain things that we know have a great effect, then why aren't we consistent? If in fact we don't agree with apartheid, then for God's sake.... Out of the ten provinces, eight have said no to South African wine. As the Leader of the Opposition said: "Yes, it's just a gesture, but it's a gesture that can give some leadership, some opportunity for the rest of the world to say: 'You know, what they're doing in that little old B.C. Is absolutely dead right."'

Blacks against blacks, whites against whites, blacks against whites and all the rest of this talk — somebody has to speak to that nation and say: "Get your act together, because if it becomes too late, the consequences are devastating." In my view there's no question that in the long run — and it may take another fifty years — if history is allowed to repeat itself there, that will become another communist regime, driven there by us. We have consistently supported regimes that we find to be "tolerable, " one way or another, and invited the situation that normally takes place. We have not learned from history. The United States is notorious for never having learned from history.

If we want a free world in the future, we'd better be looking to supporting real actions of freedom. What we're doing is a very small step in the direction of inviting that kind of freedom.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, it's rather irregular, but just in the interest of procedure, might I ask the minister in his capacity as House Leader if at some point he would be willing to support resolution 53 standing in my name on the order paper, which reads:

"Be it resolved that this House condemn the continued failure of the South African government to grant fundamental human rights and freedoms to the majority of its people because they are not white, that immediate removal of South African products from liquor stores and cessation of other trade with that country be effected, that such sanctions remain until its racial apartheid laws are repealed."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the resolution would have to be called by the House. We are in Committee of Supply at this point. One must admit that without discussing your resolution, without anticipating legislation, there's enough latitude in the debate to carry on, and that your point can be well made. But reference to calling a resolution or to legislation would be out of order in this vote.

[4:00]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to make new statements. I've spoken already, and my colleagues have added their sentiments and their feelings and made recommendations, I think most eloquently, and in fact members on all sides of the House have responded in a positive sense. But what is required is to take a step of action. I would hope that we could resolve to act in a forward way so that the people of British Columbia can identify with a governmental decision to respond.

As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, during the time that we were government a decision was made to remove the products for those two-odd years — between '72 and '75. After the election of the Social Credit in 1975 the government brought the products back. Now we realize the reasons for that and we understand them, but it should be clear what we're talking about. We're talking about action by the government on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and I believe that if the government were acting on behalf of the people, certainly in terms of their desires and their wishes.... They have been clearly illustrated by their response, their sentiments, talk shows, letters to the editor, and any number of ways that they've been very responsive in a positive way to sanctions against South Africa. So if the government is concerned about individual rights and freedoms, the majority opinion is that the products be removed. As for the government's private ideological reasons as a party, I think the government can put those aside on behalf of the people of British Columbia, which is what I think is called for here.

Perhaps the minister would at least recognize that there is this difference, when he talks about the freedom of the people to make their own choice. In fact, it's closer to what the Leader of the Opposition suggested: that the freedom is best granted by the government's taking an action which represents the common view. but allowing that option for the individual person who may wish on the contrary to purchase South African products, which is always the right of an individual. It's always the right of an individual to go to the liquor branch and order any product from anywhere in the world — in fact, products that are not even carried by the LCB. So the individual right is still available. We're not talking- about the government acting on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

It may be of interest if the minister would consider some kind of a referendum. Why not put it to the people? The government is doing polls on just about everything you can imagine, at great taxpayer expense. I can't think of any issue more important, and a better way to inform the public about the issue at hand than to present it with some kind of a plebiscite or a referendum. Perhaps the minister would like to respond to that suggestion.

[ Page 8748 ]

Vote 47 approved.

Vote 48: intergovernmental relations, $2,557, 122 — approved.

ESTIMATES: OMBUDSMAN

Vote 3: ombudsman, $2, 396,084 — approved.

ESTIMATES: AUDITOR-GENERAL

Vote 2: auditor-general, $4, 402, 758 — approved.

ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION

Vote 1: legislation, $10, 861, 780 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

(continued)

On vote 71: ministry operations, $17,193, 217.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I don't think we've got a quorum here, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just let me check.

With the greatest respect, government House Leader, I understand your concern. We do have a quorum.

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

Motion negatived unanimously on a division.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate having the opportunity to say a few more words about tourism. Unfortunately on Friday... I understand it was quite an exciting day, but I had some important constituency business that I had to attend to. I did fully plan on getting an opportunity to address some of the concerns in terms of tourism marketing and development, and other aspects of the operation of the ministry.

I would first of all like to spend a little bit of time talking about the latest B.C. travel indicators. In a summary of 1985 B.C. travel indicators, the minister had painted rather a glowing picture of the increased vigour of our tourism industry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, hon. member. Hon. members, the member for Okanagan North has taken his place in debate. I realize there is some levity this afternoon; however, the member will be afforded every courtesy to offer his remarks. Can he please proceed without any other interruptions.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. It is rather difficult to have to talk above the noise.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You should have been in here earlier.

[4:15]

MR. MacWILLIAM: I heard about it.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

As I was saying, the minister has painted a glowing portrait of the health and vigour of the tourism industry, but I wanted to point out that some of the information that he was citing doesn't really represent the entire picture.

There has been increased U.S. vehicle and resident entry; there's no doubt about it. That's helped to reduce some of our historical balance of trade deficit in tourism that hovers around the $200 million mark. But unfortunately we are showing a loss in some of our overseas entries, as well as showing a bit of a loss in the rubber-tire traffic that we're experiencing from other parts of Canada.

In 1984 tourism highlights published by the ministry show an 8 percent decline in visitors when compared to the figures for 1979. In fact, for the five years from 1979 to 1984, we seem to have been losing ground in terms Of attracting visitors to British Columbia. So it's a little misleading to look at figures for one month or two months, or even to compare one year to the next. But when we start to compare five years or the trend over a number of years, we do get a much more accurate viewpoint. When you look at that, we see that we do appear to be losing ground.

The minister has boasted about a 4.2 percent increase in the hotel occupancy rates of this year. But I wonder if the minister realizes that the average occupancy rate of 58.5 percent is still below the traditional break-even point — or the point that the industry considers as break-even — of 60 percent. We're still below that. So although the minister has been highlighting this increase, we still have a long way to go in terms of the health of the hotel industry.

Despite that, the minister doesn't seem to have done very much in terms of assisting the motel and hotel businesses throughout the province that have been hurting. I haven't heard much in the way of his pressure to relax the hotel occupancy tax. This is something that I think is a consumer-based tax, Mr. Chairman; if this tax was phased out or reduced, it would stimulate business in that sector of the industry.

As well, I haven't heard much from the minister in terms of any pressure being brought to bear in reducing the restaurant meal taxes — again, a consumer-based tax that if phased out, reduced or eliminated, I think, would help in terms of the health of the particular industry.

One interesting figure that I'd like to look at is the campground attendance. These are from the ministry's figures. Campground attendance is down about 1.5 percent from 1984. But the interesting thing is that when we look at the figures compared to 1981, we see that campground attendance in fact dropped approximately 20 percent. I think this is a real concern. I bring this up for the minister's attention. I wonder if the minister has initiated any investigations to determine why we've had such a significant drop in our campground attendance.

I'd like to point out to him that I've made some observations. I mentioned earlier in the House, I think, debating the Lands, Parks and Housing estimates, that I had made a trip last summer, kind of a busman's holiday, looking at tourism and camping facilities throughout the province, and comparing them to other areas such as Oregon and Washington. As a matter of fact, my trip took me from the California border up to almost the Alaska border, and throughout British Columbia to the Alberta border. So I think it gave me a good opportunity to compare what is available in British Columbia

[ Page 8749 ]

with other provinces, as well as in the States. I found that travelers have voiced a lot of concerns in terms of the lack of amenities in our present campground facilities. There's a lack of showers, a lack of hot water, a lack of Laundromat services and rather primitive washroom facilities. I understand that these kind of come under the auspices of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf), but they also impact on the Ministry of Tourism. Much of our rubber-tire traffic is RV traffic and campground traffic, and one of the biggest concerns I've noticed in talking to travelers from the States is that our campground facilities, when you compare them to theirs, are inadequate. We don't have the amenities that other areas have, such as the state parks in Oregon. I wonder if the minister has any comments on that, and whether he has any plans to try to convince his colleagues to upgrade those facilities.

