[ Page 7377 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 39). Hon. Mr. Dueck

Introduction and first reading –– 7377

Health Professions Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 40). Hon. Mr. Dueck

Introduction and first reading –– 7377

Seniors Advisory Council Act, 1989 (Bill 41). Hon. Mr. Dueck

Introduction and first reading –– 7378

Oral Questions

Day care funding. Mr. Perry –– 7378

Island Highway construction schedule. Mr. Lovick –– 7378

Trial commuter-rail service to Port Coquitlam. Mr. Rose 7379

UIC benefits for forest fire fighters. Ms. Edwards –– 7379

Knight Street Pub investigation. Mr. Sihota –– 7379

New Westminster pool incident. Hon. Mr. Dueck replies to question –– 7380

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism and Provincial Secretary estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Reid)

On vote 70: minister's office –– 7380

Hon. Mr. Reid

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Rose

Mr. Chalmers

Mr. Kempf

Ms. Pullinger

Ms. Edwards

Mrs. Boone

Employee Investment Act (Bill 32). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 7406

Mrs. Boone –– 7409

Mr. Clark –– 7409

Mr. Loenen –– 7410

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 7411

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism and Provincial Secretary estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Reid)

On vote 70: minister's office –– 7412

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Williams

Mr. Clark

Mr. Barnes

MONDAY, JUNE 12, 1989

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, we are indeed honoured today to have with us a delegation of parliamentarians from New Zealand. I would like to introduce them to you. We have the Hon. Thomas Kerry Burke, a Member of Parliament and Speaker of the House of Representatives; the Hon. Venn S. Young, Member of Parliament, and his wife, Mrs. Catherine Young; Mr. Robert M. Gray, MP and senior opposition Whip; Mr. Graham D. Kelly, M.P., and his wife, Mrs. Janette Kelly; Mr. James R. Sutton, MP, and Mrs. Sheila Sutton; and Ms. Genevieve Orr, secretary to the delegation. Would you please show them a warm British Columbia welcome.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if, on behalf of the opposition, I could mirror or reflect the felicitations of the courtly member for Dewdney — that's courtly spelt with a "c" not a "p" — in welcoming the New Zealand delegation. Some years ago I had an opportunity to visit them in Wellington and enjoyed their office space, which is a building very similar to this one, but next door they built a beehive. That's where they keep all the members' offices, and personally, I think they were stung — but we won't go into that one. The Kiwis are welcome here, and I'm pleased they've forsaken their very beautiful country to come and visit us in the wilds of North America.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: All British Columbians are saddened by the passing of Mr. Bill Hamilton. He was a former cabinet minister, former Postmaster-General, former chancellor at SFU and also president of the Employers' Council of B.C. He certainly served his community, the province and the country in a variety of capacities and extremely well. I would ask that the House send our condolences to the surviving family.

MR. ROSE: I was acquainted, but not intimately, with Mr. Hamilton. As everyone knows, he was Postmaster-General under the Diefenbaker government. He did all kinds of community work above and beyond the call of duty. He had, I guess, one of Canada's most brilliant minds. He's gone. We've sent our condolences, and I know British Columbia will miss him.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity as well, on behalf of this side of the House, and I think I can speak for all here, to congratulate Mr. John Shields on his re-election as president of the BCGEU. John has been one I have worked with somewhat over the last several years, and I find him to be a very reasonable individual. We can certainly, at times, have our differences, but we generally arrive at satisfactory conclusions for all. I would ask that we extend our congratulations to him.

MR. R. FRASER: It's with great surprise and delight that I introduce two people here — the surprise is that she's supposed to be in the office and the delight is that she's here with her husband — our constituency secretary Penny Hazle and her husband Claude. Would the House please join me in making them most welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I would like this House to welcome to the precincts today 23 attachés from agricultural countries around the world who are visiting the Legislative Assembly this afternoon and will later this afternoon go over to the mainland. I would like this whole assembly to give them a joyous welcome.

MR. PERRY: I want to ask our House Leaders' indulgence to make one more acknowledgment of the New Zealanders here today. Speaking as a representative from one of the first nuclear-weapons-free zones in British Columbia, I think many of us in British Columbia have admired and respected the New Zealand Parliament for its courage in enforcing the first nuclear-weapons-free zone in the world in a country which is a member of the western alliance. I would just like to acknowledge the respect of British Columbians for New Zealand on that issue and welcome them all to the House.

Introduction of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Dueck presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. DUECK: This bill proposes amendments covering seven separate acts administered within my ministry. They include the Anatomy Act, Community Care Facility Act, Health Act, Health Emergency Act, Hospital Act, Hospital District Act and Mental Health Act. An amendment to the Community Care Facility Act establishes guidelines with respect to the operations of group homes. Another amendment, to the Health Emergency Act, will establish a separate licensing body for emergency medical assistance. Other changes are mostly administrative in nature.

Bill 39 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.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Dueck presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Professions Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. DUECK: This bill proposes amendments that would give four health professions the

[ Page 7378 ]

authority to regulate the use of corporations for the delivery of professional services. Amendments would also permit the establishment of a college of chiropractors and a college of psychologists, both to assume regulatory functions from their existing associations. Other changes are of a more routine or administrative nature.

Bill 40 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.

[2:15]

SENIORS ADVISORY COUNCIL ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Dueck presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Seniors Advisory Council Act, 1989.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, this act would establish a seniors' advisory council, setting out in a detailed mandate the very important work undertaken throughout our province by the council for the betterment of seniors, the most rapidly growing segment of our population.

Bill 41 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

DAY CARE FUNDING

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Has the minister now decided to reverse his government's policy of inadequate funding for day care in this province and his emphasis on seeking federal funding, in particular to subsidize new commercial spaces?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to this House on more than one occasion, we are very concerned about the subject of child care. I have spoken with the federal minister and realize that their child care act is still on hold. I have said to this House and to the people of British Columbia that our government will be making changes in and improvements to child care on a unilateral basis, and we're in the process of doing that at the moment. An announcement will be made very soon regarding day care.

MR. PERRY: A supplementary for the minister. Will the new program give priority to funding nonprofit cooperative day care spaces? Will it provide new training programs for day care workers? Will it provide better licensing and monitoring, to ensure quality care for all children in British Columbia? Will it emphasize parent participation in the management of day care centres? In other words, is this going to be a meaningful program, or is it going to be more of the same old showbiz?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, I'd like the member to refresh my memory on which "same old showbiz" he's referring to. I don't think the people out there who are receiving subsidies for day care would refer to it as "showbiz."

Secondly, in answer to all of his questions, we want the people of British Columbia to have a choice when they select their day care so that they can shop for the very best day care there is. That member can rest assured that when the people of British Columbia select their day care, they will have a choice of commercial day care, non-profit, family day care and unlicensed day care — or whatever you wish to call it, which is some of the best we have in the province. The people of British Columbia will have a choice. They won't be told by any government where they have to go to get their day care.

ISLAND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

MR. LOVICK: A question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Approximately one month ago, Mr. Minister, in your estimates debate on three different occasions you assured this House that the construction schedule for the Vancouver Island Highway, as announced in November 1988, was still operative. Among other things, that schedule meant that the construction was to begin this summer just south of Ladysmith. Will the minister confirm that as of today there has not been a date set for the tendering of that project?

HON. MR. VANT: The answer to that question is no.

MR. LOVICK: I'm happy to note that I'm going to be pursuing this matter with the minister, because that's not the information given by his office. Will the minister confirm that even if the process has now been tendered — i.e., a date established — it must go to at least one or more public meetings? Will he confirm that those public meetings have not yet been established?

HON. MR. VANT: From time to time my ministry is very pleased to have public information meetings. Indeed, there are a number of major projects throughout the province where we've had what we term "open houses, " with very detailed graphics and mapping of the proposed project. The last one I held was a very successful one and concerned the Lougheed Highway out in the Dewdney riding. It was very well received. We are providing — as it is available — very detailed, very precise information to those citizens most affected in the particular area in which a project is going to take place. I can assure the first member for Nanaimo that the Vancouver Island Highway is no exception to our very determined policy to keep the public fully informed.

[ Page 7379 ]

MR. LOVICK: I know not whether the minister's problem has to do with hearing or comprehension, but apparently he didn't understand my question. My question was whether he would confirm that, in fact, that process must go on. But it has not yet been announced, which would certainly indicate that the project will not proceed on schedule, as he indicated. Can he confirm that?

HON. MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that the original schedule announced last fall — in Parksville as I recall, when most of the mayors of Vancouver Island were present — is going to prevail.

TRIAL COMMUTER-RAIL SERVICE
TO PORT COQUITLAM

MR. ROSE: Moving right along on things that perhaps might not proceed on schedule, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to give us an update on the commuter rail from Port Coquitlam to Vancouver. I asked her on April 24 whether or not it was dead. The minister said it may be in a coma, but it's not dead. I wonder if she could update us on its current status, and whether it's still breathing.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, there have been no changes in its status since our last discussion

MR. ROSE: On the eve of the last federal election the minister was quoted as saying, "It's a go, it's a go, it's a go," or something like that. I know the minister isn't really a go-go minister, but nevertheless that's what she said. On April 24 in response to another question of mine, she said: "About a month ago, I sent a letter to the federal government attempting to receive some assurance that their commitment is still in place." Has she received a response?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, I have received a response.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister would be prepared to share the response that she received from the federal government. A lot of people in the riding that are in a gridlock trying to get in to work in Vancouver as commuters every morning are very interested in this kind of information.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The federal commitment is still in place.

UIC BENEFITS FOR
FOREST FIRE FIGHTERS

MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Minister of Forests. Can the minister confirm that temporary forest fire fighters in British Columbia this summer are not being assessed Unemployment Insurance Commission contributions?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, we don't assess UI on temporary emergency firefighters.

MS. EDWARDS: The province, Mr. Minister, can make these people eligible for unemployment insurance and for paying their premiums simply by approving an order-in-council. Can the minister explain why the government has not taken the step to designate these employees as insurable — in other words, as provincial government employees — so that the people who do this dangerous and difficult job can claim benefits later, based on this work?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, ideally we wouldn't need any emergency firefighters, if all things were the way we'd like to have them — that is, without the threat of forest fire.

What we've done as a ministry is establish a number of unique firefighting teams, some transported by helicopter — helitack teams; we have some initial strike forces that rappel from helicopters — and rapattack teams. And then we have unit crews, 20-man crews, spotted throughout the province. I say 20-man crews, but they're open to members of the other gender. All these special teams get the full gamut of benefits, including UI; they are specialists highly trained in fire suppression. We've made this opportunity available to all people. We've advertised it fully throughout the province, and we've made it abundantly clear to native groups in the province that we would welcome their participation. Indeed, we have trained a number of specialized unit crews from the native community, and we hope to see more. All these specialized crews have UI benefits. Casual employees, picked up from time to time, do not get those benefits.

MS. EDWARDS: Supplementary. Mr. Minister, the federal government took special steps in order to make it possible for people who may be drafted to do this work to be able to contribute to and then benefit from unemployment insurance. Has the minister decided he will look at what the federal government has done and finally allow these people to have those benefits?

HON. MR. PARKER: No.

KNIGHT STREET PUB INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA: The government has been resisting answering questions with respect to the Ministry of Labour, Mr. Doney and the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) these last few weeks. The Minister of Labour has now met with Mr. Doney, we know, on Friday. Can the Premier tell this House when his government intends to cease its stonewalling activities and begin to answer questions relating to the matter of political interference from the Premier's office?

[ Page 7380 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Ninety-nine times out of a hundred he's out of order, and I think he is again.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier has now decided to become the Speaker. It was the Premier who campaigned on the promise of open government, and the government hasn't been answering questions around the Knight Street Pub. My question to the Premier is simply this: will he now direct his Minister of Labour to answer the pivotal questions relating to Mr. Doney, Mr. Hick, Mr. Poole and the matter of political interference from the Premier's office?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think part of the question is to do with open government, and I can assure the hon. member — although I don't think I can convince him, because obviously he doesn't hear or listen — that certainly the people know we have the most open government in the history of the province.

We've had the cabinet meet in various communities around the province. We've had the Cabinet Committee on Regional Development meet throughout the province. We've had the social services committee of cabinet meet throughout the province. We've had the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) travel the province with respect to forest policy. We have the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) traveling the province with respect to matters for seniors. We have the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) traveling the province on justice reform. We have the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) telling the people about our great budget. We are the most open government in the history of this province.

[2:30]

MR. SIHOTA: Omitted from the Premier's list are the activities of the Minister of Labour and his inability to answer any questions in this House relating to the matter of political interference from the Premier's office. If the Premier is so proud of that track record, which he has enunciated to the House, is he prepared to continue that tradition and ask the Minister of Labour to answer these questions relating to political interference from the Premier's office?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: For the record, the Minister of Labour took those questions on notice, and I will remind him of that.

NEW WESTMINSTER POOL INCIDENT

HON. MR. DUECK: I was asked a question in the House a number of days ago that I took on notice. It was regarding a patient from the Forensic Psychiatric Institute who had been permitted to visit the Canada Games pool in New Westminster on Saturday, June 3, with no visible escort.

I am not going to respond in full in the House at this particular time. I've given a full written report to the opposition House Leader to protect the confidentiality of the people involved. I would like to say that every one of those prisoners was escorted and their behaviour at no time, in this particular group, was inappropriate or problematic. Other than that, the House Leader has the information, and I hope he's satisfied with it.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM
AND PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

On vote 70: minister's office, $260,357.

HON. MR. REID: It's my pleasure to introduce the estimates for my ministry for the fiscal year 1989-90, with two sets of responsibilities: Tourism, and matters related to the role of the Provincial Secretary.

The first is one of the healthiest, fastest-growing economic generators in the province today. The other, the Provincial Secretary, has a twofold function. It provides essential support structures for the administration of government, and it manages the community-based public programs such as lottery grants, multiculturalism and the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. I won't go into great detail about these responsibilities, but I want to review some of the accomplishments in both areas, because people aren't as aware of them as I think they should be.

First of all, tourism. This is a real success story, Mr. Chairman. Last year we generated $3.5 billion in revenue — a 13 percent increase over 1987, which is impressive enough. It is 4.5 percent higher than 1986, tourism's record-breaking year — the year of Expo. There are some other great statistics: 18.7 million visitors in 1988, which is up 12 percent over 1987 and almost equal to the 18.9 million visitors in 1986, Expo year. In 1988 the provincial hotel occupancy rate was 66 percent — the highest it has been since 1981. Our direct overseas visitors were up by over 20 percent; our Japan visitors were up by over 28 percent; United Kingdom visitors were up by over 20 percent and Australia was up by over 15 percent.

There is more good news and more statistics to boast about. British Columbia is now ranked third among all the North American tourism destinations. That's right, we're ahead of the Big Apple — New York — and we are third behind California and Florida with their Disneyland attractions. The estimated impact on the B.C. economy in 1988 from group tours alone is $737 million. The largest number of travelers last year were British Columbians, and they made 10.5 million trips — nearly 25 percent more than in 1987. This reflects the success of our Partners in Tourism program. It's a very strong, effective, innovative marketing of regional products

[ Page 7381 ]

by the private sector, and dollar for dollar is matched by the government.

The 1-800 toll-free tourism information line is another true success story. We had 108,000 calls received by our program — which began in March of 1988 — up to March of this year. Over half of those who called and received information came to British Columbia.

The Provincial Secretary's lottery grants program continues to support a broad range of community programs. In May I tabled the 1987-88 annual report of the lotteries branch with detailed accounts of distribution of lottery revenue. The highlights of this year are that the Health Care Research Foundation budget will be doubled to at least $6 million, and the travel assistance to sports groups, community groups and sports groups in the school system has been doubled. There is $2 million more to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture for recreation, heritage and cultural groups. The budget goes to $25.2 million from $23.2 million.

