[ Page 4289 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Police Act (Bill 21). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 4290

An Act to Feed Hungry School Children (Bill M204). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 4290

Life Bible College Act (Bill PR402). Mrs. Gran

Introduction and first reading –– 4290

Oral Questions

Drilling permit for South Moresby National Park. Mr. Guno –– 4290

Environmental laboratory. Ms. Smallwood –– 4291

Purchase tax on sale of Expo lands. Mr. Sihota –– 4291

Post-secondary education funding. Mr. Jones –– 4291

Sale of B.C. Hydro gas division. Mr. Clark –– 4292

Fisheries landing requirement. Mr. Guno –– 4292

Purchase tax on sale of Expo lands. Mr. Sihota –– 4292

Tabling Documents –– 4294

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Reid)

On vote 65: minister's office –– 4294

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Lovick

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Chalmers

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Vant

Mr. Bruce

Speaker's ruling on matter of privilege –– 4307

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the gallery today we have quite a number of members of the various real estate boards from around the province. I have a great deal of pleasure in introducing some of them to you, and ask that you welcome them here today. From Chilliwack and District Real Estate Board is Ms. Liz Tutt; from Fraser Valley Real Estate Board: Evan Brett, Colin Dreyer, Dale Featherstone, Otto Comehis, Brian Atchison and Al Terry; and from the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver: Mr. John Eastwood, Mr. Brian Calder, and a very special friend of our Speaker, Mr. Ron Downey from West Vancouver, Mr. Firoz Lakhani, Mr. Dennis Meakin and Mr. Bob Scragg. I would ask the House to make them welcome, please.

MS. EDWARDS: I have three people to introduce today. On advice that Mr. Brian Tully is here from the Kootenay Real Estate Board, a very active citizen in my community, and knowing that Pat Conroy of the real estate board is here, I welcome both of them and ask the House to join me.

I would also like to introduce my son who is here from Ottawa, Allan Edwards.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Minister of Finance is a little slow off the mark. I should have got up first of all to welcome the president of the B.C. Real Estate Association, and my colleagues were so keen to get their parochial partisanship exhibited publicly that I never had the chance to do the appropriate thing. I'd like to do that now.

It's my pleasure to introduce Mr. Barry Clark, president of the B.C. Real Estate Association, together with a group of delegates representing 13 real estate boards throughout the province who are currently in Victoria to attend a B.C. Real Estate Association workshop and who have taken time this afternoon to observe this session. I'm sure all members of the House welcome them most heartily to our deliberations this afternoon.

MR. VANT: In regard to that vast gathering in the gallery immediately behind you, Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in introducing in particular Mr. Wayne Jenkins of the Cariboo Real Estate Board, Mr. Larry Good of the Kamloops Real Estate Board, Ms. Marie Stonehouse of the Northern Lights Real Estate Board, Mrs. Rusty Ljungh of the Northwest Real Estate Board, Mr. Lee Bliss of the Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board, Ms. Sharon Smalley of the Powell River Sunshine Coast Real Estate Board, and Mr. John Martens of the South Okanagan Real Estate Board. I know the House will want to give them a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: The real estate fraternity has certainly had its share of introductions today. However, I would feel slanted or shunted if I did not also wish them well, because I think I'm the only one who is still a member of the British Columbia Real Estate Association and the Canadian Real Estate Association — as a retired member, of course. I also want to voice my welcome to these people.

Secondly, there are members in the precinct today from the Multiple Sclerosis Society. This society does much to help the Ministry of Health in their endeavours to keep costs down and look after people in need. Would the House please welcome them.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise in this assembly to welcome all the real estate people, but significantly for my portfolio, with us today in the gallery is Mr. Alan Brock, chairman of the Grape Marketing Board, and also blessing us with his presence is the chairman of the B.C. Turkey Marketing Board, Mr. Jim Pennington. Would this assembly please make them welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: I would like to extend our welcome to the Legislature also to the various real estate boards, in particular the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. I would like to point out that one of the members of that board is Brian Calder who, along with Margot Sinclair, has the unique distinction of being a graduate of Sir Winston Churchill high school, the finest high school in British Columbia.

HON. MR. REID: Two more votes.

MR. HARCOURT: You're going to need a lot more, so there's two more for you. I would like to bring greetings to the various members of the real estate boards here today.

As well, I would like you to welcome the New Democratic candidate who has been nominated to run in Alberni. His name is Gerard Janssen. He is here with the other Marlene Dietrich, who will be his campaign manager. Would you bring greetings to them both.

As well, we have Bill Barlee, who is going to be the New Democrat candidate in Boundary-Similkameen. We look forward to welcoming him to the House. Would you bring greetings to him also.

HON. S. HAGEN: I can't let this opportunity go by. We have in the precincts today the past president of the B.C. Real Estate Association, as well as the past president of the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board, Mr. Marty Douglas, who resides in the beautiful riding of Comox.

HON. MR. REID: I'd like the House to make a special welcome to some of the people who work in the Ministry of Tourism. They are here today watching the estimates and the actions of the interested opposition in dealing with the most positive ministry of government. We have with us today: Mr. Jim Doswell, Pauline Rafferty, Wayne Carter, Richard Brownsey, Evelyn Greene, Ellie Stadt, Jim Lee and Harry Diemer — almost my total staff here paying interest to today's debate.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether we're finished introducing the members of the real estate boards or not, but I'd just like to remind the House, and you too, Mr. Speaker, that this is the fifth anniversary of the 1983 election. I think it's wonderful that all of us, eight in number, who came in as new members have survived to today. I'd like to congratulate each one of us.

[2:15]

MR. CHALMERS: It's not often I have the opportunity to contradict the Minister of Health, but he is not the only sitting member of one of the 13 real estate boards throughout the province. In real life I am also a realtor, and proud of that fact.

[ Page 4290 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHALMERS: I don't think I had. I had the pleasure of serving as the president of the Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board in 1976. I served as a director of the B.C. Real Estate Association and chairman of their legislative committee. I certainly welcome all of those present today, but in particular Roger Cottle, who is the executive officer of the Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board, from the best riding in the province of British Columbia, Okanagan South.

MR. MICHAEL: I would like to introduce to the House today the current president of the Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board, Andy Krivak, from the great constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke, the town of Salmon Arm, the gem of the Shuswap.

MR. R. FRASER: I think I'm the one you're all waiting for. I think I'm the last introduction today — and I don't want to introduce any of those real estate guys, either. I would like to welcome to the House students from that great school in Vancouver South — one of the many good schools in the province of British Columbia — Winston Churchill Secondary School. They are visiting the Legislative Assembly with their teacher Mr. Goddard. Would all of you join me in welcoming these students to Victoria.

MR. DAVIDSON: Visiting with us today from Simcoe, Ontario, are Moya and Bob Mather. They are accompanied by Shirley Cannon from Victoria. Would the House please bid these people a very warm welcome.

MR. BRUCE: I heard all these introductions being made in the House, and I just rushed right in here because I couldn't let this opportunity pass. I know that you'll join with me in welcoming one of the finest real estate salesmen in the Cowichan Valley, Mrs. Dorothy Whittome.

Introduction of Bills

POLICE ACT

Hon. B.R. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Police Act.

HON. B.R. SMITH: This is the improved exposure Bill 43 from the last session, the Police Act. Following that exposure in the Legislature, we received a number of submissions from police boards and associations, chiefs of police, the Federation of Police Officers and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. Following those representations, we made some changes.

We decided to strengthen and expand the B.C. Police Commission so they would have additional membership and the ability to provide for persons to serve on panels to hear appeals in citizen's complaint matters, and to increase their powers to investigate.

I guess the most interest will be in the office of the complaint commissioner. His office has been strengthened considerably so that he will now be notified of all complaints made against any member of a municipal police force. He will be able to get full information about those complaints. He will also be able to intervene and interview and take statements in investigations, and if not satisfied that local police boards and forces are able to carry out an adequate investigation, he can request the B.C. Police Commission to conduct a full inquiry.

There are also a number of changes dealing with other procedural parts of policing, but there is one change that may be of interest in dealing with the dismissal of police constables. The current Police Act was somewhat vague on that and allowed the use of the Labour Code or the Industrial Relations Act or the Police Act discipline regulations. Because of that confusion, we've removed that uncertainty so that the process for dismissing police constables now is the Police Act discipline regulations. That, I think, is long overdue; it was very confusing.

We will be working with the police associations to try and update and modernize our police regulations, so I think the bill will be well received. I have the honour to introduce the bill and have it read a first time now.

Bill 21 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO FEED HUNGRY SCHOOL CHILDREN

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled An Act to Feed Hungry School Children.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, this is a reintroduction of a bill that was introduced in the last session. It has received tremendous response and support from educators, social workers, public health nurses and school boards. But also, Mr. Speaker, none of that support is as important as the support it has received from people who are involved in food banks, low-income people and single parents. It provides an opportunity for partnership between the federal and provincial governments through the Canada Assistance Plan.

Mr. Speaker, a decent breakfast or lunch is not too much to ask for our future — our children. A hungry child is a child at risk. This bill is a practical, cost-effective step toward removing that risk.

Bill M204 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LIFE BIBLE COLLEGE ACT

Mrs. Gran presented a bill intituled Life Bible College Act.

Bill PR402 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

Oral Questions

DRILLING PERMIT FOR
SOUTH MORESBY NATIONAL PARK

MR. GUNO: My question is to the Minister of Energy, and it concerns the drilling permit issued for land in the South Moresby National Park reserve. Was the minister advised by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) that the provincial Fish and Wildlife biologists in the area recom-

[ Page 4291 ]

mended against issuing this drilling permit because of possible habitat damage in the Salmon River watershed?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Prior to granting the right to drill five holes, my ministry contacted three federal ministries and the relevant provincial ministries, and they all agreed that that step was not only permitted under the agreement between B.C. and Canada to develop the park but was also part of the process that both Canada and B.C. endorsed. The answer is really yes. All ministries, federal and provincial, in effect, approved the drilling.

MR. GUNO: A supplementary. The Minister of Energy must have known that this would be a controversial decision and an invitation to confrontation. Did the minister make any attempt to consult the Haida before issuing this permit?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer is no. There is a process; it was followed to the letter. Among others, the federal Environment department also approved it. My answer is no.

MR. GUNO: The minister states that he followed a legal process, but politically I would submit it's wrong.

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister has decided to gamble on the eventual cost of compensation by allowing the drilling to go ahead, will he at least do this: will he go on record in the House today and make a commitment that mining will never be allowed in South Moresby National Park?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I can't make that commitment as a minister, but my understanding of the agreement between British Columbia and Canada is precisely to that result.

ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Environment and Parks. Mr. Minister, I would like you to confirm for the House that your staff is having a meeting with the environment lab tomorrow and the purpose of that meeting is to announce the partial sale and the partial closure of the same facility.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I will not confirm, deny or make any further comment about that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I will assume from that that my information is correct. The minister admitted months ago that there is potential for a conflict of interest in the sale of that lab, in that private companies will be doing the testing. Has the minister dealt with that potential conflict, and can he advise the House how he has dealt with it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's a good question. The answer is yes, I have dealt with it, and the mechanism or remedy will be explained at a later date.

MS. SMALLWOOD: In addition, there are concerns about guarantees of standards for testing and enforcement of those standards. Can the minister assure this House that he has also dealt with that, and give us that information?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The previous answer will apply to that question.

PURCHASE TAX ON SALE OF EXPO LANDS

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the Minister of Finance. Mr. Murphy of BCEC has indicated that the Expo deal will be registered at $145 million. Yet the property purchase tax indicates that the tax payable should reflect fair market value, which of course is $320 million on that transaction. If the tax is paid at $145 million instead of $320 million, the treasury stands to lose a significant amount of income, and of course the act will be violated. Will the minister assure this House that the tax will be paid in keeping with the property purchase tax, namely $320 million?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm surprised at the thrust of the question. I had understood from previous comments made by members of our loyal opposition that they were objecting to the suggestion that the property might be worth $320 million net present value. If by virtue of the question — the way it was framed — the opposition are implying that they now are prepared to approve the concept that the value is $320 million, then I could understand the logic of the question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIHOTA: Just a simple yes or no question to the Minister of Finance. Will the property purchase tax be paid reflecting a price of $320 million? Yes or no.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As my earlier comment indicated, Mr. Speaker, the members of the loyal opposition themselves had said $320 million is not the price paid for the Expo lands. In an abundance of fairness and caution and sensitivity to the concerns of the opposition, we will likely not record the property purchase tax valuation on $320 million, because the members of the opposition have claimed publicly that they wish it not to be so.