I want to point out that a recent resident travel study done in the Washington and Oregon area mentions that "Washington and Oregon visitors overwhelmingly reject the notion of roughing it." I would suggest that the facilities in some of our campgrounds are in fact what could be described as roughing it. So perhaps the minister would like to comment on that. I think we can do a lot in terms of upgrading those facilities.

I'd like to go on and make a few points in terms of tourism for the future in this province. I think there's no question that we're going to see a surge in tourism — or hopefully will see a surge in tourism this year, being an Expo year — and I hope that our concerns with regard to maximizing the spinoff of Expo and generating regional tourist traffic do bear fruit, because we have a good potential here with Expo. We want to make sure that we maximize that potential.

In 1984, Mr. Chairman, B.C. lost almost $200 million in revenue that was exported out of the country by tourists traveling out of the country. I think what has happened in the past — and I've mentioned this to the minister before — is that we've failed to market a quality product, we've failed to ensure that we have a quality product, we've failed to diversify and enhance our product, and we've failed to advertise or, as we can say in the jargon of the industry, to market that product effectively. I think more aggressive action has to be taken by the minister and his ministry in order to increase our marketing skills for the benefit of this industry.

A couple of marketing studies have been done. The minister is well aware of these studies. They've just been published, and I want to go over some of their salient features, and then perhaps I'll sit down for a moment and let the minister respond. The resident travel study done recently in Washington and Oregon is interesting. It has identified a target market in that area for vacationers to British Columbia. They seem to be about age 35 to 44, college-educated families with children; their household income is $25,006 plus; they like short vacations. The study recommends that we highlight water-related activities and avoid the extremes of rich-style living and the other side of the coin, which is the extreme of roughing it. The study recommends that we implement an ad campaign based on new and interesting destinations as a strong selling-point.

I'd like to recommend to the minister that we could in fact do a lot with promoting regional tourism attractions that would tie in very well with these recommendations. But I have some questions for the minister in terms of the specifics of this study. What steps has the ministry taken at this point to implement these recommendations? I'd like to know if the ministry has developed an appropriate ad campaign that incorporates the findings of this study.

Another interesting point. The study suggests that relatively little is known about Vancouver Island, Whistler Mountain and the Okanagan as destination points — I'm referring to the study done in Oregon and Washington. I'd like to know what is presently being done in order to correct these deficiencies. It seems that people in Oregon don't know about the Okanagan, and they don't have a clear idea what the Island has to offer. What has the ministry implemented in order to correct this?

The study also concluded that specific information would be helpful on what to see and do in British Columbia. It said that that kind of very specific information is critical to our ability to sell the province as a destination point. My question to the minister is. or maybe it's a suggestion: has the minister or his ministry considered installing a toll-free telephone number so that out-of-province potential tourists can receive information on the area, region or specific activity of their choice?

One last point that I want to touch on. The study found that a significant number of the U.S. tourists who would come to B.C. are cable subscribers. They watch a lot of cable television. Has the ministry implemented — or is it considering implementing — an ad campaign focused on that particular market segment through the cable systems of the northwest U.S.?

Perhaps the minister would like to comment on those questions. Then I have a few others.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to be able to rise in this place again and answer a few questions. I think I'll start with some questions that were asked last Friday when the member for Okanagan North chose not to be here. After being so pompous on Thursday, and very indignant about what was happening in the House, he chose not to be here on Friday.

MR. MacWILLIAM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister is referring to vote 70, which is the minister's estimates. We're discussing vote 71 and I would suggest that the minister is out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the minister is well aware of the rules of debate that a previous vote is not debatable at this time.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes. I'm very much aware of that, Mr. Chairman, and I did not ever mention a previous vote taken in this chamber. I was merely referring to that member's attitude in this House. It strikes me as rather odd that one can be so indignant one day and then not show up for the remainder of those estimates the following day.

MR. MacWILLIAM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are addressing vote 71, which is ministry operations — general administration, tourism marketing and tourism development — and I would suggest that the minister is out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is well aware of the vote under debate at this time in the committee. Would the minister please continue.

[ Page 8750 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I plan to answer some questions that were asked in this House on Friday, I believe by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). I notice that he is not in the House at the present time. In fact, I would like to make note that only three members of the opposition are in the House at this time, and one who is making a lot of noise is not even in his seat.

If I might, I would like to explain to the opposition, especially to the member for New Westminster — I want him to read this in Hansard — about his query as to the amount of money we're spending in marketing this year, and why it had not been increased from last year. I'm going to explain something that he might have difficulty understanding — he obviously wasn't listening when I made my opening remarks — and it's to do with working in partnership with the private sector. When we talk about the Partners in Tourism program, we are not just paying lip service to it or just putting together nice-sounding phrases; we are putting it into action. Our Partners in Tourism program has this year enhanced our marketing in the order of somewhere between $3 million and $4 million. We're partnering with the private sector to make our taxpayer dollars go just a little bit further, something that perhaps those members wouldn't understand. I doubt very much if they would have the ability to work with the private sector to that extent.

I can tell them that the Partners in Tourism program is working extremely well. We are partnering with every one of the nine regions in this province to make our dollars go twice as far as they normally would, and if the program continues at its present rate of success, we will be expanding it next year.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, I'll talk to whomever I wish. You people aren't interested in talking about partners. You should get in your own seat if you're going to make comments across the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. minister address his remarks through the Chair.

[4:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the people in this assembly, I just want to explain how we work with the private sector in all nine regions of this province to enhance tourism, to make it work better and to make our dollars go further. If they would like to see the details of the Partnership in Tourism program I would be most happy to provide them. I'm sure they can understand it in its simplest form.

The other comment I would like to make...

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You should excuse yourself. You weren't here when these questions were asked, Mr. Member. I will answer your questions in due course.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) will have his opportunity to stand in his place; likewise the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). At the moment the Chair has recognized the Minister of Tourism.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would also like to address the question of Expo and taxpayer dollars, because on Friday one of the members on the other side — and I forget which one — threw the phrase out several times that the taxpayers' dollars were being poured into Expo.

I just want to say for probably the umpteenth time in this House, Mr. Chairman, that that is not true, and the members opposite know that it's not true. Taxpayers' dollars have not been tunnelled into Expo. As much as they would like people to believe that, it is just not true. We set up the Lotto 6-49 fund to underwrite the cost of Expo, and it did so very nicely. There will not be a burden to the taxpayer when Expo is finished; I'm very pleased to say that to the people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. No matter how many times they say it, the taxpayers will not be burdened with a legacy of debt from Expo; they will be burdened with legacies that they will enjoy for years and years to come.

Just for their edification, maybe I should repeat some of the legacies that will be left after Expo; they don't seem to comprehend that. As many times as we say it, it doesn't seem to sink in over there.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, I will tell it again anyway, Mr. Member, just so that maybe if I say it enough times, it might eventually sink through and you will absorb it.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in hard assets alone Expo will leave a legacy of some $150 million right on the main site, plus about another $200 million facility on Burrard Inlet in the form of a convention centre and a cruise ship facility. On the main site we will have the refurbished CPR roundhouse, the British Columbia pavilion complex and the Expo centre.

On top of that, Mr. Chairman, these people seem to forget that Expo will generate some $3.5 billion to $4 billion in economic activity in this province in 1986, not to mention the thousands of jobs that it is providing. Thousands and thousands of jobs have been provided that wouldn't be there had we not taken the decision to go ahead with Expo.