The major budget item this year also is the $28 million for environmental issues. Go B.C. has $50 million for major capital projects for this year in the communities. Other Provincial Secretary activities are multiculturalism and building a harmonious society, which is one of our greatest challenges. B.C. is committed to a society where differences are respected and traditions cherished.

The government takes an active role, and in 1988 we established the 24-member Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage. It continues to be active in making recommendations, and it ensures that the views of all British Columbians will be heard at the highest level of government input.

We also have the concerns for those with disabilities, and that's one of our other priorities. Last January, the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities was established: 13 members with Rick Hansen as honorary chairman and Robert Sorenson of Victoria as youth adviser. It is a very active and committed group, which gives clear signals of our interest in raising public awareness about the needs of the disabled in our province. What a tribute to have a spokesman such as Rick Hansen, who, as you know, just last week announced the Access Awareness Week across Canada.

Another important Provincial Secretary responsibility is the archives and records service, management division. We recently merged the two branches of archives and records management into one called the B.C. archives and records service. It's much more streamlined and efficient. We are now the leader in Canada in terms of effective management of government records.

In addition to these services, the ministry provides support to both executive and legislative branches of the government, operations and maintenance of the legislative buildings, cabinet offices in Vancouver, Government House and protocol services. As you know, we passed the Provincial Symbols and Honours Act, which establishes the Order of British Columbia and the B.C. Medal of Good Citizenship. It will be administered by protocol, and it gives the province a new sense of identity and recognizes some of our very distinguished citizens.

It is also responsible for the operation of the elections branch and ensuring that the democratic process is applied fairly and equitably. Responsibility for government communications was assigned to my ministry in August 1988. The public affairs bureau, which was formed at that time, is responsible for planning and coordinating information services across the province and across government and for ensuring that government policies and programs are presented in a clear, accurate and consistent manner. The bureau makes sure that all government information and advertising programs meet professional standards and that full value is received for the taxpayers for communications expenditures. The bureau has established professional development programs for information managers, and it works closely with ministries on issues of management strategies. Staff also produce a number of cross-government publications, such as the Provincial Report, the B.C. Update and Quick Facts About British Columbia.

In summary, our ministry is a ministry of diverse activities providing services to the public and stimulating the growth of a dynamic tourism industry. I'm proud to be the minister. I want to thank my staff, who have been very diligent and are a very hardworking and dedicated team.

MR. G. HANSON: Just in the nick of time. I always like to have my research done properly, Mr. Minister.

I'd like to begin by saying how overdue fair election boundaries are in this province. Under this minister, the responsibility for the Election Act, for meeting the concerns of Justice Beverley McLachlin and meeting the concerns of average British Columbians, the citizens who want an opportunity to exercise their franchise in a democratic society....

Beverley McLachlin has indicated that our election boundaries are unconstitutional, that we have inherited this situation where we have dual members, which is an antiquated, outmoded and unconstitutional election situation. Only Prince Edward Island, I believe, still maintains dual-member ridings, and it's a tiny little province where every member can return virtually home from the Legislature in the evening.

I want to just briefly recount a little of the history of this situation and then ask the minister some questions about the process from here on. All members are aware that we had the Eckardt report, the famous Gracie's Finger, boundaries that were drawn to favour one political party, political interference that occurred in the history of this province. That was followed by a Warren commission report, which fell into disrepute because the statistics and the numbers did not hold up under careful scrutiny and were not applied fairly between all the different ridings, according to the calculation. Subsequent to that and prior to the last provincial election, 12 additional members received dual membership. That was a very

[ Page 7382 ]

unfair situation, where 11 of the government's ridings received extra members and one of the opposition side, to bring the dual-member ridings up to 17 in number for the province. That's just a little recent history.

Then we had the 1986 election fought on those boundaries, a very close contest with very few percentage points difference between the government in power and the opposition. Those additional 12 seats serve this present government very well in terms of those numbers.

Shortly after election night, the Premier of the province indicated that electoral reform was long overdue in the province of British Columbia, and that an independent commission would be established to redraw the electoral boundaries to be fair and just for the citizens of this province. Judge Thomas Fisher was appointed. He established an office and staff Terms of reference were developed. Justice Fisher prepared an interim report based on an extensive network of hearings throughout the province. I believe the total hearing-process report accumulated something in the order of in excess of two million words of testimony. There were about 1,500 submissions from individuals, MLAs, former MLAs, interested parties, academics, etc., concerned about fair election practices in the province of British Columbia justice Fisher produced his interim report, but prior to that he asked that the government expand his mandate, because it was clear to him that simply by dividing the dual-member ridings, it exacerbated the situation and made the electoral process in the province even more unfair than he had possibly imagined. He asked the government to expand the mandate so that he could alter the boundaries, that he could examine all boundaries, and come up with a fair map.

[2:45]

Justice Fisher suggested 75 seats and a variance of a norm not to exceed 25 percent, and that he would then produce a map taking into account community of interest, population, historical factors, transportation and other factors. Justice Fisher held his preliminary hearings, produced his interim report, made it public, advertised it, and made maps available to all members and all citizens. They then went back for a second round of hearings to allow individuals, including MLAs, to make their concerns and views known to Judge Fisher and his staff, and if they had any complaints or difficulties, to make those known to him. Many MLAs appeared before Judge Fisher and his staff and made their views known.

A final report was presented. It went to cabinet and sat there until the House resumed on March 16 of this year. Sometime subsequent to that, it was disclosed to the members of this House. Originally only 22 copies were printed; now there are more available to the public, and so on.

This House referred that matter to a standing committee, where it is presently resting. There was a B.C. Supreme Court decision by Beverley McLachlin, which was appealed, and a decision has come down on that recently. Now all eyes are on this House, and all eyes of fair-minded British Columbians are on this minister, because it is this minister who has the responsibility for fair election practices in the province.

That's a short recap of the various developments that have followed from the Premier's commitment to the people of this province that fair election boundaries would occur and fair election practices would take place prior to the next election. We are only something in the order of halfway through the mandate; plenty of time exists. Requests have been made of staff, and they indicate that boundaries could be redrawn and the apparatus could be in place within six months or less, depending on staffing levels and computer programming, etc.

My first question, given the fact that section 80 votes on election day were taken away....

HON. MR. VEITCH: They were not taken away; they are still there.

MR. G. HANSON: On election day a person cannot register and vote, which is a travesty.

Am I coming close to time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member. The Chair has given you quite some time to make your presentation. I didn't want to interrupt the member until I was sure about what was happening, but I should remind him — and I am sure he knows this full well — that when we discuss estimates, we must not discuss any item that requires legislation. Sir Erskine May makes that very clear. If the member can proceed in such a way that we do not call for legislation, that's perfectly okay.

MR. G. HANSON: We are not calling for legislation, Mr. Chairman. We are calling for action, for fairness from this minister, to provide fair direction to the people of this province.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: That former minister is becoming somewhat mischievous.

The situation I am trying to explain is that the people of this province have spent, give or take, about $2 million on a set of hearings, engaged the best possible minds in academia, the legal counsel of the province and Judge Fisher's attention to this matter. It is clear that we cannot go to the next election. It provides difficulties with the constitutional situation we presently have. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on my comments and indicate what his orientation is with respect to this matter.

HON. MR. REID: First of all, before I respond, I want to make a special welcome to Mrs. Blaine and the Sunnyside Elementary School from my constituency in South Surrey. There are 24 grade 5 students and their parents and teachers with our delegation here today, and they have a special focus on French

[ Page 7383 ]

immersion. I know we just went through a festival for les enfants. I welcome the delegation from my constituency and hope they have a very pleasant day. Would the House make them especially welcome. Bienvenue.

The answer to the member, in relation to electoral reform.... I am having some difficulty in addressing it, in that we have it in front of the Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations Committee, and all those issues are being handled by the committee. I expect to get some kind of report back from the committee to the House before we go into the next stage of recommendations.

I have trouble dealing with it, since it's now in the hands of the committee. I don't want to comment any further and prejudice the activity of the committee.

MR. G. HANSON: Is the minister advising the House that because some of your members disagree with the recommendations made by Judge Fisher, you will be foot-dragging and having the bubble machine going full blast between now and the next election, deliberately trying to take the people of this province into an unfair election that could be ruled null and void? Is that what the Premier is saying? The Premier promised electoral reform and a new set of boundaries prior to the next election. Your members on the committee are foot-dragging to make sure that Judge Fisher's report is not brought into the House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Nobody is dragging their feet. It's go, go, go.

MR. G. HANSON: So what's the problem with electoral reform? It was your promise. You initiated this process.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Get on with the committee.

MR. G. HANSON: Your members have made it clear that there's no way they're going to act on those recommendations.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You're dragging your feet. It's not becoming of you.

MR. G. HANSON: Unbelievable.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier made a commitment to the people of this province. Is the Premier now going to renege on that promise?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Premier has never reneged on a promise in his life.

MR. G. HANSON: Where's the cheaper beer? The list of reneged-on promises is as long as your arm.

It's important that the House understand clearly what this process will be, because clearly your members have indicated they're not going to act. They feel that they themselves should be able to roll up their sleeves and draw boundaries. Is that what you see the process as being: members of this Legislature redrawing boundaries?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I asked that some up-to-date information be brought forward relative to the select standing committee meeting. In case the member is not aware, there's a meeting at 8 a.m. this Thursday, June 15, which is the next stage. I hope you'll be in attendance, Mr. Member, and with the cooperation and unanimity that we expect, we'll get on with some action. The committee has been structured to meet again this Thursday, and that's pretty immediate action, I think.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister tell the House how much it has cost to date for that whole Fisher process — the two sets of hearings that the judge has had? Could he just give us an indication, since we're dealing with his budget, how much money we've now spent on that process?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you against it?

MR. SIHOTA: Are you assuming things?

HON. MR. REID: I'll get that exact answer, and if you ask more questions, I'll make lists of them.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you. It would be most interesting to find out how much we've spent on the Fisher process. It really would be a pity, after the expenditure of public dollars and all those travels up and down the province and the input from citizens' groups, to allow the Fisher report to collect dust.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you saying it's not worth it?

MR. SIHOTA: I don't think the Premier heard the gist of my comments. When you have a process, I think it's important, once people have given their input during the course of that process — unlike Bill 19 — that the government then act on the recommendations of that process.

Could the minister tell us this: what funding is provided in his budget this year to implement new electoral boundaries in British Columbia and to allow us to achieve the commitment that the Premier made to eliminate dual-member ridings? That's a promise that the government made, one which I'm sure, from what the Premier had to say earlier, he will live up to. What allocation is made in this year's budget for the redrawing of electoral boundaries?

HON. MR. REID: It isn't the question we had anticipated, because a separate branch really runs a sort of encompassing cost budget. We don't have a breakdown of any anticipated boundary line adjustment costs and/or enumeration costs, but they are not significant. I will get those numbers; I don't have them right now.

MR. SIHOTA: Is the minister confirming that there's something in his budget this year which would allow us to implement electoral boundary

[ Page 7384 ]

recommendations, or is the budget void of any allocations in that regard?

HON. MR. REID: The electoral branch draws on contingency funds as a result of.... You never know how many by-elections you're going to have; you never know when an election will be called or whether adjustments are required or necessary.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: I know all about the boundaries, but I'm just telling you that the requirement to fund the adjustment in the boundaries is provided by virtue of contingency funds when needed to be drawn upon. It's not something we budget for.

MR. SIHOTA: Going into this budgetary year the minister was aware, I'm sure, that there was a court case wherein there was an application made to declare the boundaries of this province to be unconstitutional. I'm sure the government would not want to have elections called with unconstitutional — or illegal, if one wants to use more lay terms — boundaries. Therefore it seems to me that the government would now be in the process of planning to deal with those illegal boundaries. Could the minister tell what plans his ministry has this year to remedy those illegal boundaries?

[3:00]

I think it's a reasonably put question to the minister and I want to ask him again. It's not a question in terms of legislation; it deals with the administration of his ministry. I'd just like to know what plans are made by his ministry this year...

Let me just recap for a second. The first question I asked the minister was how much we spent on the Fisher report. We're waiting for an answer on that. Secondly, I asked the minister what funding was available in his ministry this year to redraw electoral boundaries — whether the budget is void of any allocation or not. The minister has said that an application could be made to contingencies.

In light of the court decision, which we know the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) has said will not be appealed — and the government, I'm sure, doesn't want to have elections on illegal boundaries — what plans does his ministry have this year to then address that matter?

MR. LOVICK: No answer?

MR. SIHOTA: Just hang on. The minister is not prepared to answer the question. Could he at least indicate to the House why it is that he's hesitant to provide us an answer to this very basic question?

HON. MR. REID: I'm just making a note of them as we go along.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister tell us how much time he needs to get the answers and whether or not we'll have the answers today or tomorrow?

We're sitting tonight till 10 o'clock. His line staff, I guess, are still there until 4:30. Can the minister tell us just when it is that he thinks his staff will be in a position to provide him with answers to these questions?

MR. G. HANSON: Let me just add one specific question, and then perhaps we can hear the response from the minister. The Cariboo by-election surely will not be fought on unconstitutional boundaries. The Election Act gives six months; then 29 days after that. It could be called any time within six months. Your staff is telling you that they could provide all the technical material, maps and so on. Would you tell the House whether the new boundaries will be in place before the Cariboo by-election?

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a matter that involves legislation, hon. members, and the Chair wouldn't want to be forced to rule the debate out of order. Perhaps you could couch your questions in different terms.

MR. SIHOTA: I purposely tried to avoid questions that would speak to legislation, but more in terms of the plan of his ministry in the administration of electoral matters, generally speaking.

We do know that it does take some time for electoral boundaries to be redrafted. Could the minister tell the House whether or not his ministry has taken steps to provide extra funding to the election office to ensure that it has all of the resources available to deal with this constitutional crisis that now faces government in terms of an illegal map? Have you provided extra funds?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: You already have that answer.

MR. SIHOTA: No, I don't, and you didn't listen to the question. These are two different questions.

MR. G. HANSON: Perhaps some specific chronological information might assist the minister. The last day of the election campaign of 1986, Premier Vander Zalm promised that if elected he would do something about electoral boundaries, specifically that he would do away with dual-member ridings. Justice Fisher pointed out to all of us very clearly that just simply dividing the dual-member ridings would not satisfy the constitutional questions that Beverley McLachlin subsequently looked at. On April 8, 1987, Premier Vander Zalm appointed Judge Fisher as head of a commission on electoral boundaries. The mandate was the redrawing of boundaries in order to eliminate the 17 dual-member ridings, and this was approved by order-in-council 87-690.

[Mr. Long in the chair.]

On May 15, 1987, the first public hearing was held. On September 17, 1987, Judge Fisher went back to cabinet and asked that his mandate be expanded so as

[ Page 7385 ]

to include all the ridings in British Columbia, not just the 17 dual-member ridings and those contiguous. The request was granted, and OIC 690 was amended.

On May 27, 1988, justice Fisher's interim report was issued. On June 1, 1988, a legislative committee was struck to consider the report. It met once and formed a subcommittee. On August 25, 1988, the subcommittee met. September 15, 1988, was the original deadline for written submissions to the Fisher commission. The deadline was requested to be extended until October 17 in order that all members of the House would have an opportunity, through the chairman, the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), who would then forward any MLAs' concerns off to Judge Fisher.