The fact of the matter is that there is a process by which property purchase tax is adjudicated when we have complicated property deals which are based upon unknown or unquantified future expectations. That process is in place and has been in place since the time we introduced the bill; therefore there should be no confusion in the hon. member's mind about how it works. Clearly the valuation will be made on net present value calculations, as the process dictated.

May I add that all bidders on the property were well aware of the arrangements by which property purchase tax would be calculated, and the process is unfolding and the decision in terms of the adjudication will be made in due course. I trust that by virtue of the opposition's earlier stated claim that $320 million is not the value of the Expo land, they would then not criticize property purchase tax being assessed on the basis of net present value.

[2:30]

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

MR. JONES: I have question for the Minister of Advanced Education and JobTrac regarding the suddenly found $100 million in matching grants for industry-sponsored special projects at universities. Given the kinds of problems that have recently come to light at BCIT and the University of Victoria, can the minister make a commitment at this time to provide an adequate level of operating and capital funds for the ongoing programs at our post-secondary institutions?

[ Page 4292 ]

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm very pleased that the member opposite has recognized the benefits of the $100 million matching capital fund announced by the Premier of the province on Monday evening. This will provide great opportunities for the three universities of the province to complete some of the projects that they wish to complete. It also provides a great opportunity for the private sector to show the confidence that they have, obviously, in our university system. I can assure you that this government will continue, as it has done in the past, to provide sufficient operating funds for the entire post-secondary system.

MR. JONES: Does the minister not recognize that we have starved certain institutions, that there are serious problems in the infrastructures of our universities, and at the same time the minister is providing $100 million for special projects that are really not in the main interest of the kinds of things the universities should be doing, particularly in terms of providing increased access for post-secondary students in this province?

HON. S. HAGEN: I would say that if industry and business out there felt that the universities were not doing a good job in this province, then they would not have committed in excess of $20 million to UBC and in excess of $16 million to Simon Fraser University.

MR. JONES: Supplementary to the same minister. Does the minister see the industries of this province replacing the government's responsibility to provide adequate funds for normal operating programs at our post-secondary institutions? Will it in future be up to industry to fulfil responsibilities not fulfilled by the government?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to say that industry and business have come forward on a volunteer basis because of the matching program that was instituted by this government. They want to play a part in the capital initiatives that the universities are undertaking. If they want to come forward and contribute to operating, that's up to them. Our initiative is with regard to capital.

SALE OF B.C. HYDRO GAS DIVISION

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Energy. The government allowed the sale of West Kootenay Power and Light to the American-based Utilicorp United. It has now been confirmed that Utilicorp is bidding on the gas division of B.C. Hydro, as are Li Ka-shing and other offshore bidders. Has the government decided to allow the sale of this monopoly resource to a foreign company, or is there a preference given to British Columbia bidders?

HON. MR. DAVIS: When the request went out for expressions of interest, it was indicated that those interested in purchasing shares in the new private corporation should indicate what arrangements they were prepared to make relative to employees of the new gas company and British Columbians generally. Of course, there were definite statements as to the head office being in British Columbia, a minimum of three-quarters of the directors having to reside here, and so on. Beyond those conditions, no statement can be made as yet. Tomorrow night we will know what the expressions of interest are and from whom.

FISHERIES LANDING REQUIREMENT

MR. GUNO: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. The United States government has announced that it is opposed to the Canadian position on the west coast fishery, namely a landing requirement for fish caught in our waters. Has the minister decided to take action today to ensure that the Mulroney government does not buckle under to American pressure.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The answer is yes.

MR. GUNO: Will the minister inform the House exactly what action he will be taking.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We tried to contact Mr. Siddon this morning and my staff is following up on it. We are very diligently pursuing the fact that the landing requirement is a must for conservation purposes, to make sure that we have a resource for the people in the future.

MR. GUNO: Supplementary. As recently as April 22, the minister refused to give a guarantee that when the landing requirements are put in place there would be no jobs lost in British Columbia's fishing industry. Does the minister have any studies that quantify the job losses, or is it his position that he would rather not know?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I wouldn't want to contemplate or speculate on the efficiency of business as it relates to job security. A business has to make that decision. Whether it stays in business has nothing to do with a study. It is the effective, efficient operation that will keep that particular processor competitive.

PURCHASE TAX ON SALE OF EXPO LANDS

MR. SIHOTA: A question back to the Minister of Finance. Could the minister, who has admitted that there will be property purchase tax payable, tell this House at what price that property tax will be paid. What will be the price, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I indicated with my earlier answer to the same kind of question, the adjudication of the net present value of property purchase tax on deals as complicated as this and dealing with future expectations as this one does has been set out. It's a matter of procedure and form. There will be adjudications held on that question, and they will be concluded within a reasonable period of time -my guess is before the end of this calendar month. That has been in place with the legislation since its inception.

All the bidders were made aware that that is how the net present value would be calculated. There should be nothing surprising in our sticking to the procedures. As the hon. member, I hope, will have the good heart to admit, we have stuck to the procedures with zealous conviction throughout this whole B.C. Enterprise-B.C. Place land transaction, and our adherence to that principle is exhibited by our insistence that the practice laid out in the legislation be followed in this instance.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On May 2 the Leader of the Opposition tendered material dealing with a possible ques-

[ Page 4293 ]

tion of privilege regarding statements made by the Premier. That day, the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), on my behalf, reserved the government's right of response until such time as I could review the possible merits of the material tendered. I thank you, sir, for the time allowed me to review the material. The Leader of the Opposition, in presenting his material, kind of rambled around and suggested that there was media coverage that I should review. I have had the opportunity to review that material.

The material tendered by the Leader of the Opposition attempts to link the Premier to corporate involvement with Mr. Peter Toigo. That corporate involvement was defined in a question posed April 25 by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). I'll quote from Hansard of April 25. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew said: "The question to the Premier — because I'm sure he will want to clear the record on this matter — is: will he assure the House that there are no personal or corporate financial obligations — loans, guarantees, debentures and the like — between himself and Mr. Toigo, or between their respective companies?"

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew says in a subsequent question: "I...want...the record clear on this matter. What about any corporate transactions in the same sense I just outlined earlier on?" — referring, of course, to "personal or corporate financial obligations, loans, guarantees, debentures and the like."

The Premier's response that day was: "I have no corporate involvements" — in that sense.

On Tuesday, April 26, the Leader of the Opposition rose to say that "Mr. Toigo is a tenant in Fantasy Gardens" and attempted a corporate involvement connection between the Premier and Mr. Toigo. Mr. Speaker, it is commonly known that the Premier is involved in Fantasy Gardens. There has never been any attempt to mislead anyone on that question, and it has been known for some time. It's probably the best known business ownership in British Columbia at this point.

It has also been publicly stated, with no thought of misleading anyone, that the Premier has a 30 percent minority position in Fantasy Gardens. That quote is attributed to the Premier in a newspaper story dated April 27 which the Leader of the Opposition referred to the House. I thank him for providing me with evidence that the Premier does have that 30 percent minority position in Fantasy Gardens.

It is also widely known, without thought of misleading anyone, that the Premier's wife, Mrs. Lillian Vander Zalm, is the manager and operator of Fantasy Gardens. and in that sense it has been said over and over again, with some pride by the Premier, that his wife manages Fantasy Gardens and does it quite well. Reference is made on March 23, 1988, in our Hansard by the Premier to his wife's being involved in this business. That was in response to a statement by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). If people weren't aware of Mrs. Vander Zalm's involvement and management of that business through other means, they certainly would be by the evidence and information provided in Hansard.

As to Fantasy Gardens, managed by Mrs. Vander Zalm, there are tenants. One of those tenants is Mr. Toigo. From that landlord-tenant relationship, the Leader of the Opposition is desperately attempting to establish the case that there are obligations defined by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew as "loans, guarantees, debentures and the like."

We should also, in looking at Hansard, note that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, in posing his questions, clearly said "personal or corporate financial obligations, loans, guarantees, debentures and the like," but did not mention leases. If one were cynical one might think that's a trick question, but I wouldn't think that. Nevertheless, it's clear what type of connection he was trying to draw.

It's obvious there is no such connection between the Premier and Mr. Toigo, and the evidence is clear. It's contained in the Premier's disclosure papers, it's contained in Hansard, it's contained in the media, and all these items make that abundantly clear. Further. to use newspaper quotes attributed to the Premier as evidence that the Premier is misleading is absurd in the extreme. To try to convert a lease agreement between two companies into a motion of privilege is desperate innuendo and must be dismissed out of hand.

MR. SIHOTA: I did not have advance knowledge of what the minister was going to be saying. so I just want to deal with what he's had to say, in that it relates to the intent of my questions and an interpretation of what I had said and what indeed the Premier had said.

First of all, to deal with the last matter, as I understood it in terms of lease arrangements, Mr. Speaker, it was certainly in the contemplation of my mind that lease agreements fall within the purview of financial obligations between the corporations involved. A lease, in my submission, is indeed a very common financial obligation whereby one individual pays to another through a corporate form. So I don't think it's fair for the minister to narrow to his liking what I had to say, In addition to that, the purpose of my question and the wording of my question was as broad-based as possible in order to try to capture the full breadth of relationships personal and corporate between the Premier and Mr. Toigo.

I must also venture to say that if one is to suggest that my comments were not sufficiently broad, one must also look at the response of the Premier. The Premier certainly chose to broaden the scope of his response when he referred to — and I quote — "no corporate involvement."

AN HON. MEMBER: Period.

MR. SIHOTA: Period. He did not qualify it in terms of financial encumbrances. He went to a further level, in keeping with what I would submit was my intention. to talk about corporate involvements. It's important to note, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier in his response between the first question and the second question moved from the word "obligation" to the word "involvement." Surely then, Mr. Speaker, he must have understood the tenor of my question to be broad because of his own usage of language that was broad in the second reply. So there was a complete understanding of what I was trying to get at by the time I asked him the second question.

[2:45]

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, it must also be pointed out that the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition dealt with corporate involvements. The Premier was specifically asked as to the matter of corporate involvements, and indeed the record is clear now that there were indeed corporate involvements between the two parties.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that one cannot distinguish between, or play down the significance of. those corporate involvements simply because the Premier holds a 30 percent interest; and I trust that nothing will turn on the matter of the 30 percent interest. Of course, it was the Premier himself who had said at one point that whether Lillian owned it or he

[ Page 4294 ]

owned it, no one would really believe that he did not have a stake in the matter, and that stake is reflected in that 30 percent interest. That, of course, is a minimum interest, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the 30 percent interest. I certainly ask you to keep that in mind, and my comments as they relate to this issue, when you make your deliberations on this important matter.

MR. ROSE: I thought there might be more argument from the other side; that's why I was somewhat hesitant getting up.

I congratulate the House Leader of the government for a spirited, if rather weak, defence. I think he's been taking elocution lessons from the Minister of Finance, because while it was a weak argument, it was certainly laden with bafflegab.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the member that the Speaker is here to take submissions on a question of privilege, not to listen to a debate between both sides.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I think we should remind ourselves that the question of Mrs. Vander Zalm's involvement has really nothing to do with it, and it shouldn't necessarily have been part of the hon. House Leader's response.

May I just say once again that the debate is between two responses: one which said "no obligations," and one which said "no involvement." Now when the minister responded to you to advise you, Mr. Speaker, he said very little of that word "involvement" — because definitely there has been an involvement.

So finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just remind us all that the argument before Mr. Speaker is really one of whether or not there is a prima facie case for privilege. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, does not decide privilege but whether or not there is a case for this Legislature to express itself on that subject, or whether or not there was a misleading response given by the Premier.

So with that, I commend this argument to Mr. Speaker and wish him godspeed and all kinds of intelligence to be brought to bear on this question.

Hon. B.R. Smith filed the annual report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TOURISM, RECREATION AND CULTURE
(continued)

On vote 65: minister's office, $243,459.

MR. SIHOTA: I shan't be long, Mr. Chairman. I just want to deal with a number of matters in my own riding and bring them to the attention of the Minister of Tourism. I want to say at the outset to the minister that none of what I have to say will cost his ministry anything, so it's not a dollar request. I know we often get into matters that have cost implications. This one has a cost implication, but not to his ministry.

I have the wonderful responsibility of representing the riding of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, which contains some of the best beach areas in Canada, let alone British Columbia and southern Vancouver Island. The experience of my riding is no different, I am sure, than a lot of other places in this province, in that we have a very vibrant set of chambers of commerce working up and down the coast trying to bring about increased tourist participation and trying to pick up on the volume of tourist business that comes into Victoria, with a view to encouraging people to spend an extra day or two in the Victoria area enjoying some of the beautiful opportunities that exist up the coast as one leaves the Western Communities.

We have a tremendous network of parks in my riding, and I think the provincial government should be congratulated for now having placed Botanical Beach among those beautiful parks. We have a string of parks from Saxe Point in my riding, or Macaulay Point, to all of the beaches in the Western Communities — Witty's Lagoon, Albert Head and so on — and then into Sooke, the beautiful beach at Jordan River, China Beach, French Beach, Point No Point and then over to Port Renfrew, the launching pad for the West Coast Trail.

It's a beautiful area, and it's really underserviced from a tourist point of view, or perhaps under visited is the best way of putting it. There is a lot of potential, a lot of desire on the part of people out there to get more tourists in. But the problem is that we don't have our share of tourists coming there. I want to tell the minister why that is the case.

I should also tell the minister we have some of the best fishing and recreation facilities in the province. It's really an outstanding area. They often have in sports a reward or trophy for the unsung hero, and this should be the unsung portion of B.C. that just doesn't seem to get its share of notoriety.

However, there is one basic problem that we have in the area, and that is that we don't have an adequate road from the Western Communities into Sooke, and from Sooke into Port Renfrew. Worse still we don't provide tourists with an opportunity to circle their way into the interior of the Island to Lake Cowichan and Duncan as an alternative route up the Island instead of having to come all the way back up and go over the Malahat.

Instead of making a dollar request — and I know there are communities in my riding that would like to see more tourism money — I would just like to ask the minister if I can enlist his support in lobbying the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) for the provision of an adequate road at least into Sooke as a starting point, and certainly into Port Renfrew, to make sure we've got what we need to get the people in there. We've got such a beautiful set of beaches there and such tremendous tourism potential that it's sad we haven't provided the transportation network necessary to promote this very beautiful area of British Columbia, an area in which I'm sure we all on both sides of the House take a tremendous amount of pride. I trust that I can enlist the minister's support in lobbying the Minister of Highways on this matter.

HON. MR. REID: The answer is yes.

MR. LOVICK: There are a number of things I would like to talk about with the Minister of Tourism during his estimates, but I promised my colleague the critic, the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards), that I would be brief, and I will focus my remarks very specifically on privatization and campgrounds, and just a couple of questions to the minister about that.

[ Page 4295 ]

First, however, by way of getting a sort of token gesture towards my own constituency, let me say that I am pleased to see the minister accompanied by his deputy, formerly from Nanaimo, and I hope that the personal connection I have with the deputy will stand me in good stead and the minister will listen to the lobbying going on on my behalf, indirectly.

Having said that, I want to start by posing a very direct question to the minister. I refer him to March 23 in the Legislature when my colleague the member for Kootenay posed a question during question period, to wit: she wanted to know whether this minister had done any research showing that privatization of park campgrounds and risking a decline in the quality of park services would not affect B.C.'s tourism industry, particularly family vacation by tourists. The minister's response — and entirely understandable given the dynamic and the pressure of question period — was effectively to avoid the question.

I'll repeat the minister's answer, and then I'm going to give him an opportunity to answer the question as originally put. The minister's answer was: "In answer to the member, our research tells us that the interest in parks in the province of British Columbia accelerated in 1987 over 1986 and we see any move to increase tourism into the parks as a positive move." I'm sure the minister would agree with me that is not by any stretch of anybody's imagination an answer to the question.

To be sure, Mr. Minister, it's absolutely correct that the ministry can point with pride to the increase in campground utilization. Indeed, I have the statistics: in 1985, campground attendance was 1,963,800; in 1986, a figure of 2,008,500; and in 1987, wonder of wonders, 2,227,000. Good stuff, as members on your side are fond of saying.

The first obvious question, to use the horrible cliché, is: if it ain't broke, why fix it? Given your marvelous track record of encouraging attendance and increased utilization of those facilities, why are we taking a chance on jeopardizing the whole enterprise by talking about privatization? Would the minister care to respond to that?

HON. MR. REID: First of all, I wouldn't for a moment suggest that privatization of campgrounds reduces the effectiveness and the quality of the product, which that member seems to indicate. As you know, in previous years we have had an accelerated program in privatizing the current park system, so about three-quarters of it is already privatized.

The decision made by the Minister of Environment and Parks (Hon. Mr. Strachan) this year is to privatize the balance, only because we've had a very successful two to three years previous experience with privatizing 154 parks out of the system of, I think, 200; I don't know the exact number. The success so far has been nothing short of phenomenal. The numbers continue to come back indicating to us that what we're doing is right. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. It isn't broke; what we're doing is making it better.

MR. LOVICK: I guess it's true that beauty, and everything else, is in the eye of the beholder. It would seem to me that there is considerable room and grounds for debate in terms of the so-called success of privatization. Indeed, when we talk to the estimates of the Minister of Environment and Parks, then I think we may be putting some pressure on some of those conclusions with reference specifically to places like Manning Park, Cypress Bowl and others.

I don't want to take up a lot of time, but I know you are an enthusiast. I know you are one who believes passionately and vehemently in the role of the importance of tourism and you have become, I think, a very good spokesperson for that. I commend you on that. What I want to suggest, though, is that you ought to, consonant and consistent with that role, be a spokesperson for the preservation of a system that has served the province well.

Let me remind the minister of the document from the ministry that came out warning about the dangers of privatization of campground facilities. I'm sorry I didn't have time to go and dig out all of my files, so I'm giving you rather an second-hand source, for the benefit of your advisers, namely the Times-Colonist editorial of Sunday, April 3. In quoting that government document, it says there that one has to be on guard and aware of disadvantages which could include: "pressure to commercialize campgrounds to ensure viability, operators dictating park management, reduction in quality of facilities to allow easier maintenance and conflict with free public access." That, it strikes me, is a pretty powerful bill against privatization.

[3:00]

Moreover, we have some other evidence. We have, for example, the illustrations from the province of Ontario where we have gone through this scenario before and where Ontario, with the election of the Peterson government now, is attempting to turn back the clock, saying: "We made a mistake in our efforts towards privatization, and we're going to reverse that policy." Similarly. we have the example of the state of Washington where effectively the privatization arguments have been judged and found wanting. Washington has taken a position based on the most available and up-to-date information that we can locate, which says in effect that we are not going to trust the public trust to the concessionaires or private-sector operators. In other words, the so-called gains, conclude the people in Washington, are simply insufficient to justify the experiment.

I would suggest to the minister that I do not think there is much evidence — if any — to demonstrate that the public interest will be served by the privatization of campgrounds in this province. I would ask the minister to please — if I am wrong — share with us some of that information and those studies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the minister, the second member for Nanaimo, at the beginning of his short discourse, did mention the fact that the subject he was going to elucidate on would fall much better under the purview of the Minister of Environment and Parks (Hon. Mr. Strachan) during his estimates. I say that he is absolutely right, and insofar as the privatization process might affect tourism, I suppose it is a fair question. Other than that, I would say that the discussion is not really germane to the administration of the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture, but if the minister wants to respond, it is entirely up to him.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the guidance you provide and certainly shall accept it. I simply would like to implore the minister, as this enthusiast, this spokesperson for the public interest in the name of tourism, to use whatever influence and good offices he has to deal with his colleagues in cabinet, to suggest that we are dealing with something precious, significant and very successful indeed, and that they must be able to provide him with good and compelling evidence before that program will go any further. Perhaps the minister would care

[ Page 4296 ]

to respond to that and give us some assurance that he is prepared to do so.

HON. MR. REID: Without getting into the subject any deeper, I do have a concern that there may be a downside to the privatization of the additional parks. I'm not aware of them at the moment. The additional parks have been considered for privatization in 1988, but I give the member the assurance that I get mail on a regular basis from people all across North America who have visited here. I can tell him without question that I received not one single complaint in 1987 in relation to those parks which are currently privatized. Whether it is something to be concerned about, I will tell the member that if I get any correspondence on it, I'll certainly make it available to him to indicate that we are watching it very closely.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, it's difficult to get over all the issues that deal with tourism in your estimates, because so many things affect tourism, and so often you are left to be the advocate for some other ministry. You can run it down: Finance, Highways, Parks, and so on.

You'll be happy to know that I want now to talk a bit about the Royal British Columbia Museum and the heritage parks in British Columbia. We canvassed this issue last year, before and after the estimates, because we were talking about the imposition of fees. The fees were very steep, and that opinion is still extant, I might say, and I hear it frequently, even among people who are not that out of favour with having fees at all.

The $5 fee put an immediate block in front of people visiting the attractions. It was imposed in the middle of the season. It prevented a lot of people from visiting, and the figures very clearly show it. Just for a quick review of a few of the figures, I believe you expected to bring in $2.4 million from the Royal British Columbia Museum last year, and it brought in $600,000. As I understand it, if you make calculations based on that, the other attractions didn't bring in what you expected either — about $100,000 at Fort Steele and slightly over that at Barkerville. The attendance at Fort Steele was the most disappointing. I certainly know that Barkerville was up slightly. I also know that there are a number of people who don't believe the figures there are particularly representative of what happened. So there is a great deal of discouragement, disappointment and concern about what happened with the fees.

To go to one of the first points that I wanted to make about this.... It's a statement you made the other day, Mr. Minister. You said: "Because of the amount of money that I commissioned on behalf of the facilities to be spent on behalf of these attractions, I think I won the argument on behalf of the facilities." I'm not quite sure what that means; it was in answer to a question about getting money out of general revenue to put back into the facilities, which is what you promised would happen when you imposed the fees. You have said that you think you won an argument on behalf of the facilities. I know, Mr. Minister, that you said last year in estimates that you had budgeted $500,000 just for Fort Steele and Barkerville. I am curious to know whether you are putting that much more into the full amount. Is it $200,000 more than this $500,000 that you put into the plant last year at Fort Steele and Barkerville? Can you elaborate on exactly what has happened because of the imposition of fees that is better for those attractions?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 65 pass?

MS. EDWARDS: I guess the minister, since he didn't stand up, is not going to answer. I have to assume from that that the minister has nothing to say to the question — that nothing better has happened in those facilities because of the imposition of fees. I agree with him.

That being the case, however, I might say that I could take the minister back to a few things that he said. When he imposed the fees on July 10, he said: "If and when we find, after the application of the fees, much to the surprise of this minister, that in fact there is nobody going to the museum" — and I believe that was probably a broad statement; I don't want to be caught finding you talking only about a museum when we're talking about all three facilities — "...and now we have to put some money into it from other sources, we'll have to revisit it."

I will ask the minister if he would respond on his promise that if the fees didn't do what they were expected to do, he would revisit the question. I don't think he ever defined "revisit," but I assume he meant he would review and evaluate, and if changes were found to be necessary, he would make them.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to generalize, if I can, about the question of admission fees, and make it abundantly clear to that member, if she's not clear and she'd like to make a note of it: there will be no change in policy relative to the admission fees in the attractions run by this ministry. We will weigh the question of free days on occasion and the question of the total charge per admission. But the response we're getting, both in 1987 and already in '88, is that two-thirds of the people attending the attractions are not unhappy with the admission fee charged.