Then the member for New Westminster had the audacity to say that this is not a fair for the people of British Columbia. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we have 95 community committee associations in 95 communities around this province, with thousands of people working, at absolutely no charge, to benefit from Expo 86. If that isn't a fair for all the people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what is.

I've covered the partners program and how we're going to benefit from that. I didn't even touch on the legacies on the tax revenue that will be generated by Expo, Mr. Chairman. The tax revenue alone that will be generated will be in the area of $600 million; just in taxes, $600 million. They tend to keep spouting the same rhetoric over there, that the taxpayer is going to be left with a bill at the end of Expo. It is just not true, Mr. Chairman. They know it's not true, but they continue to say it, as if saying it enough times will make it true.

I have some figures on U.S. vehicle and resident entries for this year, as well as Rogers Pass traffic, that I would like to share with the House. The member for Okanagan North touched on that. He also touched on the meal tax that we are charging on all meals over $7 in British Columbia. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's very nice to say that we should be doing away with that tax, but the member knows full well that when we

[ Page 8751 ]

brought that tax in a couple of years ago, like every other jurisdiction we were looking for ways to generate revenue. It was badly needed in the province, as it was in many other jurisdictions throughout the entire free world. Reluctantly we did put on a meal tax; but unlike the member, I don't think that it is a deterrent at all to tourism in British Columbia. Such taxes are commonplace elsewhere throughout the free world; in fact, in most jurisdictions they're quite a lot higher than in British Columbia. It's a tax that we don't like to see there, Mr. Chairman, but it's one of those things that in our present-day economy in the west seems to be necessary.

I have some Rogers Pass traffic I think is interesting which I would like to read into the record so that the people of British Columbia know what is happening. Let's start with the United States. U.S. traveler entry is showing a 40 percent increase this year over May 1985 through the Douglas border crossing. So there is no question that we are already reaping the benefits of Expo, Mr. Chairman, in increased tourism traffic from the United States alone, a 40 percent increase over the same period last year.

The other day I mentioned the number of buses that are up. We're doing some 150 buses a day, I believe, out of the United States over what we normally do.

Rogers Pass traffic, which gives us the clearest indication we can get from eastern Canada, is up 21.5 percent over May of last year; year to date is up 7.4 percent. So a 21.5 percent increase in May over last year, in spite of the downturn in the economy of the province of Alberta — Alberta is facing tough economic times now — again points out some of the benefits that Expo is providing our province this year.

That takes care of a couple of the questions. The campground issue that the member brought up is one that we are working on. We are working on mainly assisting the private sector to develop their facilities. Through the development side of my ministry, which is not responsible for campgrounds directly, we are working with the tourism industry to improve the quality of the tourism plant in British Columbia, but encouraging the private sector to do so.

We are also, wherever possible, working closely with the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) on the government campground issue. I would like to see campgrounds improved, expanded and enlarged, and I would like to see it done by the private sector, not by government.

The member talked about the future of tourism in British Columbia. Perhaps he wasn't listening the other day when I went on at fair length, I thought, on what we were planning for the future, but I'll just reiterate a few of the things that we see for post-Expo and many years to come.

One of the things that will enhance our product for many years probably from here henceforth is the information centre network that we have established throughout the province with the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce. We have established a common look and a common theme to ensure that when visitors see the logo of an information centre, which is easily identifiable, they will know that when they drive in there they will get the latest up-to-date information on any region in which they happen to be. The information centre network will benefit us for many years to come.

Couple that with the travel planner. The member asked what we are we doing for regions like the Okanagan, the Island, etc. Well, I would recommend some bedtime reading for him in the form of our travel planner, which does exactly that. It takes the visitor on a step-by-step, region-by-region tour of the province, so that he or she can do a one-day trip, or two days. or three days . whatever his or her requirements are. It takes circle tours through every region of the province. So I think we have covered that very well.

The SuperHost program. I could go through all the detail on that again. but I don't want to bore the House. The SuperHost program is one that will be in place for many years to come because it is doing a good job of teaching the people on the front line of tourism how to treat visitors and how, indeed, to be super hosts.

The marketing and market development I touched on again, but the member seems to want me to repeat it. We have an excellent marketing program in place with the Partners in Tourism and with our own marketing programs and with cooperation with the private sector. Our marketing is based on the research that we have been doing. The member went on at length about research done in Washington and Oregon — yes, done in Washington and Oregon by my ministry, so that we know exactly what the people want when they come here from those areas. We've carried on extensive research in British Columbia, Alberta, Washington, Oregon and northern California. I think we're way ahead of where the member thinks we are. We're way ahead of most jurisdictions in this country when it comes to market research and marketing. I could go on at length about marketing and research and what our plans are for the future; but I think we're doing the right things, in fact to the point where many other jurisdictions are coming to see what we're doing in marketing and market development in British Columbia.

The last question that the member asked that I can think of...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Time, hon. member, unless the minister wishes to act as the designated speaker.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm the designated hitter today.

I've just got another point to touch on. The member asked about the toll-free line. Yes. we are investigating putting in a toll-free line and, once again, we are investigating it in cooperation with the private sector so that we can make our dollars go just a little further.

MR. MacWILLIAM: On a point of order, I believe that the Premier in his statement on Friday indicated that he was the designated speaker for that vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the present Chairman was in the chair at that time.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Fine. I'm just seeking clarification.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am confident that if you looked at the Blues you would see that he had not. Would the minister continue.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, we are looking very seriously at putting in a toll-free line. But as you can imagine, these are very expensive propositions. I think we will bring it about, but we will do it once again in cooperation with the private sector.

Also. In conjunction with the B.C. Motels, Resorts and Trailer Parks Association, we have done a special RV promotion in the United States, because our statistics show us that

[ Page 8752 ]

more and more people are traveling with self-contained accommodation. So we are working with the industry to do this type of promotion, and we have done so this year in the United States.

[4:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: Just a brief intervention, perhaps not on the main topic. I was interested that the minister protested the fact that we on this side of the House were making a statement, or the charge, that the taxpayers might be picking up any Expo deficit. He countered that by saying: "Well, that's not going to be paid by the taxpayers at all. It's going to be coming out of Lotto 6-49." Would the minister confirm that taxpayers buy Lotto tickets? Would he also confirm that if the government decided to use the Lotto proceeds for some other purpose than Expo, it would be used to relieve statutory or budgetary costs for whatever that other purpose was' Would the minister also confirm that really what it is is that lotteries...? We become more and more dependent upon them for more and more things; what it amounts to is chasing a dream. It's really a voluntary tax, usually on the poor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister may respond with respect to the Lotto funds expended under the purview of his ministry, particularly Expo 86. But with respect to the direction of lottery funding, that would be better dealt with by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), whose estimates have already passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member virtually contradicts himself. If lottery funds were used for some of the purposes that he suggests, then indeed it would be an ongoing tax. I think that Lotto 6-49 funds could not be put to a better purpose than funding something like a world's fair that has done so much for this province in such a short time. The international recognition alone that British Columbia and Canada are getting through this fair could not be attained in any other way.

Yes, Mr. Member, I guess I'm as aware as you are that when a person buys a lottery ticket it comes out of their pocket. But when they buy a lottery ticket, they put their hand in their own pocket. When you tax them, you put your hand in their pocket. I think there's quite a difference. When people buy a lottery ticket, it's voluntary. When you tax them to do some of the things that you would, it's you putting your hand in their pocket, I think there is quite a difference.