On December 20, 1988, the final report was submitted to cabinet. The report was tabled early in the session of the Legislature. Beverley Malachi’s decision of April 17, 1989, rules that the boundaries of British Columbia are unconstitutional. And on May 18, 1989, justice Meredith heard an order requiring the Legislature to adopt the Fisher report; order denied.

That's the chronological sequence that might assist the minister in refreshing his mind with respect to the course of action that may be taken with regard to this important matter.

Has money been allocated for the Quesnel by-election? Has it been called from contingency funds for preparation for the Cariboo by-election, I should say?

HON. MR. REID: The first answer is that the Cariboo is being currently enumerated, like the rest of the province. Secondly, I'm having some difficulty Mr. Chairman, dealing with this question in that it's within the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations, and they meet this Thursday at 8 o'clock. If the members are interested in the elections branch budget number for 1989-90, it is $2, 775, 256. That's the budget allocation for the elections branch, and no funds are provided in the elections branch for enumerations, by-elections, general elections or boundary revisions. The Election Act provides that whatever is needed will come from the consolidated fund. It's not a separate provision within the estimates.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: No. Whatever is spent is covered. It's not a separate request. It's not something that is in my budget allocations. It's under legislation

MR. SIHOTA: Putting aside the matter of requests for money... Oh, Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to see you in the chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: He just flew in.

MR. SIHOTA: Yes. You just flew into your chair.

Perhaps the minister could answer this question then. Putting aside the matter of money, generally, in light of the court case, which has declared our boundaries to be illegal, unconstitutional, could the minister tell us what plans his ministry has made to deal with this "constitutional crisis"?

Am I to assume from the minister's silence that, apart from the legislative committee, no plans have been made by his ministry to attend to the problems caused by the decision of the courts? Is that correct, Mr. Minister?

I don't understand why the minister is silent on this matter. As Provincial Secretary, he has the responsibility for elections in British Columbia. We've had the courts come down with a decision rendering those boundaries to be null. It would seem to me that the province would begin immediately to. develop some contingency plans to deal with what the courts have now ruled to be illegal.

There's a problem here, Mr. Minister, which I'm sure you understand: those boundaries are unconstitutional, and you've got to deal with that problem. All we're trying to determine is how you intend to exercise your obligation in that regard as a minister of the Crown. So what do you intend to do, in light of the finding of the court, Mr. Minister, as per your responsibilities in charge of elections in British Columbia?

HON. MR. REID: I'm having a lot of difficulty dealing with this question, and it's not because I can't answer it. At the suggestion of the member for Victoria, we have set up a Labour, justice and Intergovernmental Relations Committee to deal with the question of electoral boundaries, and I do not intend to stand in this House and prejudice the position of that committee. They're meeting this Thursday at 8 a.m., and I intend to wait until that bipartisan committee meets and reports to this House and, ultimately, to the minister responsible for implementing whatever recommendations they have. I do not intend to stand in this House and prejudice the position of the committee. I will not do it.

MR. SIHOTA: My question to the minister was: apart from the deliberations of the committee, what general plans does the government, through his ministry, have to deal with this problem? The committee may be meeting for a long time or it may be meeting for a short time. The government may, whenever it wishes — preferably sooner than later — call an election. The report of the committee may not be in by then. The House may adjourn, and the committee may not be given authority to sit during the summer. Those are all speculative things. What is certain is that the minister, at the end of the day, has a responsibility to deal with the issue. He's got to have a plan apart from just allowing this committee to go on.

Let me ask you this. Has your ministry, as the ministry in charge of elections in British Columbia, internally, for the guidance of the committee — which I happen to sit on — determined an internal timetable as to when you would like to hear back from the committee? What are the internal time-frames your ministry is looking at in terms of addressing this

[ Page 7386 ]

issue and having it attended to? Surely you don't want to give an unlimited time. What period have you, as a ministry, chosen to allow before you act?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: In the original decision of Madam justice McLachlin the court asks the government to articulate what would be a reasonable period for the government to respond to the provision of new boundaries in British Columbia. Surely the industry must have given some thought to that, and I'm wondering what the minister would view as a reasonable time for it to get its act together. Or is it the opposite, Mr. Minister — that you would prefer that the next election occur on these illegal and unconstitutional boundary lines? Is that your preference?

HON. MR. REID: I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not have the opportunity of prejudicing the position of the committee. Nor do I want to go against the recommendations of Judge Meredith, who just last week indicated that this supreme group, this legislative authority, has the right over all those decisions. For me to stand in my place and decide for you.... If you want me to make the decision on behalf of the committee because you sit on it, Mr. Member, I'm prepared to do that, but I'm not going to do it, because we have set up a committee to get a unanimous decision. We've set up a committee to handle that through the legislative process, and I do not intend to stand in this place and prejudice that position.

[3:15]

MR. SIHOTA: There are a number of variables at play here that must be operating in the minister's mind. The minister says that the courts, through Mr. Justice Meredith, have said that it's up to the Legislature to make this determination. The buck stops at the minister, because he's the one who's got to make the determination. Surely he's got to have some timetable within his own ministry ordered to deal with this issue. That doesn't touch upon the committee. I'd like to know from the minister what timetable the government has.

HON. MR. REID: You'd be interested to know that my staff is diligently listening to all these questions and concerns, and I've been advised that the time-line graph outlining the implementation of the redistribution was submitted to and filed with the Labour and Justice Committee on May 30, 1989.

MR. SIHOTA: I understand that. That's the time period it would take from the time a decision is made to its ultimate implementation. In other words, that time-line starts to tick once a decision is made as to what those boundaries are going to be. As a member of that committee, I want to know what the government's wish is in term of how soon you would like the committee to deal with it, and what timetable you have set up internally.

Let me put it to the minister in this context. The terms of reference for the committee say that it has to be unanimous. The committee report may not come out unanimous. Your members may vote against what I and my colleagues vote for.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Hang on. We've made our position very clear, Mr. Minister. From our point of view you could have a map tomorrow. You've had the map sitting on your desk for quite some time since Judge Fisher delivered it to you. We'd be quite happy to proceed from that point on. It seems to me, quite frankly, that your members are the ones who have the difficulty. What internal timetable have you set for your own ministry before that timetable that you referred to in your question starts to tick?

MR. G. HANSON: Let's take the comments just made by the minister. Your staff did make a submission, but through cross-examination it was revealed that a simple alteration in the form of the maps would reduce the suggested time by a third. That was gleaned in one small meeting. It went from nine months to six months based on whether a short version of the maps was required versus the long version.

It's clear that the election machinery in this province — the way you and your predecessors have established it — has deliberately arranged to make it very difficult to make changes unless you put the resources there. No? I'm pleased to hear that. How quickly could you do the job if you really wanted to do it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Government House Leader. Opposition.... Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. ROSE: I think you were right the first time. It's like the minister calling me the senior member. Unfortunately, senior and senile have the same word root.

I'm smiling, but I'm not particularly happy. I wrote Mr. Goldberg recently and asked him a number of questions, one of which was whether we could anticipate any changes from the current boundaries to recognize the growth that has taken place in these ridings — especially mine — since the last election.

I'd like to remind the minister that my riding is one of those dedicated suburban. It is currently the largest provincial riding in B.C. In 1985, it represented 62,000 souls. I guess it might have even doubled, but perhaps not. Certainly it's gone up the required 60 percent. I would have little difficulty in assuming that. I don't have any records.

Previous to the redistribution there were certain ridings — such as Richmond and Surrey, but especially Richmond — that, I think, needed a two-member riding. At that time the riding represented by the

[ Page 7387 ]

then Minister of Health, Mr. Nielsen, deserved it. We don't have any quarrel with that at all.

I was interested, because I think — I'm sorry to impute motives — there's a little stall going on here. I know the minister is shocked and dismayed when he hears me say that. If I were in the government's position, I would not be that excited about proceeding into redistribution along the Fisher lines. I'm sorry that I have to be cynical and skeptical and maybe even suspicious that the government's intentions are not to move with the greatest speed ever known to man or beast.

The point is, though, that I wanted to ask Mr. Goldberg, the chief electoral officer, if there was any possibility of updating the existing boundaries, because I had a sneaking suspicion that the government would prefer to go on these existing boundaries, because 11 out of the 12 favoured the government party the last time. We were very critical of that. He wrote me back and said: "No, we couldn't do that." We couldn't even recognize this growth because these boundaries had to be in for six years or two elections. I hope I am quoting him correctly. I don't have the letter before me. I looked for it earlier and couldn't find it.

That's the problem we have. Take the riding of Central Fraser Valley. It has 160 square miles. The size of the riding that I represent is 432 square miles. Yet I'm allowed only one member, and Central Fraser Valley, which is easy to get around — mine has a lot of rocks and Christmas trees — is 160 square miles opposed to 432 square miles. I've got — or did have — 42,000 voters, and the base of 38,000 gave Central Fraser Valley two members. In my riding we have one. I can understand that it's a downtown riding and only a few square blocks, but this is just one example I think the Okanagan would be a similar situation, and it probably exists elsewhere. I'm not talking about Surrey, because you've got your three ridings. I think we could qualify for that, and we did under Fisher.

I really want to ask the minister what his intentions are here in terms of getting out what I feel is a very gerrymandered McAdam commission report Sure, Fisher was supposed to address these matters But if we're going to have the same boundaries in the next election, it seems to me to be grossly unfair. I know that a minister who represents a government is always exceedingly fair about these matters, and would ask whether he could enlighten us and perhaps give some of us some encouragement along these lines.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I didn't know that senior and senile were grouped together that closely, but I know that "senior" certainly represents grey hair.

The meeting of the committee this Thursday at 8 o'clock in the Douglas Fir Room would, I hope, finalize the whole question, and we'd get a report early next week.

MR. ROSE: I want to ask the minister, who was reluctant a while ago to intrude in any way on the work of the committee, if he feels that the committee will report; that this will be its last meeting and it is prepared to report. We have heard some interesting stories about it traveling the province and getting the views of constituents. After Fisher has done it twice, at a cost of a million dollars.... If there is ever a case of redundancy, I think that must be it. Does the minister anticipate the report from the committee after they meet next week?

HON. MR. REID: If I had been around as long as that member, Mr. Chairman, I'd probably have answers to those kinds of questions. I don't know what the committee's going to do. It was demanded earlier today by members from the other side of the House who sit on the committee that some action be brought forward and that we get on with it. I hope that this Legislature can deal with the subject very shortly. I don't have any control over that committee; you should know that, Mr. Member.

MR. ROSE: If he feels that there is undue lethargy at work, the minister can indicate that by his impatience. We get the distinct feeling that the committee is really in no hurry to act, and I hope we're wrong about that. The government — at least the Premier — seemed to be very embarrassed by any suggestion that last time somehow they stole the election. I don't think there's any question that the Premier would have won the last election anyway without this distortion in the weight of voters, so I just hope they will proceed with it.

As for the business of Meredith, he said he felt it wasn't up to the Legislature to take as much time as possible. All Mr. Meredith said in his judgment was that he felt it wasn't the court's duty to impose a time-limit; it was the Legislature's duty to impose the time-limit. I think justice McLachlin's report was scathing about its relationship to the original McAdam commission. I just think that the whole thing on the McAdam commission has to do with his definition.... I think it was scandalous, personally. It's almost like Louisiana North.

MR. CHALMERS: I wasn't intending to get involved in this debate today, but the comments from the members opposite suggesting that the committee has been stalling must not go unchallenged.

At our first meeting, when this was turned over to the committee I we established a subcommittee; on that subcommittee is one of the members of the opposition. We sat down in the Clerk's office and determined what the agenda was going to be for meetings so we could get to the point of dealing with the Fisher report. As you well know, we had two other rather important items of business on the agenda, one being the review of the Builders Lien Act and the other the review of the judges' salaries. We have dealt with those items. Since that time, we have had meetings at least once a week, and in some cases twice a week, with odd exceptions.

[ Page 7388 ]

The last meeting that was held was to review the work that had to be done by the chief electoral officer to have the mechanics put in place. Because of questions from members of the opposition that needed answering, another meeting was scheduled for Thursday of this week.

What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell is that there has been absolutely no stalling on the part of the government members of that committee since that time. I would also suggest that the work of the committee might go much more smoothly if members of the opposition would not only attend the meetings on time but would stay until the end of the meeting so the work could be completed.

MR. G. HANSON: This government can hide behind the rules of the House — and I have respect for the rules of this House — but under the discussion of this minister's office expenditures, this is the time of reckoning for him to discuss with the people of the province what his views are on this very important matter.

You know, Mr. Chairman, it was a long time between sessions. We went something in the order of nine months, and I think the minister should answer the questions put forward by this side of the House He should give us his views on what democratic fairness is. Every day in the news we read about parts of this globe that take the struggle for democracy very seriously. Yet here, the foundation of democracy — that is, the right to exercise one's franchise to get on the voters' list and an easy way to stay on that list, to have the right to vote, to have the vote weighted in a fair and equitable way with other votes.... That is not the case In the province of British Columbia.

We have antiquated election machinery in this province; we have rules that deny people the right to register and vote on voting day. We have a decision from a former justice of the Supreme Court of B.C. Indicating that the boundaries are unfair, unconstitutional and Illegal. Yet we get sort of a bubble machine response from this minister.

[3:30]

You have an obligation to tell the people who pay the freight, who paid the bills on the Fisher commission, who went to the hearings in good faith and who want a fair and just system in this province.... This isn't the only inequity in this system. We deny the right to vote to 18-year-olds, and we don't have an enumeration after the writ is dropped. There are so many Inequities in our system.

The democratic process is a fragile one, and here in our province — of all places — it's a travesty. We are asking simply that this minister and this government live up to what the Premier said on the day before the election: reform was coming, and the dual-member seats would change. They would be done away with. It's not fair to the people of electoral districts to have a whole series of by-elections on unfair boundaries.

My colleague the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and I are asking what your plans are to update the machinery so all the election apparatus can be done. When the federal writ is dropped, there is a full enumeration. Yes, it's a longer campaign; it's 58 or 55 days, or whatever it is. But there are over three million square miles, and there is a full enumeration carried out. The plans are in place. This is the age of the computer, when information can be stored and manipulated.

All we ask is that people have a fair chance to vote in a fair weighted vote, so that their vote is equal to others. But if you go ahead on the Cariboo by-election on the old unconstitutional boundaries, you are not treating the people in that riding fairly. It's also contemptuous of the spirit of the judgment of Beverley McLachlin and the judgments that have been made subsequent to it.

We are asking for your views on electoral fairness. You are the minister in charge. The money has been spent; the people have paid for it, and now they want action. We need to know your views, and how quickly it can be brought into place. As I have already indicated to you, your staff said that a simple matter of adjusting the type of map would cut the time by a third. There must be other technical features of that system which can also be altered and additional programming people to prepare the program in anticipation of new boundaries and to make sure that there are sufficient map-makers to do the job properly.

It's done in other jurisdictions. What's the magic in it? How come it's so impossible here in the province of British Columbia? Or is it simply because the political will isn't there to do it?

MR. SIHOTA: First of all, I just want to say to the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) that he made some good points in what he had to say. Yes, the committee has been working, but it has some limitations. The committee has very defined terms of reference. The terms of reference of the ministry that this minister is responsible for have a broader mandate, and obviously it has to take a broader look at the issue.

The committee is, quite frankly, very focused in the work that it has to do. That's why we are asking these questions of the minister. I don't think the comments that he makes will prejudice the work of the committee. I think it's fair to say that other ministers have been known to talk about issues while they are before a committee and not impact on the work of the committee. In some ways the comments of the minister would be welcome with respect to what the committee is doing.