I'd like to read into the record, if I can, for that member's edification — I'm a member of the Friends of the Royal British Columbia Museum society of Victoria, so I am a recipient of their publication called Discovery — the April 1988 edition:

"Visitor Survey Proves Fascinating:

"Since July of 1987, detailed survey questionnaires have been handed out to selected visitors through the Royal British Columbia Museum. The survey was commissioned by the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture and is being conducted at ten heritage sites around the province, including Point Ellice House, Craigflower, Barkerville and Fort Steele. Much of the work of conducting the survey at the museum is being done by the information desk volunteers.

"Although the survey will continue at the museum until July of 1988, some of the results of the early portion's of the work are in, and they make for fascinating study. We are beginning to get a very accurate picture of who comes to our museum, why, what they do while here, and also what they like about the museum and what they don't.

"The survey form given to visitors contains 29 questions and takes about five minutes to fill out. Answers are completed by filling in blank squares on the forms, and the results are compiled by an optical

[ Page 4297 ]

reader. The number of visitors who have responded to the questionnaire is high, so the reliability of the results is also high.

"Following are the highlights of the survey so far.

"Slightly more females than males visit the museum. The median family income of visitors during the summer and the fall was about $50,000. About 8 percent of our visitors in the summer and the fall lived within an hour of the museum by car, while 16 percent came from the rest of B.C. This means that about 76 percent of our visitors came from outside the province. About 36 percent of our summer and fall visitors came from Washington, Oregon and California while another 20 percent came from the rest of the United States.

"The vast majority of visitors came with other family members or friends in groups of two, three or four. Fifty-five percent of our visitors use cars and trucks to get to the museum, while 46 percent use the ferry. About 31 percent use airlines. The median length of the visitors' stay at the museum during the summer and fall was just over two hours. "

That contradicts the reporter in the Times-Colonist this morning, who must have talked only to himself, because he sure isn't talking to anybody else in Victoria about visits to the museums.

"The most common way that our museum visitors first heard about the museum was word of mouth" — talking about a quality product in downtown Victoria. "...two-thirds of our visitors felt that they received excellent value for the money paid for admission.

"The vast majority of visitors felt that authenticity was very important to their enjoyment of the museum. Direct questions about specific exhibits and public areas at the museum show that these have varying levels of popularity with our visitors. The most-liked exhibits were Old Town and the...foreshore. The open ocean, totem poles, mine shaft, Indian chiefs exhibits were liked slightly less, while the archaeology dig was liked least, although more than 50 percent of visitors still gave it an excellent rating."

"The information desk volunteers deserve a special note of thanks for their efforts in handing out and explaining the questionnaire forms. "

I want to make it abundantly clear: this is a production of the Friends of the Royal British Columbia Museum from Victoria. I got it yesterday, and I read it into the record so you understand that you're the only one I know — and Jim Hume — that's opposed to admission fees at the attractions in the province of British Columbia. By and large the visitors, 76 percent of them, are happy with what they see for what they get.

To be continually opposed to admission fees is not a positive approach to progress in this province. They're in place. Why don't you just agree to finally making the best of what we've got, and that they're paying parts of the bills for restoration, they're paying parts of the bills for the employment, they're paying parts of the bills on behalf of the province to continue these great attractions.

[3:15]

MS. EDWARDS: If I were one of those people that sat down and just took what was there because it happens to be there, I wouldn't be here.

I'll tell you, when you read the results of those kinds of surveys, I don't know why you don't recognize that the first thing that you're doing is looking at the sample of the people that you've got. The people that you're surveying are the people who went to the museum, so obviously, right off the bat you're going to have a positive response, and second of all, you ~ re going to have a much higher than average percentage of people from outside the area. You know that from the beginning. If you discount for that, you may not have as magnificent figures as you like. I think that you need to take a look at some other things.

You have taken the fees off Point Ellice House, Craigflower Manor, I believe, and several others, although I can't get very good information on this from your ministry. You have decided not to collect fees from those particular attractions, where it was said they were going to be imposed. If you never did impose the fees, maybe you could clarify that. If you did, now you've taken them off, and why is that? Because it costs so much to collect them?

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: Okay, that being the case then, your figures about Fort Steele, Barkerville and the Royal B.C. Museum are very clear. If it costs that much to collect them, they didn't make anything on those fees at all. They've probably made a loss. Certainly, if the predictions of what it was going to cost to collect per fee.... You've really got losses at those museums instead of gains. Instead of making $100,000, you've probably.... I've forgotten the figures, but I have them here. We calculated that, I put it out in a press release and I'm sure you've seen it. I'm interested in knowing that. What you say is that you're going to revisit when you find it doesn't work, but I haven't heard you say how you're going to do it.

It's interesting to me, Mr. Minister, when you say regularly that you want to keep people in the province; you want to delay them at the communities where they stay. In talking to the concessionaires at Fort Steele — which is the one closest to me and so it's the one I talk about most, but it seems to me to be broadly right — I'm told that if you can stop someone and get them out of the car for 20 minutes, they will probably stay in the area for two days. because the people at Fort Steele tell them about the attractions in the area.

Now with the gates closed and access to Fort Steele prohibited, they don't stop. They get out; they find they can't go in; they can't get something to eat. They can't do anything at Fort Steele if they stop. They don't get out of their cars for that 20 minutes; they go to Banff. I think the whole business of closing the gates and having no access to Fort Steele until 10 o'clock, which is two hours later than it used to be last year, means that people are not going to stay in the area. You very clearly said that you want to have people stay in the area.

Last year in the middle of July they put on fees. The attendance dropped.

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm not going to argue that one again, Mr. Minister. Okay, even were we to concede your figures that say that the rise was not as expected.... This year, instead of having as many hours of attendance, we have now limited the hours of attendance. If somebody wants to go to Fort Steele.... People have said for years that older people

[ Page 4298 ]

like the cool of the morning and the cool of the evening to walk around Fort Steele. It is, after all, just a ghost town to start with. That's what they like to do.

Last year, when the fees were on, you had many people in the area early and late. The gates were closed until 8 o'clock. This year the gates are closed until 10 o'clock in the morning. If somebody wants to come.... By the way, the bus tours often visit at 9 o'clock in the morning. I don't know whether they are going to have special entry or whether they are just going to bypass it, because there are a number of other reasons they might bypass Fort Steele. They are going to go past, and at 10 o'clock the gates will open and every adult pays $5.

That is, of course, until 1:30 in the afternoon, when the theatre opens. Now we have a magnificent case. If you go in and go to the theatre, and you have your ticket and voucher, which you get at the theatre.... As soon as you have lined up to get a ticket to get into Fort Steele, you can go line up to get into the Wild Horse Theatre. You can see the show, then go back and line up at the front gate again to get a rebate on your voucher. What kind of visitor satisfaction is that, Mr. Minister?

I think what's happening with the whole business, with the locking of gates and the charging of these high fees, is really restricting the access of the public and the visitors to that attraction.

HON. MR. REID: I am not going to spend all afternoon debating the decision to put fees on Fort Steele. The fees are on at Fort Steele; we made the decision in 1988. The gates are never locked at Fort Steele; I want to make that clear. The people who go between eight and ten in the morning don't have to pay to get in. The admission fees start at ten in the morning and go till 1:30 at the regular rate, and then, because the theatre opens, which is one of the requests that member made to me last year.... If you don't recall, a request you made was: would we give a special concession to the people who want to go the theatre and see a part of Fort Steele as part of their going to the theatre; would we not consider a different admission fee? Which we agreed to do, and which is a concession we made to that member, in respect of the question.

It was a first-year trial, and we're convinced that that kind of thing will work. If we had our druthers, we'd have the theatre right out near the gate and we wouldn't have to charge people to enter if they're only going to the theatre. We believe that the townsite of Fort Steele is so attractive that the people who are only paying a portion will be happy to do that.

We don't have the same response from the travelling public that you're getting, that they're not happy to pay. I am telling you we're not getting that kind of response. Our surveys tell us that the public think they're getting more than their money's worth for the entrance fees. So will you get off the fact that it's too expensive? The people who are going there are happy to pay.

We don't have the concerns you have about it being too expensive. Ten dollars for a family for a year — my God, I think there is no better break in the whole world for an attraction as great as Fort Steele! If you would get on to positive talking about Fort Steele, attracting more people to it rather than continuing to knock it, you'd probably put more people in there and attract more money for the concessionaires, which should be your mandate as a representative from the area.

MS. EDWARDS: You consistently choose to talk about a different group of people than I'm talking about. I am, of course, talking about the people who don't go to Fort Steele because they find the entrance fee too great.

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd love to get them there, but I don't think we're going to get them there by insisting that they have vouchers and have to go back and line up to return a voucher for money back. That's not really the best way to enjoy the experience of being in an 1890s mining town — carrying vouchers back to a pay booth.

Mr. Minister, I also have to comment to you that Fort Steele needs.... I asked you earlier what was going back into Fort Steele, because it's a major issue. It's going to become even more major as development is happening around. Perhaps you've heard of a development down near Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, which is about three hours by highway from Fort Steele. It is an 1890s mining town, which is almost the same thing as Fort Steele. It is a phony mining town, an absolutely delightful experience, I am told. The U. S and tour group markets will be affected. They have superior restaurant facilities; they have restaurants for 150 to 200 people; they have biplane rides; they have railway rides; and it is going to be a very rich experience for the visitor with family who likes that kind of thing. It's three hours down the road from Fort Steele. If you go the other way into Alberta, you find the Frank Slide facility and the attraction there and the Leitch collieries and then Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump.

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: Right, the kind of thing that we understand here.

What I'm saying to you, Mr. Minister, is that the absolute necessity for some investment into the plant is there. It's obviously not going to come out of $100,000 in fees at Fort Steele. I'm sure the same situation applies, only a little differently, at the other facilities. What is happening? What's going back into these facilities?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, we've just completed a $50,000 study, which was a master plan study of the opportunities, the embellishment requirements and the long-range plans to make Fort Steele into an even more attractive tourist attraction. There are some designs and plans afoot to infill some of the vacant spots on the site. The master plan survey indicated to us that what the visitors want there is more attractions and maybe a little more in the line of food concessions and those kinds of things.

Until the facility attracts beyond 75,000 to 80,000 visitors a year, which it was able to do in '87 — an increase over '85, I might say — and until the pride of the community is there and the member starts talking about the product in the light that she should, inviting people to come there instead of starting to market and promote a place somewhere three hours south in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.... Three hours north is Revelstoke, three hours east is Saskatoon, and three hours west is Vancouver. I'm not so sure you should be talking about a product outside your own constituency. Why don't you stand up and promote Fort Steele as a site to visit instead of continuing to knock it?

I'm telling you that we have just spent $50,000 on a marketing master plan study to investigate this. We talked to

[ Page 4299 ]

the people in the community, the people who work there, to get their ideas and their suggestions on the best ways to promote and encourage Fort Steele town to be something bigger and better than it is. So we're spending money up there. We took in $109,306 last year, and we spent in excess of $1.5 million on Fort Steele. We spent $1.6 million and we took in $100,000, which hardly paid for it. We also employed four or five more temporary people in the facility itself, plus the JobTrac additions that we had there. So the attraction itself is hiring more people. The philosophy of that member must be to put more people to work in Fort Steele, to put more people to work in the tourism industry in her constituency. If you continue to destroy the only facility that we have in the Kootenays, really, as a major attraction, which is Fort Steele, someday along the way we may be having some difficulty in keeping people on staff.

MR. CHALMERS: I don't mean to interrupt the member for Kootenay, but in the hopes of getting this debate on a more positive note, I'd like to talk a little about tourism and the importance of it in the riding of Okanagan South. As everybody in this House is aware, Okanagan South is probably one of the finest places in the world to visit. We have a number of people on a daily basis in the winter and summer coming to see all that there is to see and experience all that there is to experience in the Okanagan, and they're certainly welcome.