MR. ROSE: I think that the minister speaks with a great deal of authority, because I think this government has a tremendous reputation for putting its hand in the people's pockets. There's no question about that, so I don't deny it. I'd just like to assure them that as far as I'm concerned, and as far as many people in the province are concerned, talking about an Expo legacy, we just hope that one Expo legacy we won't have following the closure of Expo and the next election is the minister himself.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I wonder if the minister can advise whether he has considered an accommodation guide for bed and breakfast facilities similar to the guide for motels and hotels. It's my understanding that people that are wanting to advertise bed and breakfast facilities are unable to do so through the present tourist information guide because of the reluctance of the ministry to add on those.... Well, I guess there must be numerous facilities that would apply. Yet at the same time there are maybe half a dozen facilities that have been advertised in that same guide for some time now. It seems that we have a few facilities that are getting the benefit of advertising, and yet a lot of the newer facilities are not able to be accommodated in this guide. First of all my question is: why can't facilities coming on stream be accommodated? Secondly, if not, have you considered implementing a bed and breakfast guide for those facilities?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer to the member is yes, we have considered it. We considered it very thoroughly a couple of years ago. The answer is very simple. We just do not have the staff and the resources to inspect every bed and breakfast outlet in the province. We just do not have it, nor do we intend to expand the ministry to that extent. So what we do is advertise the bed and breakfast registries in the accommodation guide and refer people to the bed and breakfast registries. Then the registries, which are private sector, can refer people to the individual bed and breakfast. So it's as simple as that. We just do not have the resources or the inspectors to deal with that many outlets.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Another question to the minister. Aside from the federal-provincial ERDA funding through Partners in Tourism, has the minister considered the development of a specific funding program for regionally based market surveys? I know the ministry itself does market surveys — we've talked about a couple of them here today. But I think that in any regionally focused tourism development strategy we have to accommodate the need for the nine tourist regions throughout British Columbia to do their own marketing, to identify their own target markets and the best strategies to implement. I would ask the minister whether he has considered specific funding for regionally based market studies.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer again is yes. We're doing this through the Partners in Tourism program.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I said aside from that. I know that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, I think we would rather do it by partnering with the region rather than always having the government go in and do it all. We have done that in one instance recently, where we felt a very strong need for the government to go in quickly and do a survey, and that was in the Fraser Canyon because of the impact of the Coquihalla Highway. But normally we would rather see a much more well-thought-out program initiated by a region, and have that region come to us and partner the program with us. We intend to do a lot of that in the future.

MR. MacWILLIAM: That's the specific area of concern. I'm not saying that the government has to go in alone. I don't disagree with working in partnership. What I'm saying is that it seems that most of the market survey work is being done centrally, and I think we need a little more flexibility in that area.

I want to move on to another area, and that's education and career-training programs. Last year during the Tourism estimates I made a number of recommendations with regard to the need to implement a more rational training program for

[ Page 8753 ]

the tourism and hospitality industry. Presently we have very few programs; they're fragmented. I think BCIT is the only program that has any depth to it. There are a few short courses offered here and there. But we're clearly in a situation where training is badly needed. I think that presently only one in five people working in the tourism industry has any formal training, and only one in three of those receives any on-the-job training.

I'll give you a really specific example of what can happen when a person who is untrained is on the front line. In my travels a while back I was staying in a local hotel in the Kootenays somewhere. I went to have breakfast, and asked for — this seems like a trifling issue, but I assure you that it could have a major impact — poached eggs, and the young chap who was serving me said: "Well, how would you like them done, over easy or...?" I said: "No, I'd like them poached." I couldn't get it across that poached didn't mean over easy or sunny side up. It's trifling and rather humorous, but if you got a U.S. tourist used to first-class service coming in and getting that kind of treatment, we'd have a problem. We've got a problem on the front lines, and people aren't trained properly.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the member over there will have ample opportunity to speak, and if he wants to take the floor later on, he's quite welcome to do so.

I'd like to ask the minister whether he has initiated any specific actions with regard to implementing any new education or training programs in the tourism and hospitality industry, and whether or not he would commit himself to the development of an integrated program of tourism and travel services as a part of the regional college offerings. Again, we impact on another ministry — there's no question about it. But what have you done in order to ensure that Post-Secondary Education is pursuing that as a viable career-choice program in an industry poised to become, if it isn't already, one of the major industries in British Columbia?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We realize full well that we can use better education in the tourism and hospitality industry, and we're working to develop just that. In conjunction with the Tourism Industry Association of B.C., we have a paper coming forward this fall outlining the roles and responsibilities of both the public and the private sector. A good deal of the educational responsibilities in this industry fall within the purview of the private sector; it's not all public sector. When that report comes in, I'm sure that, working together, we will pinpoint just who has what responsibility. I suggest — and it's not an excuse for the industry — that we will always have some young people who are not really up to speed or where they should be, but we're working as diligently as possible to bring that to an absolute minimum. SuperHost, although it's a very short course, an intensive one-day course, is going a long way toward accomplishing this. But I'd just like to reiterate that a good deal of the responsibility for education in the industry falls under the jurisdiction of the private sector.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I fully recognize the value of the SuperHost program for what it's worth — It's a short five-day course — but I'm talking about a more formal educational program for those individuals wishing to receive extensive training in the tourism/hospitality industry. We don't have anything. Mr. Minister; it's simply not available. The closest thing we've got is at BCIT and you darn near cancelled that the other year, despite the fact that they had over 900 applications for 160 positions. There's a demand there that we can utilize and put to work for us right here in British Columbia, and we're not competing with the U.S. Industry, which does have a very extensive education training program behind it. We've got to learn that the education component of the tourism and hospitality industry is vital in order to ensure that we can offer a credible product.

Mr. Chairman. I want to move on to tourism and the need for environmental preservation, because I think this is an area of pressing concern. Our ability to develop a vibrant tourism product is pretty much linked to our ability to preserve our environmental heritage. While tourism's future might, as the minister has indicated. be rather optimistic, I think it's very much dependent upon the wise management of our land resources in conjunction with carefully developed marketing strategies. We haven't seen a lot of action from the minister in terms of voicing the concerns that have been addressed by certain areas in the tourism industry: the preservation of South Moresby, the Stein, the Stikine. These are potential tourism travel generators of value far beyond the immediate value of the wood that can be harvested out of them, and the minister, publicly at least, has been silent on these issues. He was silent on the issue of south Moresby. He may have spoken up in cabinet, I don't know: but he didn't speak up publicly in defence of the industry's interests, and I question why he hasn't.

The Tourism Industry Association of B.C. has recognized the value of preserving our natural heritage as a critical resource, and in fact has requested that sufficient time be given in future land-use decisions to examine the potential of the resource as a marketable product in terms of its tourism and recreational potential. To quote from a recent report: "In an increasingly urbanized and interconnected global society, we're sitting upon some of the most valuable, rare and unique real estate in the world. The short-term jobs in forests and mining that we forgo for ourselves now will multiply with our children in subsequent years." That quote is basically saying: let's have a look at some of the areas we may be putting under the developers' shovel or under the chainsaw, let's have a look at their potential in terms of a tourism product; and let's begin to coordinate our activities with other ministries so that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing and we don't forgo a valuable tourist resource for the immediate necessity of its minerals, its forests or whatever.

I want to go over a few of the recommendations quoted in this report from the Tourism Industry Association of B.C. It recommends that we prepare a master plan outlining the areas best suited for wilderness recreation activities, important wildlife habitats and archaeological resources, and then establish a recreational carrying capacity, as it's called, for the area's various ecosystems. It also recommends development of an extensive trail system for hiking and cross-country skiing, with a series of primitive mountain shelters. It goes on to make a number of recommendations on the value of areas such as south Moresby, the Stein, the Stikine in terms of tourism potential.

[ Page 8754 ]

I'd like to ask the minister what he has done to help in preserving these areas. Has he considered the implementation of a joint Ministry of Tourism and Ministry of Environment advisory committee so that we can have a look at the utilization of these areas for their tourism potential?