I have a concern that it's not so much that the committee is stalling, but that the government wishes that the whole matter be stalled for as long as it can. That's why we are trying to ascertain what the ministry has planned, if this thing goes on and on. I asked the minister a few minutes ago whether he would prefer that elections in the next go-around here in British Columbia be called on these illegal and unconstitutional boundaries. Is that the minister's preference? That's my first question. I will sit

[ Page 7389 ]

down, and then I have a second, immediate question after that.

HON. MR. REID: I am having great difficulty dealing with the way the questions are being put, because I think they lead to the question of legislation and to a position of prejudicing the committee, which I have said earlier I will not do. But while I'm on my feet, I promised the members on the other side to provide the costs of the Fisher report as soon as I could acquire them. The cost of the Fisher report for 1987-88 was $753,479 and in 1988-89, it was $600,123 — for a total of $1,353,602.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to bring to the members' attention, as the minister has said, that only the administrative action of a department is open to debate. The necessity of and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

MR. SIHOTA: I thank you for that, Mr. Chairman When I started to ask these questions, I purposely pointed out to the Chair the context in which they were administrative, in asking about the plans of the ministry and the funding that the ministry has provided. The matter of legislation is an ancillary matter. Once a determination is made by the minister, legislation flows from that. But we're not asking for legislation; we just want to know what plans he's making, what funds have been put at the disposal of the elections branch to deal with this issue and how they're going to spend them.

Obviously this matter has been discussed in caucus and in cabinet. I don't want the minister to break his oath and tell us what occurred in cabinet, and I'm sure the minister would not. But I want to ask the minister this. Is it not true, Mr. Minister, that as a consequence of those discussions — be they in caucus or in cabinet — your ministry or you, through the funding priorities exemplified through your ministry, have come to the decision that you do not want to implement the recommendations of the Fisher commission?

In a courtroom, silence can sometimes be a shield, and sometimes it can be an admission.

HON. MR. REID: It's not a courtroom; these are estimates, my friend.

MR. SIHOTA: These are estimates, and it's not a courtroom. I'm sure, therefore, the minister would like to confirm one way or the other as to what is happening. I'm sure he would not prefer to use silence as either one of those two devices.

The question to the minister again: is it not true that really, as a consequence of the discussions I alluded to, the government has concluded that it does not wish to implement the recommendations of the Fisher report? Is that not what's at issue here? Is that not the truth?

I'll try again. Mr. Chairman, if the minister says.... Let's give the minister the benefit — as we should — of the doubt. Let's assume that is not the truth. Then could he tell us why his ministry is not prepared to implement the Fisher report?

HON. MR. REID: I will continue to repeat: the Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations Committee sits this Thursday at 8 a.m. The report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries is in front of that committee. That committee will report back to this House before there is any discussion in this House about any further action on electoral boundaries across the province of British Columbia.

MR. ROSE: It's very difficult in estimates lately. I don't know that the questions are any worse, but it seems that there's almost a plan on the government benches or the cabinet benches not to answer questions. I don't know whether.... It's the Stonewall Jackson approach.

Here's a little problem that the opposition has with several ministries, including the Ministry of Labour. I've forgotten who it was the other day. Oh, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) — he just sat there in stony silence. We don't get answers to our questions, so we're asked to repeat them. There's no response from the minister; then we're accused a little while later of being tedious and repetitious. So it's a bit like catch-22. We're not getting the answers to the questions we need and at the risk of being ruled out of order.... So I guess the word has gone out that if you stall long enough, you don't have to answer anything on your estimates. There's been a very good tradition....

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) certainly does not fall into that definition. She's most open and candid.

MR. LOVICK: Garrulous, almost.

MR. ROSE: Well, loquacious, if not garrulous. So she answers all questions, and on the questions that she doesn't answer, she sends us little billets-doux outlining the answers in great detail, even if they cost $20,000 to prepare.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

So we're not painting her with the same brush as we are some of these other people whom, perhaps if I were less a gentleman, I would accuse of dumb insolence — dumb not in the sense of being without intelligence, but without voice. So the question is.... Let's assume the committee reports. The minister just told us they're going to meet on — what is it? — Thursday morning. They come together with a recommendation. Can we anticipate that the committee's recommendations will be followed — even though Fisher's were not — and that there might be some time when we could have a ballpark estimate of when we're likely to get some legislation to get rid of this gerrymandered mess that has been trounced right up to the highest court in the land?

[ Page 7390 ]

HON. MR. REID: The question just broached by the member is future policy, and it will certainly be a policy that we'll deal with once the committee reports back.

MR. KEMPF: I'll try to assist the minister a bit and change the direction of this debate to the tourism side of his portfolio. I don't wish to prolong these estimates either, but I want to pursue a question of a great deal of concern to, I would suggest, almost the northern two-thirds of British Columbia and all the small business people there. It is a question with respect to the tourism zones as they now stand and what the minister and the government may be intending to do as far as the changing or realignment of the zones is concerned.

Just to bring the minister up to speed, I have a number of letters before me from chambers of commerce, municipal governments, regional district governments and simply concerned citizens throughout the north and north central part of British Columbia with respect to a rumour that tourism zones may be realigned to have them conform to the regionalization scheme — i.e., to the boundaries of the ministers of state — presently in place in the province. My question is fairly simple, and we can get this off the slate very quickly simply by a yes or no answer from the minister. Is it the intent of the minister and this government to realign the tourism zones in British Columbia to conform with ministry-of-state boundaries?

[3:45]

HON. MR. REID: It would probably be a simple question to answer yes or no to, but it's not quite as simple as that, because the current regional associations are working together with the network council across the province in looking at the alignment of the current tourism regions along with the alignments within the eight economic regions. They will make some recommendations back to my staff on how to make a more equitable alignment which serves the tourism industry in the province as a whole.

MR. KEMPF: I'm not talking about the recommendations or concerns of any politically appointed group in this province; I'm talking about the concerns of the people out there who make their livelihood from tourism. I accept that tourism is a very essential part of the fabric of British Columbia today. In fact, if we keep cutting our forests the way we are, it will probably very soon be our primary industry — that is, if we have any of British Columbia left for tourists to come and enjoy looking at.

However, there is a real concern out there, regardless of any committees — and we've committed ourselves to death in British Columbia with this regionalization scheme.

MR. R. FRASER: That's what they want over there.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Member, if you want to talk in these estimates, why don't you get on your feet and do so like everybody else who's interested in pursuing matters of great concern to the people in the areas we represent. I'm talking about small businesses throughout two-thirds of British Columbia who are very concerned about the dismantling of North-By Northwest, a tourism association which has been worked on for some 15 years. I want to know, here in these estimates.... I'm going to get a yes or no answer before I'm through, and I don't want to hear from any committees that have been politically appointed by government. I want to hear from the minister with respect to whether the government intends to realign the tourism boundaries in British Columbia to adhere to the convoluted regionalization system that we have under this administration. I think the people who live in north and north central British Columbia and who make their living there have a right to know whether their tourism boundaries are going to be lumped in with Vancouver Island. Port Hardy and Vancouver Island and Terrace and Prince Rupert have a whole lot in common.

I want to know whether that lumping is going to take place. I want to know whether the work of 15 years by a very dedicated group of British Columbians is going to go down the tube because of regionalization, following in the footsteps of what happened to the Northern Development Council. We have a right in northern British Columbia to know, before it's done, what the government intends to do. I ask again: does the minister intend to realign the tourism boundaries of British Columbia to conform with the ministry-of-state boundaries?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, the member doesn't have to raise his voice about this subject as if this minister didn't care about the small tourism entrepreneur in North-By-Northwest and the Peace River area, in High Country and the Rocky Mountains. Nobody works harder for the tourism industry in this province than I do. Nobody has more concern about input from the small operator than I do. Nobody cares more about making certain that when we do make changes — and we're going to make changes daily across this province — we get input from communities, from operators across the whole province, about how better to serve their community We accept recommendations on an ongoing basis from a committee of our government, the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council, which represents the whole spectrum of the province, plus every small operator. But when there are inequities in the system which must be looked at, this minister will continue to review them.

MR. KEMPF: I'm sorry that the minister is a little touchy I'll lower my voice a few octaves so that it doesn't get so much on his nerves. But that won't change my question, and the response I just got does not answer that question.

I guess another question that I have of the minister is this: if it isn't broken, why fix it? Fifteen years of hard work by dedicated British Columbians has gone into North-By-Northwest. Any tinkering with the

[ Page 7391 ]

present system will wipe out the work of that association, most of it done on their own by interested individuals in many small communities throughout the north giving freely of their time to set up one of the best tourism associations in North America. You're telling me here today that some politically appointed group is going to make decisions which could tear down the 15 years of work by those individuals simply because a government has it in their head.... Or perhaps it's not a government; perhaps it's just one individual who has it in his head that everything has to conform to his outlook for British Columbia.

As northerners who give up our natural resources to fuel the economy of this province, we have a right to know what's going to be done before it happens. We've seen what regionalization did to the Northern Development Council. We saw those 15 years of work go down the tube. Are we to see the same thing happen with North-By-Northwest simply because we cut this province into a number of pieces of pie, to conform with somebody's warped idea of regionalization? I think not.

This may not be an item which will shake the foundations of government, but it will certainly add to it. You have not seen anything until you raise the wrath of the small business people. I campaigned for your government on a platform of wanting more assistance and less government intervention for the small business man in this province. We in the north have seen nothing but the opposite.

You turn your head, Mr. Minister, but I can give you example upon example. You want to start listening. You want to recognize what the policies of your present Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) have done to small business in that area. I know that's out of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for recognizing the fact that it's out of order. I appreciate that.

MR. KEMPF: I'll get back to tourism, but we were talking about small business. If the Minister of Tourism wants to know what this government's policy has done to small business, I'll give him all kinds of examples. You're not going to do it with respect to an organization that has set up one of the best tourism situations in North America, merely because you want everything.... Perhaps not you, and I'm sorry if I'm levelling these accusations at you when I shouldn't. But somebody has decided that regionalization is the only thing that's good for British Columbians. Mr. Minister, the change in our tourism boundaries and zones to conform with ministry-of-state boundaries is not good for British Columbians, for northern British Columbians, and we'll not stand idly by while it happens again.

I ask the question: is it the intent of this ministry to change the tourism boundaries to conform to the ministry-of-state boundaries?

This is beginning to look like question period revisited. As soon as you ask a difficult question of this government, one which deserves an answer, you get stonewalled. It's very simple, Mr. Chairman, and then we can get on. I'll leave the chamber, and I'll quit shouting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, we're going to have ample opportunity in this committee — and I'm personally going to look forward to it — to canvass most of the subjects with the appropriate minister. I'm sure many members are waiting with bated breath until that time comes.

However, for this particular ministry, if we can just confine our remarks to that portion which is relevant to this ministry.... Your discussion pertaining to whether or not tourism gets rolled into regional development is in order, but I'm sure the whole subject of regional development will be canvassed again; and if not by you, by others.

MR. KEMPF: Again and again and again, until probably September or October. I'm canvassing now the concern and anxiety of small businesses throughout the northern two-thirds of this province with respect to the possible changes in the B.C. tourism zones as they now stand.

[4:00]

All I want is a simple yes-or-no answer, and then we can get on with it. Again, I'll leave the chamber, I'll quit shouting, and all will be peaceful again. All I want to know from this minister is: is it his intent — and you won't get away by stonewalling — to change the tourism zones to conform with ministry-of-state boundaries in British Columbia? Simple question.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you, very much, Mr. Minister. I shall....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. First of all, I have to ask the minister to wait to be recognized before responding. I would ask the minister to stand and deliver his answer so that Hansard can record it, and then we'll go on. Could the member for Omineca take his seat.

HON. MR. REID: The answer to the question is yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the House please make welcome the former member for Langley and the former minister of so many things I couldn't go through them all. He's with us in the gallery today. Would you make welcome Bob McClelland. Déjà vu, I'm sure.

MR. KEMPF: I have an answer, and I appreciate it. I can assure you, Mr. Minister, that I will communicate it to all of the people concerned in the northern two-thirds of British Columbia.

MS. PULLINGER: I listened with some interest to the minister's opening remarks and found them full of comments about the industry and how well the

[ Page 7392 ]

industry is doing. It is indeed doing well. There were all sorts of statistics that the minister was telling us about how the industry has been doing. That's good, but it's also not surprising, because the world economy is moving, it's gotten a bit better in the last little while and people are moving around, and we're reaping some of the benefits. I commend the British Columbia tourism industry for what it has done.

I find it interesting that the minister tells all about what the industry is doing, all the statistics, facts and figures, and yet we have heard nothing about what the ministry is doing or not doing. I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that the ministry has been dismantled. I wonder why that's happening. I'm sure that the fact that the ministry has been taken apart, if you like, will be to the detriment of the ministry.

I would like to start by asking a couple of questions about the function of the ministry as it is now. For instance, if I was the manager of a small ski lodge or a small fishing lodge, and I wanted to expand, would I go to the liaison officer for the minister of state, to the development branch of Regional Development, to the recreation branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture, or to the marketing branch of Tourism? Or would I go to all of the above? I wonder if the minister would clarify for me just what I would do in that position.

HON. MR. REID: I'll just make a note.

MS. PULLINGER: Okay, I'll give you another one in the same vein that you can add to that. For instance, if we were going to have an international dance fair, something that was going to continue year after year, which of the ministries would we see? Again, would it be Regional Development, Culture, Municipal Affairs, Tourism — which ministry would it be, Mr. Minister?

You're obviously not going to answer now. Maybe you could tell me what grants there are through those ministries. How would I get funding? How much could I get through the Ministry of Tourism? Could I count on those carrying on year after year? Can you answer that for me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member continues.

MR. LOVICK: Ask him what the ground rules to this are going to be. Do we have to have ten questions first?

MS. PULLINGER: Good question. Are you going to respond to my questions? Am I going to go all afternoon, and then you're going to respond?

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER: Okay, another one along the same vein. I understand that the Ministry of Tourism has lost to the Ministry of International Business its offices in London, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle and so on. With particular reference to the United States market, which is our biggest draw area outside of the province itself, I am interested to know just how this is going to function and how the Ministry of Tourism will deal with their marketing that's happening through International Business. Are there trained personnel at these places in the Ministry of International Business to handle your ministry's delivery of services and the coordination of these international tourism marketing agencies? Are there any services in those offices in the United States and London that are no longer able to offer to potential tourists the kind of services that they had? For instance, how would these things now deal with the selling of convention business? That takes some marketing. Or how about large tour businesses — convincing major tours to come up through British Columbia? Will those things be dealt with through those same offices, and if so, how does your ministry deal with that?

HON. MR. REID: I'll start with the last one first. In relation to the offshore offices, there is a joint sharing of offshore offices between all departments of government. International Business and Immigration runs all international offices as a direct responsibility of that ministry, but my ministry has the expertise, the trained personnel, still in place in all the offshore offices that we had when their administration was handed off to International Business. As a matter of fact, we probably have more flexibility in those offshore offices with our expert trained personnel than we had before, because rather than doing office administration and management, they are now doing tourism marketing, tourism promotion and the tours and activities that our people are the best in the world at — no question about that. We haven't lost any personnel; we have incorporated our offshore operations with International Business to give British Columbia an economic thrust internationally on activities other than tourism, where we already had the exposure.

We had and still have joint offices in urban counties in California, San Francisco, Seattle, and we have offices in London and Dusseldorf, which we share with International Business. There are other new operations opened up under International Business for which my ministry has the opportunity of training the personnel, which we didn't have the luxury of before, with the complexities and assistance that they can have towards the tourism marketing component and tourism in general in those areas. They provide that ongoing information and assistance to package tour groups internationally that we did not have before: training service, questions on personnel, the question about the division between hard development of tourism infrastructure.