We're experiencing a very high growth rate both in the residential and the industrial sector, in large part because so many people come to the Okanagan first as tourists or as visitors, they see something that they can't believe exists, and so they often choose the Okanagan as a place to live, invest and create businesses.

We have many natural amenities, of course, that help attract them, and the tourism infrastructure put there by the private sector is second to none. But there's more to it than that. Certainly the fruit industry plays a very large role in attracting tourists. The grape industry and the wine industry attract many people. So tourism is important to those industries and those industries are, of course, important to tourism. Also the work of organizations like the chamber of commerce or the Okanagan-Similkameen Tourist Association and others helps attract these people.

Very important in the work that they do, of course, are the programs of the Ministry of Tourism. One of the most important programs that the Ministry of Tourism looks after is one that has been talked about in the last few days, being Partners in Tourism. The minister mentioned yesterday that some $600,000 was taken from that fund and used in the Okanagan last year, meaning that with matching dollars there was $1.2 million dollars invested.

There were many people in the private sector this last year who were somewhat disappointed because the amount was a little less in the budget for this year, but I know that with the hard work that your ministry is doing and the people involved working with the private sector, they are going to find ways to get the maximum benefit from the dollars that are being invested by both the private sector and the public sector in that very important program. Today I would like to encourage you, Mr. Minister — I know I have your support — to continue to lobby your colleagues in cabinet to ensure that maximum dollars are made available in the budget for that very, very important program.

HON. MR. REID: I thank the member for his comments on the programs that are going on and the kinds of things in his constituency and his community that are very positive in relation to tourism. One of the things that worked well for that member and his area is that there's a very positive group of attraction people and tourism information people in the Okanagan who have worked collectively with my ministry in Partners in Tourism.

[3:30]

We did have to reduce their budget in 1988-89 by about 20 percent. Some hard decisions were made, but knowing the kind of community that we're working with up there, we knew that they appreciated that they could probably generate that same shortfall of 20 percent in their community and still get a big bang in tourism marketing in 1988-89. I want to give that member the assurance that we will continue to press my colleagues and the financial department of the government, showing them the positive things that are happening as a result of the program that is going on, and see if we can't further on in 1988 get more allocations towards that program. We thank you for those words.

MR. R. FRASER: Responding to the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards), I know there are other facilities in that area that are used extensively and had some support from federal and provincial tourism plans in the years gone by, such as the Fernie ski hill, which I understand is very successful and which has had a limited input that is not being added to but is not being taken away. Because of the support of the community, that facility works very well.

I suspect the minister is trying to say to that member that Fort Steele would not be unlike that and that the modest fees charged at Fort Steele would in no way match the fees charged in places like Banff. which I happen to know is very expensive, having just gone through there in the year of the Olympics, and in the year of 1987 as well.

When I look at what we have in British Columbia to offer....

MR. LOVICK: What about Barbados? It's pretty expensive, eh?

MR. R. FRASER: I hear Barbados is very expensive as well, yes. The member does understand. It must be reading all of those brochures you always want for everybody.

The key thing that we have in this province when it comes to tourism, among other things, is safety. It's not a bad deal. We have clean and beautiful water in this province, which is good. We have good highways in this province, which is good. How do we get people to come up here to see those things? Well. one of the ways I understand we do it is with personal endorsements. You know those people who say: "I could write an ad for Cheer." Maybe we should have a program, Mr. Minister. that says: "I could write an ad for British Columbia tourism." How about that? I was in British Columbia in the year 1988, and I would like to have written an advertisement for the Ministry of Tourism, province of British Columbia, and tell all my friends at home how great it was up there. It wasn't an ad hoc town in Coeur d’Alene, which incidentally has quite a nice golf course that I happen to have played on some years ago. It's a real town with real people, who come here because they love it.

If they don't charge till 10 o'clock, well for God's sake — pardon me, Mr. Chairman — go in before 10. If you have to get your ticket back, go get it back. There's no problem there.

Cranbrook is a lovely area. I went through there right after the secret meeting we had in Nelson, in fact, Mr.

[ Page 4300 ]

Minister. The whole province of British Columbia has much to offer.

I cannot understand.... People like the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) talk about spokespersons. Is there a more disgusting word than a neutral word? Men and women, real things — but no, it's spokesperson.

It's down, it's awful, the world is gloom. How do they do it? No wonder they lose all the time. Wallowing in the dictionary of gloom, whereas we should be endorsing this great product, coming to this great province saying what a great government we have here.

Even the members of the loyal opposition will say: yes, it's a great place to live, and yes, we're going to go there. And then we're going to go north to Barkerville and we're going to take the Royal Hudson, and on and on it will go. Who cares whether they come by car or plane, as long as they come? Come to this beautiful province and see rain, glorious rain, and a few clouds, and a lot of golf courses, and a lot of rivers and a lot of fishing. What a great place!

Why can't we get the community of Cranbrook to say — which I suspect they do in spite of what the member says — "We've got a chance here to fill the restaurants, and we can get people to stop at Fort Steele"? I didn't see anybody standing on the highway saying: "Come on in, Mr. Tourist." Maybe the car I was driving was too modest, I don't know. Maybe they didn't think I had the five bucks.

I got a message from my colleague.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: That's right. I take the hard one all the time. I take the road of enthusiasm and joy and pleasure. How great it is to be a Canadian! How great it is to be a British Columbian! Promote the province. Do what the minister asks. Endorse the product, and go with it. I want that member over there to start a program in Cranbrook that says: "I endorse Fort Steele." Let's help British Columbia tourism do something great.

MR. VANT: I couldn't let the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture estimates pass without getting in a word or two about Barkerville.

First of all, of course, it has a very interesting history going back to 1862. The government, in 1958, under the Forest Service at the time, began the very careful restoration of Barkerville. It wasn't yet a ghost town; there were still about 30 residents there. They made very good negotiations to move the residents to New Barkerville. Ever since about 1962, when our former leader and Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, held a very special celebration of Barkerville's centennial, there has been an official opening of the Barkerville Park for the season. I have a special show at the Theatre Royal. I just heard a rumour that this year there wasn't going to be an official opening. I'd like the minister to either verify that or very enthusiastically deny it.

I am concerned that it appears that there will be a cut in the staff in the Barkerville Park. Part of this is because the staff used to collect the entrance fee are now included in the full-time equivalent staffing of the Barkerville Park. It appears to me that the public will be paying for entrance into that town site, but there will be fewer programs offered. For example, I understand the Wendle House program is cancelled. In other words, people will be paying to get in but receiving less.

One other concern I'd like to bring to the minister's attention is the fact that Cottonwood House is now under the Barkerville Park. It dates back to 1864. It's one of the oldest existing original roadhouses on the Cariboo Road. Indeed, it's older than anything currently in Barkerville. There are only seasonal contract people on that site. I'm very concerned about the security of Cottonwood House. There is a staff person who works in Barkerville and lives there, who each and every day goes to work in Barkerville, and his wife may pop down to Quesnel to go shopping or whatever. There's absolutely no one right there responsible for looking after Cottonwood House.

I am receiving letters from constituents — contract people. I won't mention any names to the Legislature, but there's one person whose contract ended in Barkerville on September 9 and he didn't receive his final cheque until December 6. I would like an assurance from the minister that he and his staff will ensure that these contract people hired seasonally will be paid promptly.

I also understand that last year the minister promised some of the contractors in Barkerville — that is, those running the Theatre Royal, the Mason and Daly General Store and so on; these concessionaires — that if there was any shortfall in their business due to the entrance fee being charged, they would receive some compensation from the government. I understand that the entrance fees to Barkerville last year amounted to $117,471, and I have been informed by some constituents that the losses to some of these operators in Barkerville amounted to more than the entrance fees charged. I know the minister will have some comments he would like to make in that regard.

Overall, Barkerville is a very successful operation. They had in excess of 180,000 visitors last season. Tourism is of great impact to the whole Cariboo. You might say that one of the jewels in the tourism crown of Cariboo is definitely Barkerville; it's a big plus in attracting people to our region. We cannot measure the total economic impact, because people spend a lot of money all the way up to Barkerville. They drop in at Quesnel, Williams Lake, all through and further north up to Prince George and probably further beyond. Barkerville is definitely a great attraction, and I would like to see the government do its share to keep that running in a very good manner.

Before I end my comments, I would like to say that I wouldn't want the minister to pay any compensation to those concessionaires or to pay everything they have claimed. I understand that it would be a great temptation for them to greatly exaggerate their losses due to the implementation of the entrance fee. I know that we act very responsibly in that regard, but I do think that some of the claims were very legitimate.

I notice in the estimates that overall, for the provision for that particular part of the budget, there is a $328,000 increase. I'm curious to know why there should be any staffing cuts at the Barkerville Park at all, given that overall increase.

HON. MR. REID: First of all, the only reductions in staff at Barkerville are as a result of early retirement. I think there were two or three from there who retired early. The take up for that FTE component was in the admission fee personnel. We haven't laid anybody off in Barkerville; we just haven't hired anybody back, and according to my records, there are still 40 employees working on a Barkerville component.

[ Page 4301 ]

In the Barkerville component in 1986 we spent, as a government, $1 million keeping Barkerville as a tourist attraction in British Columbia. In 1987, if the member wants to make note, we spent $1.5 million. We added an extra half a million dollars for the operation of Barkerville in 1987 over 1986. So the income was around $100,000. He doesn't have to be much of a mathematician to know that there was a gain of $400,000 spent on the Barkerville townsite facility as a result of the increased interest shown by this ministry and this government on that super attraction - one of the major attractions in the province, in consort with Fort Steele in Cranbrook.

[3:45]

In saying that, the thrust of the marketing program we put in place to accelerate the interest in that product and the interpretation program, the attendance was higher in Barkerville last year than it was previously. We gained attendance. We didn't get the complaints about admission fees that the local people are giving to that member. I can appreciate that local people will continue to make a case of the desperation of the poor people in Wells and Quesnel, who can't afford $10 a year for their family to go to Barkerville every day of the year that they want. They can't afford all that, but it's a 16-mile drive to get there. I don't believe that that desperation is up there. He's getting the mail because, I guess, his people think that if they continue to make it to the member.... I don't know what case he's trying to make, but it hasn't been made to my ministry or me directly.

I'm getting positive feedback, from Wells and the people in Barkerville. We're also getting, believe it or not, positive feedback from the concessionaires. Some of the concessionaires did make outrageous claims, and then couldn't justify them because we had an independent audit firm go in there and audit the income of 1987 versus '86 for the sales of stores and restaurants, etc. A result of that, if you want to make note of it, is that Marilyn and Bill Rummel's store made a claim for in excess of $90,000; the auditors were recommending somewhere in the neighbourhood of $4,000. Robert Rummel's Wake-Up-Jake Restaurant made a claim for in excess of $37,000; the settlement is $450.

Surprisingly, Eldorado's, Lung Duck Tong and L.A. Blanc and the bakery made no claims. Do you know the reason for that? They made more money than they expected. They didn't need to make a claim, because the thing was a success. So there's four out of seven. The third one was the Theatre Royal, which made a claim for $23,000 and couldn't justify it. The settlement appeared to be somewhere around $7,600. So the claim the concessionaires were making with themselves up there was sitting across Wake-Up-Jake's coffee counter, saying: "I'm going to get $90,000 because I lost my shirt." The independent auditors came back and said: "That's not the case."

Mr. Member, you can walk through the town of Barkerville with your chin high, clapping at the interpretation programs, pay your fee like everybody else — ten bucks out of an MLA's fee, which is nothing for a minister of state, or a parliamentary secretary for a minister of state....

Interjections.

HON. MR. REID: I just about leaked out something that I shouldn't have, I guess.

But in all sincerity, the positive feedback that we're getting from the community relative to Barkerville is nothing but high.

You are concerned about Cottonwood, Mr. Member, and the security between the close after the summer season and the fall and spring. It also concerns us, We will look into that and give you assurances. I rue the day that something should happen to that gorgeous attraction. We need to give it a higher profile, and we also need to give it a little higher security; we'll look into that.