[5:00]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, once again to the member, on most of these things we're well ahead of you on this. You're a good deal behind us in the environment. We on this side of the House realize full well the value of the environment and the ecology in British Columbia. It's easy for you to sit there and say that I don't voice my opinion on these things; believe me I do, very much so. I just don't happen to differ with the philosophy we've put forward as a government. I agree with the stance taken on south Moresby and other areas, and with the Wilderness Advisory Committee.

As far as a master plan for wilderness, etc., both my ministry and others are working on that. In fact, we are working very closely with the industry on the impact of wilderness and the environment on our industry. So again I would just say that while it all sounds very nice, the buzzwords we've all heard many times about the global interconnected society, we're well ahead of you on this.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister indicates that he's well ahead of me on this issue, but I'm citing from this Tourist Industry Association of British Columbia brief presented to the Wilderness Advisory Committee. This brief was presented in December 1985. One of the other recommendations that this brief makes is that in any and all future commissions and decision-making processes that pertain to the fate of wilderness areas, representation be provided by members of the tourism industry in the use of wilderness areas as a tourism resource. This report says: "TIA B.C. protests the lack of representation from the tourism industry on the Wilderness Advisory Committee." I'd like to ask the minister: why wasn't his ministry represented on the Tourism Advisory Committee? Why doesn't it have a voice on that advisory committee? Why wasn't it involved in consultations with regard to the future of those recreational resources that were under study at the time? Why hasn't he had a voice on this committee?

Mr. Chairman, I'll repeat the question to the minister, in case he didn't hear, because he has chosen not to answer. It says: "TIA B.C. protests the lack of representation from the tourism industry on the Wilderness Advisory Committee." Why were you not on the committee? Why were you not represented on the committee? Why did you have no input into the decision-making process?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Once again, Mr. Chairman, the member is incorrect that we have not had any input into it and that we didn't have any input into the recommendations. As a member of cabinet I've had a great deal of input into what has been acted upon vis-à-vis the Wilderness Advisory Committee. He's just not correct.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, to clarify the minister's remarks, the Wilderness Advisory Committee was not a cabinet committee; it was a committee that was autonomous of cabinet. Why did the minister not make representation directly to that committee, in terms of the interests of the tourism industry?

Mr. Chairman, I've given the minister ample opportunity to respond, and obviously he has decided not to do so. I'll move on to some other questions.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Don't you ever get tired?

MR. MacWILLIAM: No, I never get tired. I've got all sorts of questions, and I could go on for a few days, if you give me time. There are lots of concerns here to be addressed. Just give me a chance.

MR. BLENCOE: With this minister.

MR. MacWILLIAM: With this minister there's a lot of concern.

Mr. Chairman, I'll move on to discuss another area of concern and that's B.C.'s film industry. As you may be aware, B.C. Is already considered to be a world centre for film production. Apparently we attract about $150 million annually from the U.S. film industry. We can increase the value of local film and video production, I think, significantly with better production facilities and with a commitment to encourage more B.C. film and video production. What's needed, Mr. Chairman, is an opportunity to develop our local talent and resources, and short-term government support to make it happen. I don't think this government has given that support at this point. I think there are opportunities to do more in helping this fledgling industry in this area. The government, for example, has specifically excluded the local film industry from economic development programs that have been available to other industrial sectors. I don't know if the minister has made representation in terms of the concerns here, but this is an area where he could have a positive voice. Presently the local film industry is excluded from economic development programs available to other industrial sectors. I'd suggest to the minister that he make such representation to see if we can get some help for the industry. There are no viable provincial programs that promote an industrial strategy in the area of the B.C. film industry. Neither the B.C. Development Corporation nor the small business capital venture program supports the film industry. I'd like to ask the minister at this time, with regard to these concerns, whether he has made representation in terms of getting some short-term financial support for this growing industry in British Columbia.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the member is talking about two very distinct segments of the film industry. Let me touch on the first one he mentioned first, the making of feature films in British Columbia by mostly outside interests, and the lack of facilities there. Once again the member is a long way behind us in this. If he has been following the media recently he will know that we are most concerned about constructing a studio facility to protect this very vital industry that has the potential of doing well over $100 million a year in British Columbia. That's one aspect of the film industry which happens to fall under my ministry.

The other aspect, the local film industry, is a totally different subject and, correctly, probably falls under the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) in her responsibility for culture. We are working with the Provincial Secretary at this moment to develop a film policy for British Columbia, but we want to make the distinction that they are

[ Page 8755 ]

quite separate. What he is talking about in the indigenous film industry is the making of locally produced and marketed films in British Columbia. And he's quite right; we are one of the provinces that at the moment do not have a firm policy in this regard. I'm very well aware of that, and we are working with the Provincial Secretary to come up with a British Columbia film policy.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister is probably aware that the province of Manitoba set up a $21 million fund through the ERDA program in tourism — $21 million donated federally, $8 million done provincially. The program dispenses funds to qualified applicants in order to stimulate a local film and video industry. I would assume that the same opportunity was afforded to British Columbia, and I'd like to ask the minister why he did not negotiate with his federal counterparts to develop a federal-provincial ERDA program specific for the film and video industry, similar to Manitoba. We seem to have missed the boat, and why did you do so?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 71....

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister again did not answer my question, so I'll repeat it. The minister is well aware of the opportunity for a federal-provincial program to stimulate the motion picture and video industry. He had the opportunity to partake in the program with the federal government. Why did he not do so?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member is fully aware that we do have an ERDA program with the federal government in the amount of $30 million. We don't have a separate ERDA agreement for film promotion. I can't answer whether Manitoba's film development ERDA agreement is over and above their regular ERDA agreement. I would have to see it to know that, and perhaps if the member knows he could tell me. However, we do have a $30 million ERDA program which is for the enhancement of the tourism plant in British Columbia, to improve our destinations and make British Columbia a more attractive place for visitors. I am one who happens to feel that the development of a film policy and funds for same should probably come under the heading of culture, and therefore another minister.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I don't think passing the buck onto another ministry can take you out from under the responsibility. It comes under your ministry as assistance to the film industry. Going back to the minister's statement on the $21 million, the information I've received is that it is a fund to dispense capital for qualified applicants to stimulate that particular segment of the industry, so it's for the film and video segment of the tourism industry. I just cannot understand why the minister did not consider this if given the opportunity to do so. But he has given his answer, so I'll proceed to another area.

I want to cite from a 1982 report on the program production industry. It's from the Canadian Department of Communications. It analyzed program production in the province of British Columbia. Without going into a lot of details on the report, it made the following conclusions: number one, that there's a need for a major production facility in British Columbia; secondly, there's a need to wean the industry away from American products and establish a separate Canadian identity, and, I would submit, a Canadian identity with a B.C. focus. There is a need for an increased distribution and exhibition of western Canadian productions, and there is also a defined need for a provincial development fund — just what we were talking about before, the fund that the minister chose not to go into agreement with with the federal government. There is a need for a provincial development fund for assistance to this industry.

I'd like to ask the minister at this time.... This report was submitted in 1982; it's now 1986 and they've had four years. I'd like to ask the minister what he has done to accommodate these recommendations and these priority considerations that have been submitted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, once again the member is incorrect when he says the minister chose not to go after these funds. It has nothing to do with my ministry. I guess I've said it three times and I'll say it once again. Production of local British Columbia films really is not under the purview of the Minister of Tourism. It probably comes under Provincial Secretary in the field of culture, and that's who we're working with to help them develop a film policy.

When he talks about a production facility to continue making motion pictures here, I submit again he's about a year behind us. All he has to do is read the local media, and he will know that we are working very hard to secure a first-class production facility in this province to deal with the part of the film industry that does come under my ministry, and that is scouting film locations and putting production together mostly for foreign-made films which generate in the area of $70 million to over $100 million worth of revenue to this province. But British Columbia-made films, to repeat once again, do not come under this ministry.