My ministry's focus on marketing and the assistance towards a product which has some marketability are in my ministry's mandate, which is to encourage the product, to advise operators on the best methods by which to get the message out and to transmit that message with Partners in Tourism, SuperHost, Info Network, etc. But the actual hard

[ Page 7393 ]

construction development within the areas of the province comes under regional development.

We have a tourism ERDA agreement which continues until March 1990. It is administered by the Ministry of Regional Development with personnel from my ministry who adjudicate the request for development funds as they relate to tourism.

MS. PULLINGER: Am I to understand that given the scenario that I presented you — if I had a ski lodge; obviously it touches all these ministries — would I then have to deal with all those ministries or just with your ministry?

HON. MR. REID: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. If it's hard cement, bricks and mortar, lumber and glass, you would deal in funding — I'm talking about the major capital funding which may be under ERDA funding, federal-provincial sharing or offshore funding. To make the product actually come off the ground, it would come under the Regional Development ministry. My ministry deals with the product having viability, whether it has any future or demand. If there was a demand for the product, my staff would offer continued input to the proponents to give them advice on suggested location, the compatibility of the product for the rest of the infrastructure in the area, and whether in the minds of my staff, who are the professionals, the product is timely, and those kinds of things.

MS. PULLINGER: I would like to move on to tourism marketing in the estimates and just ask a few questions about some of the changes that I see in the ministry budget. For instance, in marketing the operating costs, I see, are up about 40 percent and asset acquisitions are up about 300 percent. Similarly, in "Tourism Product and Services, " asset acquisitions are up by a factor of 14 from $2,500 to $37,000. I wonder if the minister would tell the House why there is the increase in operating cost. What is that? What's being done differently? I wonder if you could explain the enormous increase in both divisions in asset acquisitions?

HON. MR. REID: Without having the breakdown right at my fingertips, I would suggest, for brevity's sake, that the acquisition of computers would be a capital asset, or an acquisition which we would utilize more extensively now than we used to, because we track our clients on a daily basis using the 800 number, using fulfilment pieces. If you are talking about publications and those kinds of things, if we had our druthers, we would double what we currently have available to circulate internationally But there is a limit with the budget I have.

The capital asset that you are talking about, in order to make the ministry more effective — $35,000 and those kinds of numbers — must be something small, computer acquisition or something, I would think.

MS. PULLINGER: I would be interested to know, too, what the professional services, $1.3 million approximately, represents in your budget. That again is a significant increase.

MR. REID: Ask a couple in a row; I will get some advice and some responses to these one at a time.

MS. PULLINGER: Okay. Last year I see that there was a breakdown between the description.... I don't know what it is, because I don't have it in this year's; but 15, and this year it is all under 20, and the amount seems to balance. Is it the same thing, or is that a change? Is this contracted-out services, or what exactly does that represent?

I am also interested to know what the information advertising is, the $5 million. Is that for things like Super, Natural British Columbia? What does that represent as well? What kind of advertising do we have under that one?

A third question is that I would like an explanation of the grants, the $740,000 and the $4,037,000. What does that represent?

HON. MR. REID: The answer to the last one first: the grants portion under my ministry, when it is listed in the grants portion, is the Partners in Tourism money that goes out to the nine regions on a proportion of the private sector purchase. We grant matching money according to a formula and a program.

The other question was about contracted services. We are contracting the service this year for the reopening of the Douglas crossing, which is about $200,000. That would be the major cost in the contracted services.

[4:15]

What was the third? Oh yes. I've just been handed the actual breakdown on the $5,350,500. First of all, 68 percent of that, almost $4 million, goes into the continental United States, to do with television, radio, newspaper, magazines, etc. Eight percent goes into the province of British Columbia, which is half a million dollars; other Canada, $813,000; international marketing, almost $600,000.

It's broken down in the following ways: almost 62 percent of that goes into magazines and publications. Cable television, which is a major market — it's not a large percentage, but it's a major cost to us, and it deals with CNN, which gives us global exposure for Super, Natural British Columbia.... And newspaper publications is 14 percent. Radio is 7.7 percent.

That overall $5.35 million includes publications such as the accommodation guide, which we produce a million of; the travel planner, a million of those; all the road maps which are tourism-related; the freshwater-fishing guide; the salmon-fishing guide; the outdoor recreation guide. Those kinds of publications, of which we have ten to 13 in total, are major publications.

It is because of the success we've had in drawing some of the private sector into some of those publications that we now get a larger volume of production

[ Page 7394 ]

than previously in relation to the taxpayer's dollar. The private sector invests in some of the advertisements in those publications, so we get a wider range. But we also continue to go back to Treasury Board and my colleagues for additional money for marketing. If I had my druthers, this would be double, because there is evidence that for every dollar you spend in marketing, internationally and provincially, you get about seven in return.

I can tell you that my staff works diligently to make certain that every dollar that is allocated gets the biggest bang for the buck and the biggest return for the dollar. I am convinced that, in comparing the kind of money we put into international marketing and our tourism marketing program, we probably are the most successful in the world.

MS. PULLINGER: Given the fact that the vast majority — I think something like 46 percent — of tourists come from British Columbia, I am surprised that the tourism budget is so small for British Columbia. I would be interested to know if the present allocation of funds in terms of geographic advertising is a change from previous allocations. Can the minister answer that?

HON. MR. REID: In simplistic terms, we don't package in the total marketing budget of Partners in Tourism. Partners in Tourism money relates to British Columbia promotions for British Columbia industry and small regional promotions. That $3,350,000 is matched dollar for dollar in the regions.

You asked about allocations for the regions. I'll read you the list. In 1988-89 the Tourism Association of Vancouver Island had $610,600 of our money, and in 1989-90 we're allocating exactly the same amount. The Tourism Association of Southwestern British Columbia had $847,400; this year it's $847,400. Okanagan-Similkameen, $600,000 in 1988-89 and 1989-90. Kootenay Country, $222,000 in 1988-89 and this year. You must know that all of these matching dollars are generated by programs from the local regions. When the project meets the criteria of the Partners in Tourism program, then we agree to match the production money. High Country, $242,000 last year and this year. Cariboo Tourist, $222,000 last year and again this year. North-By-Northwest, $162,000 last year and this year. Peace River-Alaska Highway, $101,000 last year and this year. Rocky Mountain region, which is the one from the Kootenays — you should pay attention to this one — is probably one of the most aggressive tourism regions now as it deals with the Partners in Tourism allocation; last year they received $343,000 matching dollars, and this year they'll receive the same.

MS. PULLINGER: We seem to have moved to Partners in Tourism and the tourism councils. I was asking more specifically about the advertising budget of $5 million for radio, television and brochure advertising, the vast majority of which appears to be going to the United States when in fact our biggest market for tourism is British Columbia and the second largest is Canada generally. The United States is, I believe, the third. Is the allocation of that $5 million changed from last year, or is it the same? If so, why is it disproportionate to where our tourists come from?

HON. MR. REID: I was trying to give you the whole answer. If you only want half an answer, you can have half an answer. Half an answer is that the money we provide for tourism promotion within the marketing budget — described as marketing, period — in British Columbia is not a significant number. The close-in marketing that we do, which we match dollar for dollar, is Partners in Tourism, and that's $3.5 million. Three and a half million dollars is spent on what is called close-in marketing. Regions of British Columbia visiting other regions or the closest state or province to British Columbia is used to bring in that close-in market. That market emanates from British Columbia. We spend $3,350,000 to do that, plus another $500,000 generically for radio.

The publications and maps that are used from region to region are not broken down. Provincial usage of the publications is probably 80 to 20. If you want to divide up the publication costs, provincial use versus external use, you'd probably be surprised to know that three-quarters or more of the money is utilized within the province. We don't have to make a special product for British Columbia. It's generically in among the overall publication budget.

I can tell you that we're doing a very effective job with internal tourism. Every time we get more British Columbians seeing British Columbia we win twice, because we keep the economy at home and we help our home product. It's certainly in my ministry's interest to do the best we can with the dollars expended. It's the collective opinion of my ministry staff — which, as I told you before, are the best in the world — that we're increasing the fastest in both visits and dollars — doing the best we can with the dollars.

If you're being critical of the number of dollars in the provincial budget, I'm saying to you that if you want it broken down into how many travel guides are distributed to each tourism centre across the province, that would probably give you the effective number that you want.

MS. PULLINGER: I was questioning, rather, the amount of advertising money spent in the United States versus in Canada. Can the minister confirm that in spite of the fact that in raw dollars tourism income has risen, our market share has decreased, particularly in the northwestern United States?

HON. MR. REID: I can't confirm that, because it's incorrect. Our market share, in relation to any other province in Canada, has increased in that particular market. The answer to the question of why we concentrate on California, for instance, in the U.S. market, rather than Idaho, Montana and Texas.... We do a limited amount of marketing there, but there are 26 million people in the state of California, which is

[ Page 7395 ]

more than the population of Canada. So it's certainly incumbent upon us to go after that market and see how many of them we can attract to B.C. Those are external dollars. We get a bigger hit for our marketing dollar in California than by spending it in New York, Dallas or wherever. It's our intention to continue to do that: to monitor where our returns are, to find out where the advertising dollar gets the best return and to continue to spend it there.

MS. PULLINGER: It's interesting that you say that our market share isn't down, because that conflicts with information I get from the industry. I'm quite surprised.

I'd like to move on a bit to the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council. I understand that there have been some changes in the council and that there are now 18 members, all of whom are appointed, and that they've been appointed by the ministry. Before that, I would like to ask for a more specific breakdown of the marketing budget. Perhaps you could give me a breakdown of the percentage spent on research, the percentage spent on promotion and special events, and the percentage spent on the marketing budget. While you're doing that, I would also be interested in knowing what the budget is for the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council. Is that funded 100 percent by the ministry?

HON. MR. REID: The last question first: PTAC does not have its own allocated budget. PTAC is made up of volunteer representatives from the eight regions and the industry across the province. We provide them with a meeting-room, tea and cookies, and that kind of thing when they meet. That's twice a year, so it's not a major expense to my ministry. They are volunteer advisers, private sector advisers and regional advisers to the tourism industry.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Chairman, is the minister saying that in fact there are no travel expenses — no expenses other than tea and cookies — provided for PTAC?

HON. MR. REID: No. We do pay travel expenses twice a year for all of the representatives, and we pay, out of an allocation, the room rental. If it's an overnight meeting, I presume we pay for the room. It's not a large item, so we carry it under our general administration budget. The Provincial Tourism Advisory Council operates as an advisory body, and it meets twice a year. It's not something that's been a big burden financially to the ministry.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MS. PULLINGER: I would be interested to know just what that budget is. You must have allocated some kind of funding for it.

Perhaps you can tell me what the tourism industry council of B.C.... What's the entire amount, or what percentage of the budget...? Where does it come in the budget? Under which part — marketing, services or administration? The third question is: what percentage of the funding for those does the government pay?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I'm at a bit of a loss because I'm not sure what she's describing. The Tourism Industry Association of B.C. is not under the umbrella of the ministry. Is that the group you're talking about?

MS. PULLINGER: My understanding from those involved is that each of the nine tourism regions receives some funding from the ministry for the elected tourism body that represents the region. That's the funding that I'm talking about. I believe it's the numbers that you gave me earlier, but I'd like to know where that is and where it comes from.

[4:30]

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I think I know now what the member is alluding to. I don't have the breakdown, but it's around $80,000 per region for administrative costs, plus we provide them with a tiny supplement to pay their Challenge '89 kind of employee in some of those outlying regions. It's around $80,000, give or take a small component depending on the jurisdiction of the office. If you want the exact number, I can certainly get my staff to bring it down, but it's in that neighbourhood.

MS. PULLINGER: I'm interested to know as well how the Tourism Advisory Council works with the tourism industry council of British Columbia. I understand that those are two separate and distinct bodies, the latter being elected by the people in the nine tourism zones and the former being appointed. How do the regional tourism council and the provincial body work together?

HON. MR. REID: I'm trying to be a little generous with the member, knowing that she's fairly new to the portfolio. All these terminologies can be confusing, and I can appreciate that. I think what you're asking is relative to the council of regions. Each of the regions appoints a member, they then meet, and they then appoint a chairman. The chairman from that council of regions is then an automatic member of the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council. They automatically sit; that's a part of the structure. That is at the discretion of the council of regions.

I've just been given the actual number. Our contribution to the nine regions across the province is a total of $740,000. If you divide that by nine, you get a little over $80,000.

MS. PULLINGER: I'd like to ask a few questions about the Tourism Advisory Council. The minister just stated that a person was appointed by the regional tourism associations to be on the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council. Is that correct?

HON. MR. REID: Let me just read the status of the councils, to break it down for you.

[ Page 7396 ]

The membership and the structure of PTAC has been revised to enable the council to more effectively carry out its role as an adviser to government on a broad range of tourism issues. Membership is 16, and a chairman and members are appointed by the minister. The chairman of that council will appoint two other PTAC members to serve with him as executive.

Where have I got the member of the council on here? I'm sorry, it's not in my speaking notes. But in the structure and the mandate, it has the chairman of the council of regions, which is all the regions together.... The chairman is automatically appointed a member of this committee, as the structure is made up.

MS. PULLINGER: What I was interested to know was where the appointment came from, whether from government or from the regions. I understand you to be saying that whoever is the chairperson of the regional groups is automatically on the council. My understanding was that the past chair is on the council, not the present one, so there is some confusion there. Will that change now that the chair has changed?

HON. MR. REID: I'm reacting fast. The council just sat a week ago for the first meeting. It was ironic, but the outgoing chairman of the council of regions sat for one day as chairman of the regions, and he attended the meeting. If he had been confirmed as the chairman of the regions, he would have continued to sit, but I understand they appointed a different chairman. That new chairman will automatically be the sitting person representing that organization on PTAC.

MS. PULLINGER: Thank you for that clarification.

I would like to ask about PTAC. What criteria are used for choosing the members of the council?

HON. MR. REID: The selection committee and the selection group perused previous participants in the council and the eight regions of the province for people with strong knowledge of the regions to be appointed on particular expertise, particularly in the overall tourism industry, if possible, but with some strength towards the region they were representing We also appointed a group of direct representatives who were strong in the industry. For instance, the skiing industry in British Columbia deserves somebody with a lot of knowledge about that industry And we needed somebody who was strong in the small-hotel industry — outside of the regional perspective, they had a provincial perspective. So we looked at experts throughout the whole province that we could call on to advise government and the industry on the best interests and needs of that industry across the province.

MS. PULLINGER: Can the minister tell me how many of the council members are owners or operators of tourism businesses, and also what organized bodies representing the tourist trade are represented on the council? I'd be interested to know the numbers of each, and if there's an overlap, how many people represent both.

Perhaps another question. Why has PTAC been explicitly reorganized on the basis of the eight development regions rather than on the nine established tourism regions which have, of course, a long history of successful marketing of the different tourism corridors?

HON. MR. REID: It may be key to that member's comment that in her last statement as she sat down, when she talked about corridors, she didn't really want to emphasize the strength of the regions as such.

I recently spent three days with North-By-Northwest on a seminar at sea dealing with the North-By Northwest concerns and with the corridor question — because that's all that that whole subject deals with, the corridor; it doesn't deal with the overall perspective of the tourism industry in general. I met with the North-By-Northwest group to talk about the relationship we are now developing with Alaska and the Yukon and tying in the whole northern area of British Columbia in total, without dissecting it in such a way that you create inequities in the areas.