MR. VANT: I thank the minister for his clarification comments, and I appreciate the fact that some of the personnel there have retired. I think overall there's probably a net decrease of personnel in Barkerville. Does the minister intend to hire personnel to replace the people who retired?

HON. MR. REID: The answer to the question is no.

MR. VANT: I see. Thank you.

I think that ends my comments. The only other one that the minister did not address — I would like his assurance, and I've explained this before — is that many of the 40 people he says work in Barkerville are seasonal contract people who just work there during the height of the tourist season. They're not full-time equivalents but they are hired under contract. I would like to see the minister and his staff somehow streamline the method of payment. It's not just an ordinary kind of contract with a very well-funded company. These individuals are often right up against it when they first arrive in Barkerville. Some of them start as early as May 1; some don't start until June 1, and so on. I would like to see every effort made to have them paid as soon as possible under the contract system.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I do recall some concerns that were advanced to me last year by the contractors, with the member's direction to me. As you know, we followed it up and one of the problems we ran into.... We'll do whatever's possible this year to accelerate the payment for those particular contractors. We apologize for that. But because of the way the Financial Administration Act is written, my staff in the financial division have to fine-tune all the numbers. It's a bureaucratic problem, and I apologize for that. Those contractors who come in for a short period of time must be treated fairly and as efficiently as possible. Let me give you the assurance that we will do that as best we can in 1988.

MR. BRUCE: It's interesting to listen to some of the comments here, particularly relative to admissions for museums and such. If you are from a community that has a museum with no admission fee, you perhaps look at things a little bit differently than if you are from a community with a museum that has always had an admission fee on it.

I'd just like to touch a little bit on the British Columbia Forest Museum. The community as a whole — through the very determined efforts of Mr. Gerry Wellburn — put together the British Columbia Forest Museum, at that time known as the Cowichan Valley Forest Museum. To make it successful and make it run, it was imperative that the community support it, as it did through grants from the municipalities, land from the taxpayers of the municipality and all sorts of in-kind donations from corporations, operations and commercial operations in the community. At the time, there was a fee at the gate - an admission for people to pay when they came in, which has gone a long way in making it a very

[ Page 4302 ]

valuable resource to our community and indeed to the province of British Columbia.

Over the years, it was operated locally. Some time ago it was renamed and taken over in part by the province. I say in part, because it's a subject I'd like to come back to in a moment or two. The Forest Museum has become an extremely important part of the community of Cowichan and, as I mentioned, of Vancouver Island and the province. It's because there are so many things happening there.

Tourism is not just something that the government does or gets involved in. Certainly, there's infrastructure and marketing programs that the province does extremely well. But for tourism in this province to be truly successful, it's got to come down to the fact of people in the community working together and bringing forward good ideas and putting them in place.

One such example is the newly developed — and we're just in its infancy — ecomuseum. I have to really commend the minister, his staff and B.C. Heritage Trust for getting involved in this ecomuseum concept. I'm quite confident that later on during the minister's estimates, we'll hear comments from the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), who was with me at several kickoffs relative to this ecomuseum concept.

The ecomuseum doesn't have any walls or ceiling or anything to it in physical structure. It really is taking your living heritage — a community's heritage — and marketing and enhancing those heritage buildings and such that you may find in your community and also things people have that are relative to the story-line that is going to be told.

In the Cowichan-Malahat community, central Vancouver Island and Ladysmith.... We've included Ladysmith, which is part of the Nanaimo constituency, because I believe that tourism has no political bounds to it at all. It's the betterment of the entire community that's important. In our community, when we look at this ecomuseum concept, the story is going to be about forestry. You'll be able to come to central Vancouver Island and see the entire forestry story. You'll be able to see the past in a number of different examples: the community of Chemainus, some of the natural historical events we have or sites throughout the community and also, of course, the British Columbia Forest Museum.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

With that, we hope that it will attract people to the area. You'll be able to see the present through the milling operations in Youbou, Chemainus and Crofton down at Cowichan Bay. You'll be able to see it in the secondary manufacturing aspects that we have in a number of our small industrial parks throughout the community. Then you'll be able to see the future through some of the areas that we have for research in the Mesachie Lake research station and the demonstration forest on the highway to Cowichan Lake. In the final analysis, you'll be able to take part in perhaps a one-day, two-day or three-day event, all relative to the forestry story of the province of British Columbia.

It's absolutely an excellent pilot project that this government has undertaken with Heritage Canada, which is a non-federally-funded organization. Through the province and the Heritage Trust, we've been able to negotiate a very attractive deal that will — over a three-year period — put us in a position of having this pilot project telling the forestry story.

When it's successful — and I stress the word when, because when you look at the people involved at the provincial ministry, Heritage Canada and in the community of Cowichan, there's absolutely no doubt that it will be an absolute first-class success — there will be an example there of what can be done in other communities throughout the province, perhaps on a different theme than forestry. Maybe it will be on fishing, mining or all sorts of different things that communities collectively could put together.

I think it's a very fine example of, as I say, a non-federal government agency — the province of British Columbia here and the local community — working together, trying to make things happen, realizing that there was no forum to put this in place. It required people giving and taking a little bit to put together in the final result something that would be extremely beneficial.

It brings me back to the British Columbia Forest Museum. I really wanted to share with you this ecomuseum concept, because I think it's really exciting for the province. The Forest Museum is an integral part of this whole ecomuseum concept. We have many fine artifacts in the Forest Museum, and it is not just a static museum. It's much like Fort Steele and some of these other fine examples we have within the province. You can go and ride a good old steam train around a lovely length of track and across a trestle over the beautiful Somenos Lake area, where the ducks, geese and antelope play. It's really quite attractive. We've got the old forestry camp set up there that came from the Ministry of Forests and which is being looked after by the Ministry of Forests, and we have a number of other steam engines which were operating years ago in our community. They are the living example of what our forestry heritage means to us. When I say "living," there is nothing like a steam engine when it's puffing and breathing and the smoke is coming out of the stack, the whistle is blowing and the bell is clanging. You can feel that steam engine pumping along the track. I mean, that's life, and that's our living heritage.

The British Columbia Forest Museum has had an admission fee. It has had tremendous community support, both financial and in kind. I don't know how best to put this, but it's sort of been a child that really hasn't had a mother, if you like. It's had a father, and Gerry Wellburn has put it together, but it hasn't had a mother, and it's desperately looking for this mother to welcome it home. I wouldn't want the minister to jump up and exclaim that he is the mother, but perhaps the ministry could be the mother in this instance in that it is time that the province recognized that this is truly a provincial museum. It is truly a site with all sorts of different things involved in it that represents the forestry sector in a very strong and proud fashion. However, it needs today to be put into its proper ministry, and it needs a good injection of financial backing from the province.

[4:00]

That's not to say that the province has not been, over the years since it was taken over, putting in dollars and cents. But when one compares it with both my colleague from the Cariboo's Barkerville and my other colleague's Fort Steele, in percentage terms what this community has put in in dollars and cents and admissions, what it means in the number of people that have come through the gate and so on, I think it would be only fair — and I am sure they would both agree with me — that the ministry would look to put a cash injection for an extended period of time so that we can bring this museum along to the style and the shape that it really should have.

I am concerned that it doesn't turn into just a theme park, and I am sure it won't, because we've got people in the

[ Page 4303 ]

community who are concerned that it stay as a museum but that it also have that participatory aspect where you're pumping the old railcar back and forth or you can work in a hand sawmill — all of those things which help people understand what forestry is all about and at the same time enjoy the heritage.

We're at that point in our community where we have gone as far as we can with the resources we have. I would be hopeful and certainly will be looking very closely this year. Hopefully the minister can comment that we will be able to see a new home for it, specifically in, perhaps, the Ministry of Tourism, and also perhaps a balance of an injection of cash relative to the amounts that have come in from the community and also from the local corporations and the revenues from the gate.

HON. MR. REID: First of all, the member explained with great elaboration the ecomuseum, and I commend him for that, because it is a very positive new addition to the museum scene in the central part of Vancouver Island. We're happy about that and we know that that facility is getting $50,000 a year from the province and $50,000 from the feds over the next three years in order that that actually gets off the ground and really does become an effective ecomuseum process in the community. We commend the community for that because it was the community that came forward with the idea initially. Because of the success stories that you've had up in your area, it's not hard to support a positive community that takes on those kinds of initiatives and says they will make it work. With your community and with both the provincial and federal ministries working with you, we know it will be a success.

To you, Mr. Member, I want to relate the following comment. The Duncan museum, as you say, has had a father but not a mother for a long time. It probably is the result that the mother really should have been, and is, the forestry industry. They have, by virtue of some very tough years, maybe let their baby marketing tool reach the state it's at, and we apologize for that as a government.

If I had my druthers, I'd probably take all the money we're putting in Fort Steele and take all the money we're putting in Barkerville and divide it three ways, a third into Duncan, a third into Barkerville and a third into Fort Steele, and we would probably complement each community and see which one comes out on top. There's no question which one would come out on top, because your community has a whole different attitude about what the community should also do in relation to the product.

In saying that, we've given it a priority from my ministry in 1988. As you know, we did give it a priority in 1987. We went in there with some JobTrac people. We did talk at great length with the forestry industry. We've talked to Mr. Apsey from COFI and we've asked them, since they're talking about what they're doing in the great sphere of forestry around B.C. — with your support, and we're going to continue to do that. They should be a partner in what we're doing in Duncan because the story about the forest industry is told right there in Duncan, in spades at the Duncan museum. For them to be supporters of what's going on there I think goes without saying.

If they're having successful years now, I think the story that they're telling on television and in newspapers should also be told at Duncan. I will make you this commitment, Mr. Member: we are giving the Duncan museum a higher priority in 1988. We will be giving it additional funds to make certain that it is not desperate. Since they do charge a fee and they do all those other things, they do have some embellishment needed. It is a larger site than the other two.

In saying that, the interest of the ministry is high on Duncan museum. We will give it higher priority this year. We will give it further assistance, but we will also be asking, with your cooperation, to get the forest industry from around the province to recognize that as a real pilot tool for telling the story to visitors of what forestry is from day one. They've got it all on one site.

As you said before, and I'm not going to elaborate, it happens in Fort Steele that the old choo-choo train going around there with the steam coming out of the stack is one of the biggest magnets in the valley. So along with the embellishment it needs in the rest of the facility, we're working on that. So I commend you and your community for your efforts in the past. This ministry has never let down any community that has a pride in their attraction, and we won't let yours down.

MS. EDWARDS: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, I really feel it unfair of you to consistently say that I am negative about Fort Steele, Barkerville and/or the Royal British Columbia Museum, because I am one of the most positive boosters of all of those things. I boost the forest museum at Duncan as well. What we're really trying to do is to get you to have more money and be able to do more for these things and give you an even stronger ministry.

What I want to know right now, since we're on the estimates in this one and this is very clearly related to your spending, is: could you clarify for me what money is going in for improvements to Fort Steele and Barkerville and the Royal British Columbia Museum? Now is that separated? It may not be separated from Cottonwood House and the other attractions, but where is the amount of money that is going into the improvement budgets, into the capital fund, for these attractions this year?

HON. MR. REID: The capital involvement with.... I've got to go to Fort Steele, just a minute. The capital fund for Fort Steele in '85 was $149,000, in '86 it was $57,000, last year it was $152,000, and we're budgeting estimates this year for $209,000 for capital maintenance in Fort Steele town in 1988-89.

MS. EDWARDS: And the other one?

HON. MR. REID: The other one?

MS. EDWARDS: Barkerville.

HON. MR. REID: Yes. Barkerville and Cottonwood House combined had $121,400 in '85, $55,000 in '86, $108,000 in '87, and we're budgeting $290,755 in 1988-89.

While I'm on my feet, to answer the other member in case he wanted to leave, the official open house at both facilities, which provides for free admission, special guests invited and special events as part of the opening, is June 18 for Barkerville; and for the member from the Fort Steele area it is June 19. Those are the official opening dates.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, may I ask what the capital budget is for improvements at the Royal Museum?