[5:15]

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'm well aware of the efforts that have been made. The minister is talking indirectly about the Dominion Bridge site, The problem is that, once again, you're supplying the facility, the tinsel if you like, but the guts of the industry are in fact missing. There is no material there in terms of incentives to help develop the industry itself. It's easy enough to supply an empty lot for the facilities to develop on, but it's much more detailed than that.

I'm going to go on to some other points, but I'll defer to my colleague here for a moment.

MR. BLENCOE: I just have a couple of small items I'd like to bring to the attention of the minister and perhaps get a response.

Over the last year or so I've had a number of business people from Victoria in my office complaining about the difficulty of accessing Expo in terms of their commodities, products or the excellent items they have for sale that are British Columbian — local entrepreneurs. One of them is postcards put out by a gentleman here in Victoria, Mr. Bill MacDonald. I've written to Vancouver Magazine Service twice now and sent a copy to the minister of that correspondence. Mr. MacDonald is a well-known expert in transit and collectible items like pictures of vehicles in the transit service — historical pictures, from which he has created unique postcards which would have been very useful and I think a great asset to Expo in terms of the theme of Expo 86.

[ Page 8756 ]

He originally, some months ago — I guess well over a year ago — wrote to Vancouver Magazine Service, which I believe has the overall contract for determining who will display or give permission for selling of items at Expo, and to his first letter he wrote to Vancouver Magazine Service he didn't even get a response. On the back of his letter was scribbled a note to the effect that "your stuff doesn't fit with what we want to do, " and "sorry, " a handwritten, scribbled note. Not even a decent response to a well-known Victoria entrepreneur, a man who is well known for his excellent collection on public vehicles and now in postcard services.

Since then I have written to Vancouver Magazine and copied the minister. The first letter went out some months ago asking for their policy on how they chose products to be displayed and for sale at Expo 86. That was months ago. I've received no response to my letter to Vancouver Magazine. Just about a week ago I wrote again and copied the minister, again asking for some details of how they made the decision, because I really.... It's not just Mr. MacDonald. There have been others, as I said, who have been in my office — I'm sure there are other MLAs too — who found that the kind of service and the way they've been dealt with vis-à-vis the products they have for sale that are British Columbian in origin have not been the best. Certainly the example I've given of Mr. Bill MacDonald and Vancouver Magazine Service doesn't do our province any good. It doesn't do any service to our province. The way he was handled I think was really quite an embarrassment and quite shameful. I think the minister may have even seen these postcards, and even commented. Even you thought they were excellent. I know you've probably seen a lot, Mr. Minister, in the last year or so; I understand that. I recognize that, but really, I don't know what is for sale. I haven't had the opportunity to go to Expo, but I intend to go to Expo this summer.

Mr. MacDonald is recognized as having a fine collection, which would, I am sure, have been a marvellous opportunity for visitors to buy these kinds of postcards. The way he was dealt with was really, I think, very sad. I wonder if the minister can give at least a response to Mr. MacDonald and others who were probably treated the same way.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's hard for me to explain away the behaviour of a company like Vancouver Magazine Service. You're quite correct: anybody who writes to them should be treated with courtesy and given an explanation. Just today I saw your letter to....

MR. BLENCOE: It was the second letter.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't recall a first letter, but t saw the one today, so I asked my executive assistant to phone Mr. MacDonald to see if we can't get to the bottom of this. In fact, because this is the first I'd heard of Mr. MacDonald, to my knowledge.... And I don't think I've seen those postcards, but I might have; I don't know. The first I'd heard of this problem was today when I got over here at about noon, so I've already asked my assistant to phone him and see if we can find out.

I should point out, not making apologies for anybody, that at Expo they looked at somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 items, and they have chosen about 1,500. It stands to reason that a lot of people were turned down. What my prime objective was to make sure that everybody had an opportunity to sell their wares at Expo — at least have their product seen and properly evaluated, and get either a yes or a no, if that hasn't happened in this case, I'll be interested to see that it does.

I think you can understand the problem in which they find themselves in being deluged with some 20,000 items, and not being able to handle 20,000 items. We're looking into this case.

MR. BLENCOE: At least that's a reasonable.... I appreciate the minister's remarks in that area. Mr. MacDonald is a very well-known businessman in this community, and the way he's been treated, quite frankly.... Vancouver Magazine Service, as far as I'm concerned, should have been fired, the way they treated him, to handwrite a little note on the back of his letter saying: "We're not interested." That's not businesslike. And now two letters from the MLA representing that business person in this community.... Not even to respond to my inquiries I think shows there has been a problem there and that there is a feeling by British Columbian entrepreneurs. I think the NDP critic will also know; he's had these kinds of complaints as well. Local entrepreneurs in British Columbia really haven't — let's put it this way — been given a fair deal in some of these dealings. We see souvenirs in Victoria. I've visited many of those souvenir shops over the years, and I believe these are some of the best quality I've seen in a long time. I don't know what else is available, but I think they have to be some of the finest examples of historical pictures of buses and trolleys, etc. They are of great interest and would have fitted beautifully into the theme. But be that as it may, there may already be postcards. I don't know. I'll leave that there.

There's one other item. Again, a local entrepreneur, Mr. Barry King of Victoria Landmarks, dealt with specialty marketing. This is a beautiful book about Victoria and Victoria landmarks. Mr. King tells me that he has been dealt with in an....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No cartoons. None of that. That's just for the Socred leadership.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Victoria Landmarks. Victoria is the capital of British Columbia, and we would have liked to have seen a little more recognition at Expo of the capital of British Columbia.

I want to bring this to the attention of the minister anyway. Mr. Barry King, with this beautiful book, Victoria Landmarks, couldn't even get his foot in the door to show his product.

I just brought up two examples today; there are others. I've had unique toy manufacturers in Victoria who make children's toys — British Columbia kinds of toys; whistles in the form of native whistles and this sort of thing — who haven't been able to get anywhere near Expo.

I really wanted to go on record to indicate that I think there have been some mistakes with how Expo has been used for local entrepreneurs and British Columbian entrepreneurs. It's not as if we're going to get another Expo for quite a long time, and...

AN HON. MEMBER: Never.

[ Page 8757 ]

MR. BLENCOE: No, that's right. I know maybe it's spilt milk, but how we've dealt with some of our entrepreneurs and our business people.... I know the minister cannot watch everything. I recognize that he's got to delegate authority and responsibility. But I think there could have been a little tighter rein on the way these things were done.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I've named names. If you'd listened about ten minutes ago, you'd have got the names, Mr. Minister.

However, Mr. Chairman, it is a serious matter. I don't know what the minister can do now, But I have to go on record as saying that many of the entrepreneurs who have come to me in this riding, in Victoria — not necessarily New Democratic Party supporters — have been quite upset and offended by the way this government has handled entrepreneurs.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: They have.

So, Mr. Chairman, I'll leave it there. But there are two items, I think — beautiful products from Victorians who have tried to use Expo to show the world their products and what can be done here. They haven't really got much support, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have just one more quick comment on that, Mr. Chairman, and I want the member to know there are a lot of entrepreneurs from Victoria doing business with Expo — including chickens and things — small manufacturers and entrepreneurs. I'm not saying that the products you bring are not of the highest quality, but you must remember that there are probably 15,000 to 18,000 people who are unhappy that their products didn't make it onto the shelves at Expo. As I said, they chose roughly 1,500 products, and over 800 of them are made in Canada, the biggest percentage of that 800 being made in British Columbia. I'm sure you can appreciate that we just cannot compete here with some of the low-end merchandise made offshore. But well over 50 percent was made in Canada.