For instance, in that member's riding, as she should know, there's an inequity with the current system of corridors not servicing the regions north of Prince George, I'm sorry to say. The question that keeps coming to me as a minister is when this government and this minister will deal with questions of the inequity of the transient tourist who does not get a chance to be exposed to some of the other regional opportunities across the province rather than by corridor. There's only one corridor in the province where that exists, and it's Highway 16. All the other highway corridors in the province are divided by other regions, and the highways and the corridors service more than one region.

The only one that doesn't, and, of course, the one that has a major selfish concern, is North-By-Northwest, because they represent almost a quarter of the whole province with that region. They start at the Alaska-Yukon border, go south to Prince Rupert, west to the Queen Charlotte Islands, north to Masset and all the way east to the Alberta border. All the other areas which they cross, Cariboo, Peace River North and the Okanagan, do not have an opportunity of servicing that clientele. So there are some strong cases made by those particular regions which the corridor crosses, and we feel, from a ministry point of view, that there is a better and larger opportunity for the whole province to be serviced by every corridor.

If we don't take that attitude, then one day down the line you're going to have to question such things as whether we have a solid corridor which represents the Coquihalla Highway, that goes from one end to the other and doesn't service the other regions. And that's not fair. So it's a case of fairness.

The questions of regional disparity and regional diversion. The current lines in the old haphazard

[ Page 7397 ]

regions are 15 years old, as the other member said. I don't argue with that. But as the minister I have a mandate to be fair and equal to every area of the province for every industry of the province, and to try to do better for the regions that do not have at their fingertips the opportunities for border-crossing access.

If we as a ministry don't look at all the opportunities for all the areas, it's unfair, it's inequitable. It's my conviction, if I can, to try and do that fairly across the province. We're not trying to do it in a dictatorial way. We are asking for input from all the current regions that are out there, and if the current regions want to exist on their own, that's fine, but if they want to exist within the structure called government and they want government assistance and funding, then they have to look at how they fit with the tourism marketing in British Columbia. I find it difficult — if I could elaborate a moment further, so you can understand the complexity of it — to explain to somebody in Dallas, Florida and southern California about an area called High Country. I can sure talk about the Okanagan, the Kootenays and Vancouver Island, but I have trouble putting together a product which has the words "High Country" in it, because you can't find "High Country" in anybody else's map except the Tourism region of High Country.

It's our hope that we can get these people to talk about the global product called British Columbia, in which they have infrastructure combinations and connections. They have something that is compatible, and that is compatible regions. If the Queen Charlottes, Prince Rupert, Terrace, Smithers, Vanderhoof, Skeena and Stewart have compatible products, it's our intention that they work together.

If they're not compatible with the Cariboo as it relates to an overall product, then we should talk about it. It's in the discussion stages right now. With the research my ministry has been able to do, it's without a doubt that we must research and revisit the question of the boundaries. That's why my ministry fortunately has the luxury of going back to our people and saying: "Look, if the lines that are currently existing in some of the regions don't quite fit, for whatever reason, let's make some recommendations back through your people to my staff and to cabinet about some adjustment."

If we're going to adjust them, let's adjust them so they make more economic sense as it relates to our ministry. We may be told at the eleventh hour that we can have all the input we want, but we're not going to change them. I don't believe that. If you talk to the whole industry, you'll find that they're really excited about the opportunity of adjusting the lines. There are a couple of regions that aren't, and that's democracy. It's seven to two at the moment.

We're saying to them: "If you don't agree, take another look at it. If it didn't make sense to you, what will make sense?" If you're going to leave it entirely up to us, we'll come down with a decision. But it's not entirely left up to us. We're asking for some input, and that's ongoing right now.

MS. PULLINGER: I find it interesting that you're asking for some input, yet you said earlier that you had already decided to change to those boundaries. When the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was speaking, you said that you had decided to change to the eight economic zones. It was a very clear response. It's a little bit late to get input at this stage of the game, I would think.

[4:45]

My information from talking to people in the industry is that there are some very definite and specific reasons why those nine tourism regions were formed as they were. For instance, in the southeastern part of the province, the Rocky Mountain area is not all that much different geographically from the Kootenays. However, in the sense of tourism, the Rocky Mountain area has destination resorts, and it caters more to an international market than does the Kootenay country, where the advertising has to put together different facilities and products in that region. They are catering to a very different market in one than the other, and they have to advertise their different products differently to different markets because they get different people using them.

Putting those two together, which will happen if these zones are imposed, will break down something like 25 years of marketing that has gone on there. The division, according to the people there, has been for very good cause. They've obviously found some common reasons to market the way they do. Quite frankly, I have a problem with the ministry imposing what appears to be an arbitrary set of boundaries on some very well-established regions with a historic reason to exist the way they do.

The minister stated that advertising "High Country" didn't have a lot of appeal. Personally, I find that has a whole lot more appeal than "economic region No. 4." High Country would definitely be easier to advertise in that way.

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER: High-handed country.

Similarly, I'm concerned that the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council appears — and correct me if I'm wrong — to lack any representation from that High Country area. Will the minister tell me if that's so? Will he confirm that there is no representation from that area? If not, why not?

You mentioned government funding as well. I would like to know if the consensus among the nine present tourism regions is that they prefer to stay the way they are rather than change to the Social Credit boundaries. Does the minister plan to use government funding to, in essence, force these regions to change to your boundaries? Is that how you intend to make the change, if the consensus is different than what you're saying it might be, if they don't wish to have those eight economic zones?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I thought I made it abundantly clear that we were awaiting response from the council of regions about their suggested

[ Page 7398 ]

boundary alignments. I am troubled when I see the member from Omineca come back in, because he promised that if I gave him an answer, he'd go away and leave me alone. But he's back. I don't have anything to hide from him. In fact, I'd like to take him aside and give him a....

Anyway, the question you want answered is: are the current boundaries of the eight regions firm and solid? The answer as far as I am concerned is no. When I say that it is my intention as minister to bring into focus a regional concept across the province as it relates to tourism and to every other ministry of government, I will do it economically. In other words, my ministry has the money to distribute, and if I have been part of a cabinet and a government which are trying to create economic development and diversification across the whole province fairly and equally, part of that has to do with tourism and the designation of expenditures towards regional development of tourism across the province, which require that regions talk to each other about highway usage, health, social services, tourism, investment and all those kinds of things. They certainly must be talking together with groups from the same area. So we are asking the tourism regions to look at the structure and not be parochial about these suggestions, and come back with recommendations to my staff about the boundary line adjustments.

Ultimately there either have to be nine other regions across the province to match the current nine tourism regions, or in order to make the whole process work most effectively, you have to have adjustments or flexibility in the lines or else make a rigid decision. This minister is not one who changes his mind very often. If I made up my mind using expert advice in relation to the economy and my knowledge of the subject, then the benefit of the overall tourism industry of the province should be to consider the eight current regions, but I am not convinced that the eight current region boundaries are exactly as they may suit our industry.

In saying that, we now have an opportunity to talk about shifting the lines and boundaries somewhat to service the regions. But the regional concept and regional development across the province are realities, and as long as I am a member of this government of today, I will do all I can to make it a reality in the most effective manner I can, as the minister responsible for tourism.

MS. PULLINGER: I still find it very interesting that you've said, in effect, yes. You gave a very clear answer that yes, you intend the change the boundaries, but you're also telling me that no, you don't necessarily intend to change them to the eight economic zones as set out by your government. Is that correct? That's correct.

I find it very interesting that this is coming from the government and has not arisen from the regional tourism associations. Obviously they have worked quite effectively, and I am hearing more opposition than delight out there about the changes. The sense that I am getting is that where they have regionally elected bodies, they are going to have appointed bodies imposed in the form of the Tourism Advisory Council that represents only eight regions and not the nine. There is great concern out there that these nine elected bodies will be overridden by eight zones with government-appointed bodies in charge through the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council. That would seem a very genuine and real concern, given the history of the industry and the fact that the nine zones do have elected bodies.

I think it should be very carefully looked at and certainly not imposed from above. There are reasons for it being the way it is, and I am sure that none of those folks would object to looking at changes, provided that they were made in consultation with what exists now and not simply imposed on them using government funding as a lever to impose the government's will. That is a very real fear of a lot of people out there, and from what you're saying, that is in fact what you intend to do: to use the funding as a means of forcing your structure on what exists. The minister is nodding his head, saying that that's so — another example, perhaps, of open government and democratic process that we've seen so much of. I'd just like to note at this point, too, the alacrity with which the minister can change this particular set of boundaries when, in fact, he seems to be having some terrible difficulty with the electoral boundaries. It's too bad he couldn't change those as readily.

I'd like to ask a couple more questions about the function of the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council. What task forces does the minister anticipate the council will be setting up, and what are the goals of the advisory council? Perhaps you could answer that. I would also like to know what the major contributions of the advisory council have been in relation to advising the minister about tourism activities in the past year. How has that worked?

HON. MR. REID: First of all, the response from the council relative to its subcommittees and what subjects they are going to.... They are at liberty to discuss any issues, but what we will do is set up subcommittees to deal with advanced additional marketing, a higher profile Pacific Rim marketing or advice to my staff about redirecting some of our tourism marketing internationally.

It will be a broader range than the question you continue to bring up, and that's the regions. They are representing all issues, and it's their initiatives which they bring forward. We don't set any predetermined initiatives; it's theirs — whatever initiatives they bring forward for recommendation. It's an advisory council to this government on how to do tourism activities, promotion and marketing even better than we do today.

That's what you want. Experts of the quality we have on the council giving us advice is what open government is all about. In one breath you criticize us as not being open. We go out there and get people from the industry to tell us how to run the ministry's and the government's initiatives around tourism better.

[ Page 7399 ]

If you are prepared to accept open government and democracy, I wish you'd canvass the balance of the regions of the province about the changes in the regional structure. You are parochial in dealing with one region. You are not dealing with the nine. If you will accept the direction in democracy which means the regions make a recommendation to me with a democratic process — the majority vote on how they want the regions to be administered and funded — and I take their advice, surely you are not going to put that at question.

MR. KEMPF: You know, I was going to go away and not say any more on this subject, but I sat quietly and listened intently to the monitor in my office as this question of tourism boundaries was continued in the debate here. It was interesting to listen just now to the minister explaining to the second member for Nanaimo — who makes some very good points — about open government and democracy.

I know I am getting old, and I know my hearing isn't as good as it used to be, but I distinctly heard the minister say to me, in reply to a question that I had put to him at least four or five times, that he has already decided to make those boundary changes. When the minister speaks about democracy, I've got to ask: if he has made that decision, what advice is he seeking of the people of British Columbia through the Tourism Advisory Council now that it is restructured?

If you've made up your mind, Mr. Minister, how can you then say to this House that you are seeking input from the people of British Columbia? You can't have it both ways. You talk about experts. You know what we consider an expert in the north: a fellow who has just got off an aircraft from the south with a briefcase in his hand. That's what we consider experts. We don't need that kind of expertise.

MR. D'ARCY: You don't call them "fellows, " though.

MR. KEMPF: It would be unparliamentary to tell the House what we call them.

Mr. Chairman, the minister can't have it both ways. Has he decided? He seemed to tell me unequivocally that he had.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: No. Just a minute, you'll have your day, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Through the Chair, members.

MR. KEMPF: You'll have your day. Distortion, indeed.

We're in your estimates, Mr. Minister, and you're going to sit here until we're finished.

HON. MR. REID: I'm prepared to sit here until we're finished.

MR. KEMPF: Good, I'm glad to hear that.

I ask again: in view of what the minister said since I last stood here about half an hour ago, has he or has he not decided to change the tourism boundaries — against the will of the people of British Columbia, I might add — to conform to ministry-of-state boundaries, those convoluted boundaries of state ministers that we have acquired in this beautiful province of ours?

[5:00]

Has he decided to do that? If so, what is the Tourism Advisory Council doing seeking the advice of British Columbians out there as to whether the boundaries should be changed or not? You can't have it both ways, Mr. Minister. Either you've decided, or you're going to accept the input. I'm wondering what drummer the minister marches to. Is he really convinced in his own mind that this is the best route to go? Or is he taking that advice not from the people of British Columbia, but from the corner office?

That's the question before us. That's the question that begs answering here. That's the more important question that the people of British Columbia need to hear the answer to. Is the minister convinced that this is the way to go? He talks about marketing. The Ministry of Tourism can market whatever they wish. They don't have to change the tourism boundaries to market something in California that will tell the people down there where the high country is. That can be done irrespective of the boundaries.

I'm not convinced, Mr. Minister, that you're convinced that this is the route to go. Who made this decision? Was it the Tourist Advisory Council? No, I have advice on very good authority that it wasn't them. They weren't even allowed to discuss the matter when they were recently in Victoria. It was brought up on a number of occasions and thrown out, because it wasn't on the agenda, and they weren't allowed to debate or discuss that particular matter.

So what drummer does the minister march to? Who made the decision to change the tourism boundaries to coincide with the ministry-of-state boundaries in British Columbia? Was it made by the minister responsible, or was it made — which is the case in every other ministry — by the corner office?

That's the question that begs answering. That's the question that's on the tips of the tongues of all of my constituents, Mr. Chairman. I think that's very key to the process we're going through here today. This is supposed to be a democratic process. How can you sit there, Mr. Minister, and say the process you're going through is democratic when you've already made the decision? What kind of democracy is that? The same as we saw in Tiananmen Square? That's the question that needs answering. That's the question that British Columbians want the answer to.

You can give me all that gobbledegook about marketing you want. I've been in California too, and I've talked to people down there. I don't go on the government buck either.

Interjection.

[ Page 7400 ]

MR. KEMPF: Yes. You be careful what you say, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. KEMPF: And be careful you say it in this House and not outside that door. I know what you're alluding to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the member to address his remarks to the Chair, and I would ask the other members of this House to wait their turn and address their remarks to the Chair. Would the member please proceed.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you, I shall.

When I was listening quietly and intently to the monitor in my office, I heard another little tidbit that very much interested me. The minister said that the present associations out there don't have to go along with the changes in boundaries. The minister also said that if they don't, they'll be cut off from funding. Or is my hearing a little bad in that area as well, Mr. Chairman? Did I hear that wrong? My way or the highway? Is that what's emanating from that minister over there, Mr. Chairman? Do as you're told, or you won't have any funding for something that's been going on for 15 years and is working. It is actually working.

The problem is that the government has no control over it. The only control they have over North-By Northwest is that they hold the purse-strings. Did the minister tell this House that if they opt out of the boundary changes, and if they want to continue something that's been very advantageous — the minister said it himself a few moments ago — to an area almost half the size of British Columbia.... Is the minister telling this House that if they don't do what he says — or is it what the Premier says from the corner office — they'll be cut off from funding? Is that what the minister is telling this House with respect to boundary changes? I think that not just this House but the people of British Columbia deserve answers to those very important questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member continues.

MR. KEMPF: And the minister sits mum. Let it be read into the record that the minister doesn't want to answer these questions — not from the member for Omineca but through him from the people of British Columbia. I have letter after letter after letter, and I can read them all into the record in the days and weeks ahead, and probably will — not from me but from regional districts, from municipal governments, from chambers of commerce, from small business people, from the very people of British Columbia that this minister says he's seeking input from after he's made a decision,

He sits there mum, not wanting to answer these questions to the people of British Columbia. It's totally unacceptable. We'll stay here till hell freezes over, if necessary, to get those answers for the people of this province.

MS. EDWARDS: I too want to question the minister about his new proposals for regions. As he probably knows, I'm well aware of the arguments of North-By-Northwest for why they want such an odd and huge and octopus-shaped region. I'm well aware, too, that there are other areas where the changes are not popular, certainly not the changes that the ministry has been proposing.