[ Page 4304 ]

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, no, I can't answer that question, because the whole subject of the Royal British Columbia Museum at the moment, as to society operation, government operation and BCBC's responsibility for upkeep, maintenance and improvements, is in discussion position between the Ministry of Provincial Secretary, Treasury Board and my ministry. The capital improvements are the requirement of and are led by the Ministry of Provincial Secretary.

MS. EDWARDS: Am I to take from that, Mr. Minister, that you are about to effect the handing over of the management of the museum to the Friends of the Royal Museum or, as you described last year, to a non-profit organization?

HON. MR. REID: The discussions on that subject are ongoing, and while a discussion is going on, the ongoing requirements for upgrading and improvements and maintenance and all that will be a discussion between all the partners in the museum building. The museum building is leased by us. We don't own the building; we lease it for a museum operation. So the improvements up until I took over the ministry were all the responsibility of BCBC. We just championed the cause for $10 million worth of improvements identified as being needed over the next five years. We made the case to the Treasury Board for those improvements and we didn't win our argument. They said it's really a case that should be made by BCBC relative to all their buildings in British Columbia, and the museum is no different from the others.

MS. EDWARDS: So that $10 million wasn't in your ministry's budget anyway; it was somewhere else.

You pointed out last year, Mr. Minister, when we discussed this at such great length, that there were $10 million worth of improvements necessary at the Royal British Columbia Museum and that you had imposed a fee so that that money could be spent on them. Just as a matter of interest, I took the attendance last year at the Royal British Columbia Museum, which was 257,601, and the gross revenue, which was $598,616, and it came out to a per capita amount of $2.32 that the museum collected. It may be that your argument that $5 isn't paid anyway is right — who knows?

What you actually collected was approximately $2.32 per capita. At that rate, do you know how many people it would take to raise $10 million? It would take — I had my calculator on — 4,310,345 people. So I'm again back to the point: when the attendance has dropped and if the attendance fee.... Even though it's high — and I have said several times and I hear still that $5 is a high admission fee for the museum and for the other things — how are we going to get this back to the museum? If this is in the negotiations, that may be so, but it certainly is not clear to the public, because you said you wanted that money to be collected so that it could go back into the improvement of the facility. Well, it hasn't happened. It didn't happen this past year; it doesn't look like it will happen in the near future. So what is going to happen to the Royal British Columbia Museum and the improvements? How are we going to do it?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I would like the support of that member to get a big picket sign, go down in front of BCBC and demand that they put some improvements into the Royal British Columbia Museum. We had over a million visitors to the museum last year, which is 800,000 more than the museum was designed for, and we're expecting an increased number by the return pattern already. We will accelerate that in 1988. The scare tactics that that member has in telling the people, "Don't come, because you have to pay," isn't working; the people are coming anyway. They're paying in record numbers, and they're happy to buy an annual pass. We've also expanded the process now whereby people can go in after 5:45 at night for the balance of the day, and see it free for the rest of the opening period of the day. There's no question that if people from downtown Victoria that you continue to make a case for want to see the museum free, they can go every Monday in off-season or for an hour and a half every day. The survey says that the maximum time people spend there is two hours. If we're given an hour and 15 minutes every day to anybody who wants to go in free, who lives close by, what's the big deal? Yet the 76 percent of people that are coming from around the world are happy to pay the $10 for their family for the whole time they are in the Victoria area, and the other attractions are included.

I can't believe that you can make a case for the funds not to come into the coffers. If you don't get the money into the coffers, how can you ever make an appeal for it? How can you ever make an appeal for money if you don't get it in the first place? What you're continuing to say is it should always be free. There is no free lunch in this province any longer. There must be admission fees to the facilities in order to gain some revenue so that we can approach the Treasury Board and say: "Can you please allocate some money to BCBC to improve the facility called the museum?"

I don't know how many times I've got to tell you: I made the case last year for retaining the revenue in my ministry to make the improvements that we saw should be made. I didn't win the argument, and since I didn't win the argument, would you please make your case to the Treasury Board? You keep coming back and saying I made a promise. I made lots of promises about things I want to try and do, but if you keep coming back and saying I broke a promise, then I'm not going to tell you anything any longer.

[4:15]

MS. EDWARDS: I'd certainly be happy to go and picket the Treasury Board if you were there, Mr. Minister, doing the same thing. But the point is that I think we need some kind of a plan now. All right, Treasury Board isn't coming back with it. Now we're charging a fee; it's going into general revenue, and surely this government must have some responsibility for saying that if the money comes in, it goes back, at least in some degree. What I am hearing is that we're getting less this year at the royal museum than last year or that it's simply carrying on.

All right, I will accept your shaking head, Mr. Minister, because I think what you mean is that it went on at absolute needs last year, absolute needs this year, or BCBC's decision. What I am trying to say is: no matter that you put the money into the fees, that you're taking it into general revenue and there is still a discussion.... I assume this is continuing, because you said last year you were going to put the management of these facilities into the hands of non-profit societies, for which you would appoint the boards, the chairs and the vice-chairs; and the societies who manage those facilities would collect the income from the fees and would be responsible for the upkeep of the facility. Is that going ahead? If it is, it looks to me as though it isn't going to be a very successful venture, if that's how it's going to happen.

[ Page 4305 ]

The minister decides not to answer. That's too bad. I'd like to ask the minister about the contractors and concessionaires at Fort Steele. He mentioned some of the ones at Barkerville. I understand that the contractors at Fort Steele are being dealt with and that's not complete. I wonder if the minister could clarify whether in fact he has come to a successful conclusion with most of the contractors at Fort Steele or expects to in the near future.

I also have a warm and fuzzy word for the minister. I am happy that he will attend to the security of Cottonwood House, because some of the descendants of the people who built Cottonwood House live in my riding and I hear about it regularly as well. I am very happy to hear that something is going to be happening there. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether, in the new contracts that are being let for interpretation services and other kinds of contracts like that, there is any preference allowed for local contractors to do interpretation work and things like that.

HON. MR. REID: To answer the last question first, I don't know. I don't think we have any. The contracts for the interpretation programs that go on within Barkerville and Fort Steele are, by and large, mostly ongoing contracts. They are not brand-new ones every year; they are renewed contracts. They are interpreters that have worked on these particular projects in previous years, and I am not aware of anybody from Cranbrook or the vicinity going in, showing a brand-new interpretive program to the manager and suggesting that a new process should be added and maybe a new contract signed. If that is the case, I am not aware of it. There are, by and large, in all the cases, I think — without researching, because I have never been asked that question before.... I would think all the contractors that are currently putting on those programs are repeat contracts.

To answer the first question about the Fort Steele concessionaires, the independent auditors have finally had their last meetings with all the concessionaires there. It looks like the prospector.... What they were suggesting as a claim is now close to being negotiated for acceptance.

The railway. We haven't been able to contact the gentle man. I guess he made so much money last year running the railroad he is down somewhere in Palm Springs. Kershaw General Store. We haven't been able to contact the lady who runs the store in the last couple of weeks to finalize her contract for 1988-89. We had no claim from the tea house. They had more income than they expected, so they were quite satisfied. We have finalized a contract with Tink and Judy; the Wild Horse Theatre has signed a settlement and are signed up for 1988-89.

The stagecoach: from indications here of what they had made as a claim, it looks as though it will be adjudicated by the independent auditors at somewhere near the number they are asking. I think that the concessionaires at Fort Steele, as with Barkerville, will be well compensated for the request.

MS. EDWARDS: First of all, I have been in touch with the owner of the Kershaw store. There was no problem contacting her; I'm surprised if your ministry had trouble. I also made notes when you said that the gates are never closed at Fort Steele. That happens to be not true. As I understand it, the enclosure is closed until 10 o'clock in the morning, so that's not the case.

Speaking of the owner of the Kershaw store, she told me that she has made a very rare find. You may not know that this is very rare. Everybody has old Singer sewing machines, but very few people have spindles for Singer sewing machines; she found some. In telling Fort Steele that she had them, and they could get them because they're always looking for them, they told her that there were no longer any archival funds at Fort Steele.

I happen to know that one of the great successes of Fort Steele has been that they have been able to make modest purchases over the years and have bought some very rare and good archival artifacts. A lot have been given, but they've been able to buy some artifacts. Is there some change in the way this is done? Is there no funding for buying this kind of thing?

HON. MR. REID: With a budget of $50 million and $1.5 million being spent on Fort Steele annually, with all the incrementals in there, I'm sure my ministry has been very innovative and progressive in the past. If we can't find sufficient funds to buy spindles for the archival Singer sewing machines in Fort Steele, I'll make the commitment that we will find sufficient funds to buy the spools. We may have to sell a bunch of stuff they've got in the basements of some of those buildings that they've had forever and a day in order to retrieve some money to do it, but I'll give the assurance that we'll be able to buy the spindles.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, it's very kind of you to be so positive about the spindles. However, is there some change in the policy for purchasing these materials? Is there nothing in the budget for buying? Or is there some mistake in the information? Is there some change there?

HON. MR. REID: I wish that for every little detail involved with the things in my ministry, I could be right on op of decisions made by management of each of the facilities. If the manager of Fort Steele has decided that in order to keep one of the 30 employees employed one of the things that has to go is some of the funds he may have had in the past for archival purchases, that's a decision for the management in Fort Steele.

This minister hasn't looked at a request for purchase of Singer sewing machine spools and said: "Please cross it off he list; we can't afford it." They are working within a global budget to operate the facilities in the province under the total global budget of my ministry. There are no additional funds for these facilities. If they are making managerial decisions within the facility, and if you want to make a case on behalf of archival artifacts being the priority for Fort Steele and for me o recommend to the management that all archival purchases be considered before everything else, I'll be happy to do that.

They are working within a global budget, and if those are decisions of management — except for very rare cases — I would not become involved with finding out whether or not we can afford to buy spools for Singer sewing machines. I would like to, but rest assured it's not been a policy laid on by his ministry to quit buying archival artifacts, because we are n the business of artifacts. We are the ministry of museums and historical attractions, and the historical town of Fort Steele will continue to he promoted as a historical town. If he Singer sewing machine bobbles — or whatever you call hem — need to be purchased, we will acquire them somehow. We will be able to make an appeal.

I see my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), is in the House. I hope that the Minister of

[ Page 4306 ]

Finance is paying attention, because if he knew the plight of the people of Fort Steele not being able this year to purchase the spools for the Singer sewing machines.... Mr. Minister of Finance, there is a dilemma in downtown Fort Steele for the artifacts. They are having difficulty acquiring sufficient funds to buy the spools. We're going to make a commitment to that member that between the two of us we will find sufficient funds to provide spools for the Singer sewing machines in downtown Fort Steele.

MR. VANT: I find it very interesting about the shortage of Singer sewing machine spools in Fort Steele, but let's get back to Barkerville for a moment. As you know, Barkerville is not just a group of old buildings. There are these characters like the famous Judge Begbie, who is buried just out here in the Ross Bay cemetery. He was the Chief Justice of the province for over 35 years. He was very incorrectly known as "the hanging judge," even though he only hanged about 15 people during his long tenure as our Chief Justice. Indeed, I think life and property was safer then than it is now.

Season after season there are people hired in Barkerville under contract to play these different roles, and thereby the whole townsite of Barkerville comes alive. I was just wondering if the minister has given any thought to an incentive to these people who keep coming back season after season. On certain things there's quite a turnover. Is there any thought to paying people with experience in Barkerville a little bit more than someone who's just there for the first season? I myself spent eight very happy years in Barkerville. Of course, I was in the private mining sector, although I did a little research for the government under contract. Has the minister given any thought to paying some of those characters that keep coming back year after year a little bit more money? I'm glad the Minister of Finance is here to hear this as well. They are really instrumental in making Barkerville, come alive.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it abundantly clear that we have a high regard for the attractions which this ministry runs and finances throughout the province. We have to take into consideration all the costs attributed to that facility and attraction and what further funds we can press for to be allocated for that facility. As I told you earlier, we put in excess of $1.5 million into Barkerville in 1987, and it was an increase of over $400,000.