There are bound to be entrepreneurs out there who are dissatisfied, but that doesn't excuse being treated badly. Wherever possible, Mr. Member, I tried to see that every entrepreneur had a chance to compete at Expo. As I say, because they're turned down is no excuse for being badly treated. Wherever I've seen this happen, I've done my best to jump in and make sure that they are treated fairly.

MR. BLENCOE: I just want to finish by asking the minister — and hopefully he'll let me know about his inquiries into Vancouver Magazine Service.... I would like to know that there will be some action, some words spoken. I have to say that I find that how they've handled it has been absolutely atrocious. I don't know who owns Vancouver Magazine. I don't think it's a Pattison firm; I don't believe it is; I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a fifty-fifty chance.

MR. BLENCOE: A fifty-fifty chance? If the minister finds anything out on how they do business, I really would like to hear, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just to assure the member, I already have my assistant looking into it and I'll keep the member fully informed as to what we find out. And I don't know who owns it either.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister made a statement a while back which I find quite concerning. That's that entertainment and culture is not part of the mandate of the Ministry of Tourism. At least, he gave that indication in his statement. I'm concerned about that comment because I think there is a vital connection between culture, the arts and tourism. If the minister doesn't see the connection, I want to point out some facts which will show this very plainly to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You will appreciate, of course, that the minister has stated that it's not within his ministerial function and it's not subject matter for debate at this time.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the clarification, but the argument I'm about to present will indicate that it is in fact within the interests of Tourism and, I would suggest, within the mandate of Tourism in terms of the.... Again we have an industry that impacts on many others, as we talked about with the issue on the environment. We can extrapolate the same argument to tourism and culture.

[5:30]

I want to give two examples to the minister, and maybe he may wish to comment: the Stratford and Shaw Festivals in Ontario and the Oregon Shakespearean Festival in Ashland. I want to talk just for a moment about Ashland, because it's a small town of 15.000. It used to be dependent on its resources; however, it's gotten into the promotion of the Shakespearean festival as a local tourism travel generator. It's had an economic impact of over $45 million on that community. Every motel, hotel, restaurant and store in that small community has been benefiting as a result of the Shakespearean festival.

The Wagner Festival in Seattle: there was a recent survey done in terms of the impact of that festival. It was found that two-thirds of the audience that attended the opera festival were tourists. It had a total economic impact of $20 million in the Seattle area. It was also found that visitors attending that festival came from all over the world. It wasn't just local people at all. It was international. It was found that the visitors were in a mid- to high-income bracket.

The city of Vancouver made an economic strategy report for Vancouver. In that strategy it recommended that active support be given to the development of world-class cultural attractions as tourism travel generators. I would suggest that many of our smaller communities, communities throughout the interior of this province, have developed extensive historical and cultural offerings that I think can be rolled into part of the regional tourism strategy. But what they need is a coordinated strategy to promote these attractions along with the tourism marketing. I don't think that that's happening to the extent that it should be.

I know the minister is probably going to say that they're far ahead on this one. But I would suggest, just to pre-empt his statement. that there's a lot more that can be done. I'm

[ Page 8758 ]

surprised he's here. He's not even getting paid for today. Anyway, there's a lot more that can be done.

The B.C. Touring Council has recommended — and I know that the minister has, because he's so far ahead on everything, already studied those recommendations, and obviously will be prepared to advise me as such.... Here are the recommendations that the B.C. Touring Council has made with regard to tourism in the arts and culture. First, that the production of two pilot tourism and arts packages be initiated — one for the Vancouver area and one for the Victoria area. Second, that a cultural events publication be initiated and distributed by the Ministry of Tourism. Third, the identification of target markets for the cultural tourist; again we're talking about marketing to a specific audience — to a specific buyer. Many of those buyers are called the "cultural tourist." Fourth, establishing a group responsible for identifying and recording events and attractions on an ongoing basis throughout the province. Fifth, establishing an arts and entertainment information service. Sixth, promoting regional arts festivals to expand the market potential and to coordinate this with the local tourism marketing.

I'd like to ask the minister at this point, having gone through these six specific initiatives that have been recommended by the B.C. Touring Council, whether he could advise whether these actions have been taken, whether they have been at least considered, and what specific action he is about to take on them.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I do hate to say it, but we're well ahead of you on this one again. We have already completed a publication in partnership with the B.C. touring arts council, and it's been off the press about two months now — some 50,000 copies. So we're well into that one, and it's working very well, again through our Partners in Tourism program. And some of the other recommendations — yes, we are acting upon working with local arts communities, festivals, etc.

I should point out to the member that I'm very much aware of the value to tourism of the things he mentions. That doesn't mean that all these things necessarily come under my ministry. For instance, the B.C. Summer Games are a tremendous asset to the province, both for local people and for tourists; so is the Festival of the Arts, but it doesn't come under my ministry. The same with all cultural things — they do not come under my ministry. You mentioned the environment again — very important to tourism and we realize that, but it doesn't come under the jurisdiction of my ministry. But on arts, sciences, historical artifacts, museums, we're very much aware of it and working very closely with that community.

You should see that publication, Mr. Member, which has been out now for a couple of months. It's excellent.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'm really happy that the minister has been working. so hard attempting to pre-empt the statements that he knows I will be bringing up in his estimates. It's good news to see that we're working as an effective team here — watcher and watchee.

I just want to bring up a point of concern with regard to a local festival, the Vancouver Children's Festival, part of which was held in the Vernon area this spring — May 6 to 10 or something. I had written to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), and I believe copied it to the Minister of Tourism, outlining a concern I had about that local festival.

Because of the impact of restraint on school budgets, many of the schools throughout the interior of the province had made a decision not to send their students to the festival, or to send a reduced number of students, due to the high cost of transportation. I had written suggesting to the Provincial Secretary, because there had been $500,000 made available for travel of students all throughout the province to Expo, that the minister could consider allocating some travel money to offset the cost of travel to this local festival.

You know, I never got a response to that letter. I never got a response from the Minister of Tourism. Now to be quite honest, I can't recall whether I copied you or not. But I am concerned that here was a festival of real value to the local children — not the local children, but children throughout the province and particularly throughout the interior, many of them left wanting because the schools couldn't afford to take them there — and I thought a legitimate request made for the Provincial Secretary to find a small amount of money to make it possible for these kids to attend.

The festival took a bath because they didn't show up. They didn't show up because the money wasn't there for travel. I wonder if the minister might respond to that, whether or not he was aware of that situation and whether there will be any attempts to rectify situations like that in the future, because I think that those are of critical importance.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I won't pretend to answer for another minister, and I don't recall seeing it. Now if you did send it to me, I just don't recall. In the future, if you wish, write to me and at least you will always get an answer from me when you write. I answer all letters. The answer isn't always the one that you might want to hear, but I will look into that if you want to bring it to my attention. Send me a copy of the letter you wrote and I'll look into it and see what can be done.

MR. MacWILLIAM: With regard to regional tourism information centres, the minister was up in the Vernon area just recently to open one. It's a nice building, a nice structure. I think it's going to be a real benefit to the community. But I am a little bit concerned that, although we have a beautiful facility, the funding necessary for employing the students or the trainees who are working at the centre only allows for staffing of that facility until August 20.

I'd like to suggest to the minister that, particularly in light of Expo going on into October, or is it November — anyway, into the late fall — it seems counter-productive to only supply necessary funding to man the tourism information centres until late August. After the funding runs out, they're going to have to close down the tourist information centre. Now I don't know how widespread that is, whether all the tourist information centres are having to close down early as a result of lack of funding, but has the minister considered any extension of the funding through his ministry or in coordination with the Ministry of Labour so as to extend the hours of operation or the length of operation of those regional centres?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member does bring up a good point. We have increased the money that we've put into that program over $200,000 over last year for this year, but there are some centres that are going to run into financial operating difficulties in August, September, whatever, and we are working with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) now to see if we cannot allocate more funds for this.