The tourism regions — 15 years in all in my mind from the debate today — have really not been contiguous with anything else any more than any other region in British Columbia was contiguous with anything else; I mean regional districts, health unit districts, school districts. It has all been decided according to different criteria for different regions. That didn't create any worse a problem, it seemed, than the fact that health units were different or that many health units now don't want to go into the regionalization.

MR. KEMPF: We've got our own Noriega.

MS. EDWARDS: I could concede the floor again to the member for Omineca if he'd like to go at it. But I don't think I will right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the member to address the Chair, please.

MS. EDWARDS: If the minister decides to make the tourism regions into eight regions contiguous with the economic zones — or fairly close to contiguous with the eight economic zones, which he claims are now a reality — how then does he expect the councils for each of those regions to have input to his ministry? Does it have anything to do with going through the economic regions that have been established under ministers of state, who now have the right to go out and create 1,857 committees a week if they choose and have even more meetings for each of them, and then have them try and put their proposals forward to the minister? Then is the minister going to say whether or not the other minister can say what he said to say and whether he can have what the other people told him to tell him but not the same route as his own particular council of regions and advisory committees and all of this whole business, which was difficult even within the Ministry of Tourism? I have memories coming back of how difficult it was to keep track of all these proposals as they went climbing the stairs to the minister's office to ask for support and funding. Now we're going to go the other route, and we're going to have this same group of people in regions — different regions than they had before, but nevertheless in regions — and they're going to have to go through the minister of state and then go up the funnel to the top.

Could the minister respond, please, as to how he sees these particular tourism groups working within the economic regions?

[ Page 7401 ]

HON. MR. REID: I just want to respond to a question I took a little earlier on the achievements of PTAC up until recently.

First of all, we brought in, with their advice, the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism, which is very effectively creating a career program and a training program out there. Also, the environmental issues and the multi-use issues and the position this ministry now has on ELUC — thanks to the land use issues position my ministry took, through PTACs recommendations — and the current highway signage upgrading, which is in cooperation with the Highways ministry and was brought to us initially by the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council: those are four initiatives that come to mind in just a short period.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if I might just prompt the minister. I would really be interested in knowing how he sees that extra organizational pattern being imposed on the organizational pattern that already exists within his ministry for tourism groups.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said he was going to take it as notice.

MS. EDWARDS: I didn't understand that the minister wasn't going to answer the question. I think it's a major issue. I think if the minister is going to change the boundaries, which he may.... He said yes, he said maybe, he said who knows; in fact, he says he has advice to do so. If he decides to do so, how then does a volunteer who works very hard as a small business person in a region of this province trying to make a living in the tourism industry also go about getting advice to the minister?

I'm not sure I'm going to be contributing a lot more, except to assure the minister that this is a matter of considerable concern to the people in my area. They take a great deal of interest in how much time it takes to go through how many committees to how many ministers, ending up with a decision being made at the small top of the funnel anyway. There is no real power devolving; it's all going upstairs, where somebody still makes the decision. What you have is a whole bunch of consultation — more consultation than you ever had before — and it's still going to the same single point at the top.

My point is that I want the minister to know that the people in my constituency are extremely concerned about the way the government sees these particular regions working. I would like the minister to respond. If he turns them into eight tourism regions, are the groups from within the area, which currently have a certain degree of elected and local power and do what they want, then going to be expected to work in a different mode? Are they still going to have their regions? Are they going to be funded only if they work through the regional minister of state?

[5:15]

MR. KEMPF: I get the distinct feeling here that we're discussing this particular item in the wrong estimates. Was it this minister who made the decision to change tourism boundaries to conform with ministry-of-state boundaries? Was he in favour of that from the start, or is it an edict that was passed down and that he's now trying to grapple with?

I see a kind of hurt look on the minister's face from time to time.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: If there's not, why don't you come clean, Mr. Minister, and answer the questions? You ask me not to raise my voice, and I won't — if I get answers. If I don't, they'll hear me in Omineca; you can rest assured of that. Yes, I'm back, and I'll continue to come back time after time. It's my place to ask these questions on behalf of those who elect me, because they can't be here themselves. I know this administration would like this place to disappear altogether. Nothing would suit them better. But thank God, it's still a democracy, and there are still elected people sent here by the people of B.C. to ask these very questions.

I ask again: whose decision was it? The minister told this chamber earlier that he has already made the decision. If he was wrong, let him get up and say they haven't made the decision yet, He told the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) that the committee is out there gaining input from the people of B.C. so that they can decide how to change the boundaries. You can't have it both ways. Which is it? Has a decision been made? We will ask these questions over and over. You can call them repetitious if you want, Mr. Chairman. Has the decision been made? Who made the decision? Was it the Minister of Tourism, under whose jurisdiction this question is? Was it someone else somewhere else? Did that edict come down from on high, Mr. Minister? You don't like it, do you? I can tell by your face — I know you. I've known you for a long time. He doesn't like it himself. I've known that for several weeks now, Mr. Minister. You know, never get up in this House and ask questions unless you know the answers.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: That's why I'm on my feet, Mr. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Davis). We haven't come to your estimates yet, and there are a lot of questions that beg answering in that ministry with respect to the people in northern British Columbia.

Let's get back to the questions of the Minister of Tourism. That would make the Chairman very happy; I can see that on his face. Does the minister agree with these changes? Does he agree with the disruption of North-By-Northwest, which has worked very well, which was put there by the people — mostly through volunteerism — 15 years back?

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I know you're listening; go ahead with your gump. I know you're listening with one

[ Page 7402 ]

ear, Mr. Minister. Who made the decision to change these boundaries — if in fact that decision has been made? Has the decision been made or not? Will it be made? If it hasn't, will it be made against the will of the people of British Columbia? We have to get answers to these questions, Mr. Chairman, and we'll stay here until we do.

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order. A dispassionate observer this afternoon might wonder what planet we're on in this committee. I know you have no knowledge of what happens in the House, but earlier the Premier made a renewed commitment during question period to open government. In this committee, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you will recall the minister making a number of recommitments to open government. In the interest of open government, surely some of these questions could be answered.

MS. PULLINGER: just before I proceed, I'd like to point out that there are three questions I feel are very important which have not yet been answered, and I would like an answer to them. First, how many of the council members on the Tourism Advisory Council are owners and/or operators of tourism businesses? Second, what organized bodies representing the tourism trade are now represented on the council? I think those are important questions, and I would like answers to them.

I also note that I found — I believe it was in Hansard — the minister outlining the three phases of the change from nine zones to eight. I would just like to read them into the record and ask the minister what phase he is at right now. Phase I was coordination of the original tourism development, which was to be completed and distributed to the ministers of state by April 1 of this year. Phase 2 is the ministry plan to have tourism reorganized on the basis of the eight states. Phase 3 is that the minister of state, Provincial Secretary and Minister of Tourism and the Ministry of Regional Development are to assemble tourism development strategies based on this.

That looks like a fairly complete set of plans for a ministry that's out there asking the people what they would like. How far have you gone with that strategy, Mr. Minister? Are you just continuing as planned, or are you genuinely planning to get some input from people? I'd like answers to those other questions as well, please.

HON. MR. REID: The answers to the questions are all built around the people on the committee and the council. Every one of these people on this council are in the tourism business. The members are: Mike Davies from Vernon, who's the chairman; Frank Addison, Vancouver; Jean Anderson, Vancouver; Adrian Cownden, Victoria; Maxine Douglas, Telkwa; Mike Duggan, Vernon; Claude Gallinger, Crawford Bay; John Gow, Victoria; Michael Lambert, Vancouver; Brian Minter, Chilliwack; Joanne Monaghan, Kitimat; Frank O'Neill, Richmond; Mike Smith, Invermere; Bob Trail, Dawson.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh yeah.

HON. MR. REID: Is there any question about whether that man has some credibility in tourism? Should I revisit some of these names? You ask for tourism-related people, and that's what these are. Barb Wilson from Wells, Bob Wright from Victoria, and Terry Young from 100 Mile House: all people in the tourism industry.

MS. PULLINGER: That wasn't what I asked. I'll ask it again: how many of the council members are owners and operators of tourism businesses, and what organized bodies representing the tourist trade are now represented on the council? Those are two separate and distinct categories, and I would like to know the answers in a little more understandable form. I have the list in front of me; you don't need to read it again. There is, of course, one difference from the list you read.

The other question I asked that I didn't get a response to is that according to this list there doesn't appear to be anybody from tourism region E, High Country, on this advisory council. Is that a deliberate omission, or is it simply because you've done this without acknowledging what the industry has put together, the democratically elected boards and the regions they have devised? I wonder if the minister would tell me who those people are, what they represent and why there is no one from High Country on that council.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd ask the members to try and direct all remarks to the Chair and keep the temperament of this debate very smooth.

MR. KEMPF: Most definitely, Mr. Chairman. We wouldn't want to do otherwise in this chamber.

The second member for Nanaimo makes a very good point. I think the question begs answering at this point: how were the people on this advisory committee chosen? What are their credentials and how were they chosen, Mr. Minister? Did they have to make application? Were they picked from a list?

My second question. We have an association called North-By-Northwest, and by the minister's own admission it represents practically half the province of British Columbia. Why is there no one on this advisory committee from North-By-Northwest? Did the minister hear the question?

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I'll be happy to repeat it, Mr. Chairman — several times, until the minister gets it. Why, when North-by-Northwest is an organization that has been in effect for over 15 years and represents, as far as tourism is concerned, practically half of the land mass of the province of British Columbia, is there no one on that committee from North-by Northwest? How are these people chosen?

I understand that Maxine Douglas, the former mayor of Telkwa, who tore up her Socred card — and

[ Page 7403 ]

I guess they put her on the committee before they found that out — is on the committee. But she won't be for long, because she doesn't like the dictatorial way in which meetings, such as the one held in Victoria recently, are conducted. She doesn't like those dictator-like ways of running a meeting, and she won't be a member for very long. That's sad, because she is one who has a great deal of experience and a great deal to give to such an advisory council. It's unfortunate, but she doesn't like the Gestapo-like tactics which were carried on at that meeting, and I know all about them.

I repeat the question, in case the minister didn't hear: why is there not a representative on the Tourism Advisory Council, supposedly representing all of British Columbia, from an organization that's been in effect for over 15 years and represents almost half of the province tourist-wise and landmass-wise? Why is there no one on that council from North-by Northwest?

HON. MR. REID: First of all, I'd like to table a document which will answer all the questions of my critic in relation to each of the members, what businesses they are in and what activities they are involved with. That certainly would be available to you.

[5:30]

Interjection,

HON. MR. REID: In answer to the member for Omineca, who is mad because one of his members who used to support him tore up her card because she didn't like her representation.... That's the problem she has. I can tell you that I spoke with the lady. I met her for the first time a week ago, and her name is Maxine Douglas. I can tell you that she left very enthused about the people she was working with, about the overall scope and future of the tourism council. I want to make it abundantly clear — in case you have a pencil out, Mr. Member, write this other name — that Maxine Douglas is from the North-By-Northwest area, and we also have Joanne Monaghan from Kitimat, who is also from the North By-Northwest area. So we have more than a fair representation from the area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, I'd like to advise the members of the House that under standing orders and the rules that we operate under, we are not allowed to table documents in committee. If the minister so wishes, he could either have it delivered to the member or table it in a regular sitting of the House.

MRS. BOONE: I'd like to go a little longer on this The minister keeps saying.... Or the minister doesn't say very much at all; I'm really disappointed. I was looking forward to quite a performance here today, but we're not getting it. The minister has said on a couple of occasions, I guess, that the reorganization is supported. Yet I have written to the minister in response to a letter that I have received from the Yellowhead Highway tourism association expressing concern about the reorganization that's taking place.

We have some very good organizations. We've had organizations that have worked very well in this province. By the minister's own responses earlier, tourism has increased as a result of the efforts of the people in these organizations. If something is working so well, Mr. Minister, why are we choosing to change it? When something is working, when we actually have tourism on the increase, when we have people working in structures that have been around for a long time and that have proven themselves, why are you choosing to heavy-handedly, from Victoria, change the boundaries without the consent and without consulting the people involved? Why have you chosen to do this, Mr. Minister? What is the reasoning behind changing these boundaries that have worked so well and basically upsetting everybody out there who has been working very hard on behalf of all the organizations in all of the areas? Why have you chosen to do that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. REID: The first response is that the reason you change, the reason you go to a motor in a car rather than a horse, is to improve things. If you want to make it bigger and better than it is today, you try to be ahead of your competition. To be ahead of your competition in the tourism business, you do it better. Doing it better is when there's some rationalization across the province by democracy and by input from the regions.... The council of regions, which represents the current nine regions, are the ones who advise me on how to better service the province.

It's ironic that the members on the opposite side of the House who are speaking today at great length about the regions are only talking about one region, North-By-Northwest, because there is disparity in the North-By-Northwest region as it services the regional concept of the province. It services tourism. I'm concerned about tourism being best served. I talk at great length to the tourism regions across the province. There is a democracy that I and my people deal with, and those people tell us how best to service the regions.

I say to you and to all of the members across the House that if you're prepared to accept — which I am — a democratic decision by the regions on how to adjust the lines to better service them as we improve.... I hope that the other side of the House would also accept that.

MRS. BOONE: If we felt that the regions truly wanted those things, of course we would accept them. That is not what we are hearing from our constituents or from the associations we deal with. They are telling us that the organizations and the regions they have worked with for so long are working well. Why change them? You don't change something just for change's sake, Mr. Minister. You don't go and get a new motor for your car when the motor you've got is working very well; you do that

[ Page 7404 ]

when the motor is sick and it's dying and you need something done. You don't just change it for change's sake. There's no point to that.

If you tell me that all of these people agree, fine; democracy would work. But that is not what we're hearing. We are hearing that the people out there do not like this, they're unhappy with it and they don't believe that it is in their best interest. You are not listening to them; you are not listening to the people of British Columbia.

MR. KEMPF: I heard that magic word "democracy" emanate from the minister's mouth again.

HON. MR. REID: Do you know what it means?

MR. KEMPF: You bet I do. I would suggest that you look it up in the dictionary and find out as well — and practise it for a while. I would transmit that message to your whole government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask all the members to address the Chair.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, the minister suggests that two people from this area, almost half of British Columbia, speak for all the people in that area. I have many letters, and I'll read many into the record as we go along. I have one here addressed to the minister himself, with a copy to me, from the chairman of the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako, one of the largest regional districts in British Columbia. With the indulgence of the members sitting in the House, I'll read the letter into the records. This is not the member for Omineca speaking; it's the chairman of one of the largest regional districts in British Columbia.

Hon. Bill Reid
Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary
Parliament Buildings
Victoria

Dear Sir:

It has been brought to our attention by Mr. John Currie, president of the North-By-Northwest Tourism Association of B.C., that the tourism boundaries could be changed to coincide with the ministry-of state boundaries. Changing the existing tourism boundaries would create severe hardship to the North-By-Northwest Tourism Association.

This association has grown in strength because of its ability to market the area along Highway 16 from the Alberta border to Prince Rupert.

We urge you, Mr. Minister, to leave the existing boundaries of tourism as they exist now.

Did you read that letter, Mr. Minister? Was it the only one you received speaking negatively? Did you show it to William Noriega in the comer office so that he too would know? Did you do that so that you could get it off your back? Because you don't really like the idea.

How did you make the decision? We'll go back to those questions. Who made the decision to change these boundaries? Has the decision been made? Because we've heard two stories here today: (1) yes, the decision has already been made; (2) no, through the Tourism Advisory Council as it's restructured we're seeking input from the people of British Columbia so that we can make a decision. Which way is it? Has the decision been made or hasn't it? Who made the decision? Why was it made? So that we could tell the Californians about High Country? So that there's no one on the advisory council to tell the council about...?