I guess a case could be made somewhere along the way that priorities by management should be given to wage increments for those people that you were indicating have been there more than one year. Those are decisions that we would hope the manager would make and make recommendations to our staff. We always have to make the case ultimately, Mr. Member, when all that is brought to the bottom line, for additional allocations for that particular attraction, unless we get it out of the visitors that are coming. The case has been made by both you and the other member that maybe, for a period of a couple of years, we should sit on the attraction fee we're charging and make certain that it's accepted and appropriate and all those other things, and then, if we need increments for reasons like you say, maybe then we have to have special charge-outs in order to cover those increments that may be there.

So we always look at it. Rest assured, it's a quality product and we want to keep it that way. It's the people that work in the facility that make it what it is. We have to continue to compliment those people and pay them the due rate, bearing in mind that we also have the heavy-handed Minister of Finance, who has other concerns which must be met in the other ministries of government. So we hear you, and we think we've treated all our people in regard to that very fairly. But we will review them on an ongoing basis, no question about that.

While I'm on my feet, I'd also like to answer the question from the member for Kootenay, who wanted the number for upgrading of the museum building in 1988. There is in voted funds an incremental amount of $170,000 budgeted for a building upgrade in 1988, and an additional $150,000 is going to exhibit upgrades in 1988. So that's in excess of $300,000 going into those two upgrade budgets.

[4:30]

MR. VANT: I appreciate those comments by the minister. He mentioned — and I very much appreciate it — the fact that the budget for 1987 in Barkerville was $1.5 million. I take it that that's both operating and capital improvement budget. Would the minister at this time be willing to share with the House the proposed budget for Barkerville for 1988? All I have, as one of the members for Cariboo, is the global budget.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, the proposed operating budget — and these are estimates only — for 1988-89 is $1,103,964. The capital improvement budget projected for Barkerville is $290,755. The marketing budget that the ministry is spending to market the product this year is $150,000. We have a category called funding assistance, and we're hoping that there are programs on the horizon similar to JobTrac that we can allocate to that product called tourism in Barkerville, which would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $150,000. But that number should be in brackets, because it's a question of whether or not those programs will be in place. The budget is in the neighbourhood of $1.5 million, similar to last year.

MR. VANT: Along those same lines, last year we had the very successful Gold Rush Trail promotion, and the only factor that didn't seem to fall into place was the signage along the highways from New Westminster leading right on up to Prince George. Will that signage be in place? This may be partly a responsibility of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers), but I believe it was under your ministry. Do you have some comments on that?

HON. MR. REID: Yesterday I elaborated at great length on the new program that we did not get off the ground fully. The signage policy didn't get right off the ground in 1987. As a result, since it wasn't completely ready, we just last Monday unveiled the new signage policy for the Gold Rush Trail, which starts at Hope and ends in Prince George; it doesn't start in New Westminster. That's another highway called something else, Rainbow Highway or something. The Gold Rush Trail does start at Hope, and when you head home, if you go home by road through the Fraser Canyon, you'll be pleased to see the Gold Rush Trail signs are now up. They're being put up along the highway at strategic points. It's very effective signage, and you'll be very pleased with it.

MR. VANT: That's exceedingly good news. Thank you very much.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I wanted to move on to talk about other parts of your ministry. In moving away from

[ Page 4307 ]

direct discussions of the Royal Museum and the other heritage attractions and so on and so forth, I want to read into the record a comment: "Far from being mere repositories, Canada's cultural and scientific institutions now strive to be at the forefront of technological and social change as well as scientific and sociological study." That was put in an article about our museums today in Canada, talking about the greater need to fund museums and so on. I am very sure from your response to me that you get a lot of pressure and that people are constantly saying more should be done.

When we begin to talk about the arts in Canada, we don't have a very good record in British Columbia, again. It's too bad, but we have to say it. A Vancouver city council report recently quoted an annual review of the business and arts in Canada and confirmed a long-held suspicion that the B.C. arts community ranks at the bottom in grants received from government. From 1973 to 1984, British Columbia had the third-smallest growth in provincial cultural expenditure in the country. In fact, from 1973 to 1984 British Columbia was the only province whose provincial contributions to performing arts stayed the very same.

The arts sector in Canada generates more that $19 billion worth of economic activity for the country. There are all sorts of measures, and I'm sure the minister is as well aware as I am of the performance, and if you measure them in terms of economic activity, they stand here and they employ more people than agriculture and so on. I don't have these in front of me. The figures are there, and they are very astounding figures. The arts industry is a very active and vibrant community within the country and certainly within British Columbia, despite the fact that we have such limited government and corporate funding. In British Columbia, and I'm sure the minister is also well aware of this, the municipalities have carried the largest share of the cost of the arts — larger than in most provinces. The arts and culture are not just to be measured in industrial terms in the kind of employment they create, as important as that is.

What has been pointed out in a recent study done in Ontario by the Ontario Arts Council is that the existence of a vital artistic and cultural life is taken into account by businessmen in their locational decisions and can lead to attraction and creation of new business and associated employment. Furthermore, the beneficiaries of the increased businesses are not confined to those establishments directly related to the artistic or cultural event or to tourism, but permeate all sectors of the economy. However, the most important things are the arts and cultural industries in tourism which are at the middle of it.

I'm sure that I'm not saying anything new to the minister. but I am trying to stress that the arts and cultural activities are extremely important in British Columbia.

Last year I questioned the minister about whether or not he had done any studies about the impact of arts funding on employment growth. He said they were currently doing a further study on the arts funding in the province of British Columbia, and he would table it in the House when the information was available. I haven't seen that study, Mr. Minister. Is it still going on? Where is it? Is it about to be released or what is happening?

HON. MR. REID: In 1987 we had four studies going on in the province, of which you should be in receipt of three of them by now. The library task force was a study to do with the arts and culture. We had the Project Pride Task Force report made available to that member, which was also on arts and culture and heritage. The Artsreach review is currently still in the hands of the council reviewing the recommendations before it is made public.

Also. as I indicated to that member before, we did and do have a brand new program in British Columbia to do with three-year funding of the cultural community projects of some of the components of culture, and it's working very well.

In 1984-85 — in case the member is making notes, this will put you to sleep tonight — we spent $6.5 million on the support for cultural services within the branch; and in 1987-88 we spent $9.2 million, which was an increase under this minister and my staff of 42 percent towards the cultural services division of my ministry. The cultural services component in British Columbia in 1987 was in excess of $30 million of contributed funds in all components of culture in B.C. That number, I can tell you, has not decreased; it has stayed constant. I'm pleased with the kind of participation and support this government has for all aspects of our culture in British Columbia.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, the figures don't bear out that we're doing as much for our arts and culture as other provinces in general. Depending on the measure, we're usually at the bottom or close to the bottom.

I had meant, of course, to question you on your various projects, but that particular question was one on the impact of arts funding on employment growth. I assume that that specific subject was not in any of your studies. Is that correct? The impact of arts funding on employment growth?

HON. MR. REID: Not in that particular connotation. We did not separate employment factors as they relate to each component of the arts and culture in all those task forces we put in place. I wasn't asked to do that, either by this House or by that member, But I can tell you that the employment factor as it relates to those is very strong. We can give you numbers in the industry, but we didn't do our study on it.

Mr. Chairman, I would move this committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Tuesday, 26 last, the hon. Leader of the Opposition rose to give notice of his intention to proceed with a motion of privilege based on a series of questions and answers which took place during question period on Monday, April 25. Pursuant to the said notice, the hon. Leader of the Opposition rose on May 2 on the same matter and tabled the following material: (1) Hansard excerpts from question period on Monday, April 25, 1988; (2) Hansard excerpts from Tuesday, April 26, 1988; (3) a document which purports to be the transcript of an interview with the Premier dated April 28, 1988; (4) a document headed "CBC, 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, April 26, 1988; " (5) an excerpt from the Province of Wednesday, April 27, 1988; (6) a motion which the Leader of the Opposition proposes to move should a prima facie case of breach of privilege be established. I will refer to the tendered motion at a later part of my reasons.

[ Page 4308 ]

In addition to the above material, I have also examined Hansard to consider the remarks offered to the Chair by the government House Leader and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). I would refer all hon. members to the general guidelines relating to matters of privilege outlined in some detail in the Chair's decision of March 1, and I will briefly restate: The Chair in this matter has the task of determining whether or not a prima facie case of deliberate and wilful deception has in fact been established. In describing the onus, the Chair has previously stated: "That onus, to be satisfied, must go beyond establishing prima facie that not only was the House misled but also prima facie that one or more of the hon. members...deliberately misled the House." It seems to the Chair that there must be some prima facie evidence that a member has hidden something, failed to disclose something, or misstated a fact with a deliberate intention to mislead the House.

What emerges from the material before me is that apparently a leasing arrangement exists between a company owned or controlled by Mr. Toigo and the company known as Fantasy Gardens, in which the Premier is a minority shareholder.

It further appears from the material filed and from excerpts from Hansard that the lessor company is not operated by the Premier, although his interest in the company is fully disclosed in his filed declaration with this House and is apparently freely admitted in Hansard and in the press reports.

I must now refer to the submissions made today by the hon. government House Leader and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. While there are certain facts that are apparently accepted by all hon. members in relation to this matter, it is clear to the Chair there is a significant dispute as to the scope of the questions and answers which are pivotal in this case. The government House Leader argues that a lease from Fantasy Gardens to a company owned by Mr. Toigo is not a corporate involvement by the hon. Premier.

He suggests, in support of his position, that such a lease does not fall into the category contemplated by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew when he asked about corporate financial obligations: loans, guarantees and debentures.

The hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew urges that his questions are broad in nature and argues that financial obligations between companies would include such a lease; and what is more, he urges that "corporate involvement" used in the hon. Premier's answer include "corporate obligations," being the term used in the question of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

The Chair, in matters of this nature, is not required to resolve this dispute, and it is appropriate to quote citation 113 in Beauchesne's fourth edition as follows: "A dispute arising between two members as to allegation of facts does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege."

The Chair must make a further important point. It is essential for a member who is attempting to establish a prima facie case of breach of privilege to establish that the actions or statements of the alleged offender amounted to much more than an inexactitude or an incorrect statement. The member must allege a specific offence which, in this instance, would be the offence of deliberately misleading the House.

I have examined the decision given in this House on March 1, 1988, the decision of Mr. Speaker Lucien Lamoureux given in the House of Commons on June 9, 1969, and a decision of Mr. Speaker Jerome in the House of Commons on June 4, 1975. I quote from the latter decision as follows: "If a member complaining about the facts or remarks of another member does not put his complaint in the form of a specific charge, it should not be considered as a question of privilege."

Mr. Speaker Jerome further noted, on quoting an earlier decision that simple justice requires that no hon. member should have to submit to an investigation of his conduct by the House or a committee until he has been charged with an offence.

Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, in a decision above-noted, says in part: "The motion simply asks for an investigation by the committee to determine if there has been a breach of privilege, rather than to allege that there was a breach of privilege, which is the proper form."

Nowhere in the material supplied by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, nor in the tendered motion, nor in any representation made relating to these matters, has there been a charge based on law of privilege, a deliberate misleading of the House. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition himself describes the alleged offence as an "erroneous statement."

In accordance with the decisions of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux and Mr. Speaker Jerome, and bearing in mind the precedents of this House, the member has not given the Chair sufficient foundation upon which to make a prima facie finding that the House was in fact deliberately misled. Therefore this application must fail.

It may very well be, based on the material supplied, that the member has a grievance which, in accordance with the existing authorities, he is at liberty to proceed with on a motion with notice. In the absence of a specific charge which, if established, would amount to a breach of privilege, there is no foundation upon which to establish a prima facie case as defined by the authorities.

For this reason, together with the clear dispute as to the facts, I am unable to invite the hon. Leader of the Opposition to move his motion.

Hon. L. Hanson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:48 p.m.