[ Page 8759 ]

So again, it's another.... No more funds can come out of my ministry; I don't have a budget for that. But we are working with the Minister of Labour on that. I don't have an answer for you at this time.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you again. With respect to regional centres, the minister is well aware of the Osoyoos situation, but we seem to have a difference of opinion as to what's happening there. The information I have received, unless the situation has changed since we last talked about it, is that the ministry had, rather than duplicating efforts, as it said, left the responsibility of operating the tourist information centre in Osoyoos to the local chamber. The discussions I had with chamber representatives indicated that although they run a local centre providing numerous activities for the community, they felt they didn't have the manpower nor the funding necessary to run the appropriate service for the tourist-related traffic. I submit to the minister, a point I made earlier, that the Osoyoos centre recorded 9,000 visits last year; that particular crossing, the U.S. border crossing, had over 700,000 crossings last year. To me, that centre is the first line of attack that we should be using to try to provide information for U.S. tourists traveling north through the Okanagan region into British Columbia. Will the minister advise as to whether or not funding has been re-implemented for the operation of that centre, or whether it is still solely up to the local chamber to provide the necessary service?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On that particular centre, Mr. Chairman, we have, I think, satisfactorily resolved the problem. We have worked with the community of Osoyoos. We now have them back in the facility they had before. We discovered that the chamber facility downtown was just not the right location for it. So by the end of this tourism season the city will, for very little cost to them, acquire that facility. Yes, we have given a grant to the chamber to assist them in running it. So I think that, as of a couple of weeks ago, the situation in Osoyoos has been resolved and is well in hand.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to first pose a question to the minister about a publication, an Expo 86 special edition called "Your Super, Natural British Columbia Traveling Companion." I'm sure the minister is thoroughly familiar with it and aware of it. It has undergone more than one printing, I understand. At our home we received it in the mail through a householder mailing distribution system in May of this year, which is another printing from the original one. I've talked with people elsewhere who said they got the same distribution, so whether it was all over the province or not I really don't know. I wonder if the minister could tell me the cost of the reprint this year. Do you have that figure readily available, or even an estimate of the cost of reprinting, if it's possible?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: You should bring the worst member for Surrey back to order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's difficult. The Chair cannot bring him to order when he's not in his seat.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, we did two printings of it. It was planned that way, but also the demand was incredible. I haven't got the figures with me. I'll have to take that as notice and get them for you if you like. We'll give you the total number printed and the cost.

MR. HOWARD: The cost is an important factor, to see how much money was wasted as far as the northwest is concerned.

[5:45]

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: In a sense, because you're advertising something that was cancelled in January of this year. You're attracting people to come to the northwest part of B.C. to see certain events and to take part in certain things, one of which was the Great Race on the Cataline trail. It says that on June 27 certain things are going to happen — where it starts, where it goes and so on. That great race was cancelled in January, and yet is advertised as an event. It has upset a few people in the area who don't want to be plagued with requests by visitors to see something that ain't gonna take place. In that sense I think it's a bit of wasted money, and leaves an impression that something's going on that is not going on at all. I don't know whether the minister can correct that at this date, but perhaps he can try somehow to deal with it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'd like to respond, Mr. Chairman, because we go to great lengths when we put this out to make sure that it's accurate, and we involve people from the communities. The regional people go to community groups, and every effort is taken to see that it's accurate. When this went to press the Great Race was still planned and going. It's just one of those things; it seemed like the minute after it went to press the Great Race was cancelled, because the communities just could not put it together. But it was put in there with the best of intentions; they had every intention of going through with it.

We just can't go to any more pains to make sure that it's accurate than we do. The regional directors visit every community, visit with every group and phone every group that has an event in there. As I say, we can't do much better than that, but I guess inevitably something's going to be cancelled the day after it goes to press, and that's what happened in this instance.

MR. HOWARD: I understand, and we can accept that in the first printing, but surely not the second printing. We received these some months after it was cancelled, and that's what is upsetting people. Anybody will accept the idea that yes, you're prepared to do something and at the last minute there's a cancellation and it's not possible to correct it in any printing or brochure, but certainly there would have been in that second instance.

Very briefly, I'm of the opinion, and a lot of people in the northwest are of the opinion as well, that the Ministry of Tourism forgets that we exist or doesn't pay very much attention to the fact that we do exist. People in the Hazelton area go to a conference in Prince George about tourism and come home and express that selfsame concern.

I want to follow what my colleague from Okanagan North very briefly mentioned a few brief moments ago about regional offices or regional impact. The ministry could establish a regional office — the same as many other ministries do

[ Page 8760 ]

in the pursuit of their mandate — to keep track of what's available and what's of interest in a region and to be able to communicate that and act as the front-line personnel in that area, to provide information and feed information elsewhere when advertising programs take place to attract people to those areas. On other occasions I have outlined in this House some of the attractions that exist in the northwest — talked about its beauty and its historic nature and the various things that exist there in scenic and recreational pursuits. I don't want to reiterate all those again, because I'm sure the minister is aware of them. Nonetheless, we do have some distinctly unique situations and places that need to be developed and need to be advertised and need to be promoted.

As an example, so I'm advised by reputable authorities who study these matters, we have in the northwest part of the province the only known active volcano anywhere in Canada. It isn't erupting right at the moment. Their estimation is that the cycle of eruptions at Mount Edziza — the various cones on it — is roughly about every 300 years, and we're somewhere in the middle of that cycle at the moment. But it's a beautiful spot. It's a glaciated cap on the mountain, and the volcanoes are on the periphery of the mountain, quite accessible by helicopter — easy to fly over and to see from one — and accessible by pack train as well out of Telegraph Creek and other areas up there. Those are the kinds of things which are unique to the northwest, which I submit are missed in the whole scheme of things.

Victoria and Vancouver and the area in that narrow corridor just along the Canada-United States border is not all that exists in British Columbia. Yet regretfully that's where the focus of the Ministry of Tourism seems to be. I think we need to break out of that mould, break out of that cast, and expand the horizon of the ministry, so that folks from other parts of the world can expand their horizons and their expectations of participating in something terrifically unique in various areas of the province. Of course, I'm making the case for the northwest.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member for Skeena, I can assure you that we are very cognizant of your area and all the areas in the province. This year we have a terrific promotion going in conjunction with Alaska and the Yukon and your area specifically — North by Northwest — to promote the Journey to the Top of the World, to bring more people into your areas. We also have two regional offices. One is in Dawson Creek and the other is right in your riding, I believe. So we are very cognizant of working with the regions, and of putting together the travel planner. Partners in Tourism with the private sector is done through the regions, so we go to great lengths to involve every region of this province.

MR. MacWILLIAM: My goodness, Mr. Chairman, time goes so fast. I've probably got a couple more days' material here, but in view of the hour I would move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) sought, pursuant to standing order 35, to move adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the imposition of martial law in South Africa and the refusal of the government to impose sanctions against South Africa.

On the specific matter of sanctions I find that matters raised under this standing order "must involve more than the ordinary administration of the law" — May, sixteenth edition, page 372. The matter of an "imposition of embargo on Russian imports" was accordingly disallowed at Westminster — House of Commons debates, 1932-33, 277, chapter 27.

In addition, "the motion has been refused when an ordinary parliamentary opportunity will occur shortly or in time, " for instance when the matter can be raised in the estimates — May, sixteenth edition, page 371. In fact this opportunity occurred this afternoon in consideration of the estimates of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). The application of the hon. member for Comox must for these reasons accordingly fail.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the 1985 report for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled the annual report of the B.C. Police Commission for the year 1984-85; the corrections branch annual report for the year 1984-85; the British Columbia Steamship Company (1975) Ltd. audited financial statement for the year ended December 31, 1985; the Law Reform Commission annual report for the year 1985-86; and the 1985 annual return, "Invasion of Privacy."

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.