We need answers. The members of this House are still duly elected representatives, sent here to take answers back to those whom they represent. That is the democratic process, Mr. Minister. That's what democracy is all about, which you so casually kick around. That's what democracy is all about, something that I take very seriously and have for the almost 14 years that I've represented the people of Omineca. We want answers. We want answers from you and we want answers from other ministers. If we have to go to ministers of state to get answers with respect to the Ministry of Tourism, that we'll do also. If we have to go to the Premier's estimates to find out who makes all these decisions, that too, hon. members, we will do, because that is our job on behalf of those who sent us here.

It's not the job of government to push everything down from the top. If you were really and truly open government, as I've heard you say on a number of occasions this afternoon, you wouldn't have made a decision with respect to these boundaries until such time as you had consulted. Or have you? We've had it both ways. Have you or haven't you? That question begs answering. You thought because you'd got rid of me, you'd give a glib answer. But we have monitors in our offices, and we listen to what goes on in here.

We've got to have answers, and we'll stay here till we get them. We must know, so that I can go home and tell my constituents who makes decisions on behalf of the Minister of Tourism. Now we had some very serious questions asked about riding boundaries. Does the same person make the decisions with respect to that as makes the decisions with respect to changes in tourism boundaries? Mr. Minister, we'll stay here until we get the answers.

HON. MR. REID: First of all, I take exception to that member always referring to this minister not caring or listening to the democracy of the people out there. You asked me, Mr. Member, if there are going to be eight regions in the province. The answer is that there are going to be eight tourism regions in the province. We are reducing the nine down to eight tourism regions.

The boundaries of the tourism regions are not fixed at the moment. I'm making it clear. Do you want to make note? Because you've gone and phoned....

MR. KEMPF: We're going to get to the crux of it.

[ Page 7405 ]

HON. MR. REID: Help me, help me, help me. If the member would pay attention.... You don't very often; that's why you are where you are today. If you would pay attention and do your job.... Your job is to represent your constituents, and I commend you for that. I wish, Mr. Member, that you would also represent in your mind — if you will — the democracy of all the regions of the province. I am telling you and the members opposite that the response we are getting through my ministry about the regions in total.... There is one which we are having some difficulty with, and which all your letters come from, no question about that. It's almost half of the area of the province in which we're trying to make it suit all of the tourism marketing in the province of British Columbia in total without being parochial.

Because you won't listen, Mr. Member, I'm trying to convey to you that what we're trying to do is make it fair and equitable. To make it fair and equitable, you pay attention to the advice you're getting from the people in the industry out there. That's where I get my advice. I don't take it from you, and I'm glad I don't, because I'm over here and you're over there. It's because I never took your advice, and I will never take your advice. But I do accept your input as the MLA for the area. If you would be less parochial and talk about the province in general, then you may see that if there's a democracy out there which indicates that we should look at redefining the boundaries of the regions so they better suit the overall benefit of the province of British Columbia, it's incumbent upon me to do that.

[5:45]

We've instructed the regions out there to prepare boundaries which they can accept, and that there are going to be eight tourism regions. There will not be nine. It will be eight, and we will then take the eight regions to our colleagues to find the adjustments which better suit my ministry's involvement with tourism.

MS. PULLINGER: All of this talk about democracy is very interesting. The minister has said on numerous occasions that the regional councils have recommended this change, I would just like to read into the record something that I have here. I am quoting Garry Sharpe, president of the Okanagan-Similkameen Tourist Association and chairman of the council of the B.C. regional tourist associations: "Some of the boundaries that are present and existent with the eight economic regions don't make a lot of good tourism marketing sense, and that is where most of the resistance is coming from." As well, an executive member of the northern B.C. association says that .redrawing the tourist association regions to fit the decentralization-regionalization boundaries would be devastating. Tourist identification with the varied regions painstakingly built over the past two decades would be lost."

Obviously if you're talking about democracy in input and doing what the people out there want, you've got the president of the tourist associations saying that it won't work; that it's being resisted. To set up a system whereby we have the ministers of state, who are appointed, and tourism advisory members, who are also appointed — as valuable and valid as their jobs may be — probably in many cases replacing elected members and elected regional councils doesn't sound like a good process to me.

When we have an outline of what the ministry has decided to do in phases one, two and three, and now we're talking about getting democratic input, I frankly don't think it flies. I would like to suggest that the minister have another look at his attempt to force the nine regions, which have developed for good reason, into eight regions. It simply isn't going to work. The people are not happy with it, and it ought not to be done.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the letter which came from the former chairman of the council of regions. He's no longer the chairman. There is a new chairman, and as a result of the meeting that was convened with the council of regions on May 30, they are going to send a resolution to my staff, after some discussions, about the boundary changes that are being proposed and the ones that they would recommend and propose. That's democracy in action. I expect a report back from them in very short order, and once I receive that, I will certainly make it available to the other side of the House.

MS. PULLINGER: I just have received a note saying that the Cariboo Tourist Association is also unhappy. I understand it would still be called Cariboo under the new boundaries, but it would include Prince George, McBride, Valemount, right to the Alberta border, and it leaves out the western portion of the Cariboo Tourist Association.

As I said before, you keep saying that we are dealing with one region that's not happy — North-By-Northwest — but so far we have North-by-Northwest, Cariboo, High Country, Okanagan-Similkameen, Kootenay and Rocky Mountain. That sounds more like six out of nine. As I say, I think this ought to be looked at very carefully, and I hope you will do that.

In the few minutes left before we adjourn, I'd like to move along to another topic: taxation and the tourism industry. The hotel association is finding it very difficult to exist with the present taxation system. They have some great and valid concerns that with the 9 percent federal tax that is coming, in five years the industry will be in very bad shape indeed.

There are a couple of benefits to tourism. One is that it's a good mechanism to encourage regional development outside the lower mainland. It's also a good mechanism to encourage and foster locally owned business because the majority of businesses in the tourism industry are small businesses. As you are well aware, they are the greatest job creators. They keep capital and ownership here, and those folks tend to be good corporate citizens because they live here where they do business.

[ Page 7406 ]

However, the hotels and motels, which are obviously a big part of the tourism industry, are subjected to a tax by this government that is 2 percent more than a provincial sales tax. They are subjected to a tax of 8 percent, and further to that there can be another 2 percent levied, as you are well aware, for regional development. Of course, that 2 percent only works in the areas that need it least, like Whistler, Vancouver and, Victoria. However, they still have this 8 percent tax imposed. It seems to me it would be much fairer to tax profits rather than to tax at the other end — the rooms. I understand it's the highest room tax in the country, which seems a little excessive. With the 9 percent federal tax, as I said, there's some genuine concern out there that the industry will start to deteriorate badly within five years, with smaller businesses and more urban businesses first. In effect, it will defeat to a large extent two of the very positive benefits of tourism: regional development outside the lower mainland and encouragement of small business.

I would like to ask the minister, first of all, whether he agrees that taxing the profits of the industry is more equitable than taxing production, whether or not the company makes a profit. I would also like to ask what steps he has taken to address the problems that will ultimately be created by the 9 percent tax. Have you taken any steps with the federal government to protest this tax which will create great hardship for the hotel industry?

HON. MR. REID: On the global scene of the tax, let me first of all convey to that member the concern among the tourism industry, my staff and others about the possible imposition of the 9 percent federal sales tax on tourism product. Certainly that is a major concern, and my staff and all the provinces across Canada are working towards what ultimately the bottom line of that really is towards the industry. When that is finally determined, as a province we'll have to deal with providing a revenue-neutral source in relation to that — if possible. I don't know if it is possible. But there is a concern.

Let me get back to the question about the 8 percent tax on hotel rooms in B.C. You seem to imply that it's the hotel and motel operator who is paying that tax. He is not, in fact, paying that tax. That tax is paid by the visitor, and the visitor to British Columbia is not complaining about the 8 percent tax, because it is lower than in most major cities in North America. The tax is used by my ministry as the result of a transfer from consolidated revenue to pay for the marketing and promotion of tourism externally and internally. So the 8 percent tax is off room rentals; it's not off the owner of the operation.

The perception was that the application of the 8 percent tax would encourage reduced tourism and people would fail to come to British Columbia as a result of it. The fact of the matter is that the reverse has happened, and we have more visitors today. We have a higher occupancy in every community of the province. The hotel, motel and resort operations have a higher occupancy rate and a higher income generation this year right across the province, including North-By-Northwest, which is up over 40 percent thanks to some of the innovative direction of marketing towards the overall hospitality industry in British Columbia.

The third question is the 2 percent. The 2 percent tax is a tax imposed by local government as a result of them needing further money, in their minds, to do further expanded marketing and promotion. It's a decision made by local government, and it has to do with tourism promotion, tourism marketing and advertising. It's at the discretion of the local government that those three things are serviced and that the funds that are collected on their behalf are from the hotel-room tenant — the recipient of the room, from outside the hotel itself, who pays for that rent — who pays it in, and it is then used to supplement local Victoria, general Vancouver and Whistler. That was a decision made by local government. That's called democracy.

MS. PULLINGER: On that note, given the time, I would like to suggest that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

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

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, by agreement with my hon. counterpart opposite, I move that the House recess for one hour and reconvene at 7 p.m.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:56 p.m.

The House resumed at 7:00 p.m.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 32, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYEE INVESTMENT ACT

HON. MR. VEITCH: It is my pleasure to move second reading of Bill 32.

The proposed employee investment legislation now before the House is an innovative approach to fusing a new economic partnership between employees, businesses and government. The legislation is designed to provide a framework for increased employee investment in British Columbia business. It's a forward-looking approach to employee-employer relations that others may well follow. It recognizes the importance of employee capital as an instrument to encourage economic growth and stability, and it's a

[ Page 7407 ]

new element for meeting the business challenges of the nineties.

The employee investment program consists of two components: one involves employee share ownership and the other employee venture capital. During the past decade, programs of this type have been introduced in the United States and in a number of countries in Europe, as well as in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Similar legislation is under consideration in many other parts of Canada.

The new British Columbia legislation will encourage increased employee participation in ownership and operation of British Columbia business through both employee share ownership plans and employee venture capital corporations. The objective is to encourage employees resident in the province of British Columbia to invest for their future. The equity capital thereby provided to small or medium-sized British Columbia business will foster job creation or protection through business expansion, modernization or, indeed, start-up. The employee investment program also holds potential to improve employer employee relations and increase business productivity.

Part one of the bill deals with employee share ownership plans. Employee share ownership plans, or ESOPs as they are commonly called, facilitate direct investment by employees in the companies for which they work. Investors in registered ESOPs will receive a provincial income tax credit equal to 20 percent of the cost of the shares. ESOPs encourage employees to participate in the day-to-day management of the business where they are employed. This is a desirable goal, as it has been proven that employee share ownership, coupled with increased participation in decision-making, can lead to improved productivity and better employer-employee relations.

The government believes these two factors are the key to a company's ability to compete in the marketplace both now and in the decades before us. A study commissioned by the Toronto Stock Exchange in 1987 indicated that over 63 percent of the listed companies offer some employees some form of ownership.

The problem is that these are, for the most part, large businesses, the majority of which offer shares only to directors and senior management. The legislation before you today provides an incentive to small and medium-sized businesses, but only when the plan is accessible to all full-time employees.

The TSE study shows that companies with ESOPs dramatically out perform their competitors. They have 24 percent higher productivity, 66 percent higher return on capital, 92 percent higher return on equity 95 percent higher profit and 123 percent higher five-year profit growth. More than 75 percent of the employees interviewed said the share ownership plan had a positive impact on their company. Employers were even more enthusiastic, with a nearly 90 percent positive rating reported.

Companies with ESOPs demonstrate increased employee-manager teamwork, increased loyalty and reduced employee absenteeism, grievances and disputes. Studies in the United States have shown that where there is employee participation in the day-today management as well as employee ownership, the results are even more dramatic. These companies grew three or four times faster than ESOP companies without employee participation. This is from the Harvard Business Review of September-October 1987.

In the United States, ESOPs are supported by extensive federal and state incentives. As a result, employee share ownership plans there have increased from about 300 in 1974 to approximately 8,000 today. The government is committed to seeing a corresponding growth on a percentage basis of ESOPs in the province of British Columbia.

Those of you familiar with the history of ESOPs in the United States and other jurisdictions will know that they occasionally have not been implemented to their full advantage. Provisions have been written into legislation to address this issue, such as requirements for share liquidity, share evaluation and full disclosure of employee information. I will speak more about these requirements later.

The ESOP section of the bill before you today is a result of discussions and consultation between government, employers and employees. Some of their contributions have included: provision of the proposed incentive by a 20 percent tax credit rather than a grant, relaxing the limitations on corporate size; opening up restrictions on use of funds to allow employees more flexibility in negotiating their investment; and facilitating share liquidity by means other than corporate share redemption. The bill before you builds on the success of ESOPs while addressing the shortfalls found in other jurisdictions. It is a recipe for success, I believe, in this area in the future,

The second portion of the bill before you deals with employee venture capital corporations. It builds on our commitment to stimulate the creation of venture capital pools through tax credits. As I indicated when this bill was first presented to the House, we have had a great deal of success in this regard. Since introduction of the small business venture capital program in the fall of 1985, over 2,000 investors have pooled their capital through 100-plus VCCs. They have invested $35 million in 74 small businesses, creating or preserving over 1,200 jobs. I understand that many more investments are planned. This success demonstrates how the pooling of capital can benefit investors, British Columbia businesses and employees.

The EVCC component of the bill builds on this success while giving employees more control and more flexibility. Similar legislation brought forward in the province of Quebec has resulted in a provincewide fund — which, by the way, is operated by the Quebec Federation of Labour — that has raised a total of $285 million and has some 82,000 shareholders. The Quebec fund has made investments in both union and non-union firms, with over 14,000 jobs created or protected in the province of Quebec.

The new British Columbia legislation provides a mechanism for employees, both union and non-

[ Page 7408 ]

union, to achieve similar results. This legislation will increase the availability of equity capital to small and medium-sized British Columbia businesses. It will encourage employees to invest in their corporate employers. More importantly, it will create and maintain jobs in the province of B.C. The vehicle is the employee venture capital corporation. Investors in the common shares of these corporations will have a provincial income tax credit equal to 20 percent of the cost of these shares. The minimum size of an EVCC will be $25,000, to facilitate formation by small groups of employees with small amounts of investment funds available. An EVCC must not have any one shareholder controlling 10 percent or more of the shares or having a right to 10 percent or more of the EVCC's profits or assets.

Officials of the trade union movement have been invited to participate in the development and delivery of this program. I must stress, however, that participants in programs do not necessarily have to belong to unions. Eligible investors can be employees in the company in which they work, members of a union or a non-union group who have a work-related affiliation. When an eligible investor purchases shares in an employee venture capital corporation, they must be retained for a minimum of five years, or the tax credits are repayable. The legislation contains an exemption to this repayment requirement where the shareholder dies, is permanently disabled, goes bankrupt or suffers an involuntary loss of employment. Employee venture capital corporations will in turn invest in the common shares of companies substantially engaged in sectors of the economy that are value-added in terms of the provincial economy.

Our goal, Mr. Speaker, is to help small- and medium-sized British Columbia companies grow. Where do we want this capital flow? We want it to go to small- and medium-sized companies which are involved in export enhancement, import replacement and economic diversification anywhere in the province of British Columbia.

This is another step in our objective of ensuring sustainable economic development. It's another step in the process of regionalization. The EVCC component of the legislation places emphasis on those economic sectors with growth potential and the ability to develop a new economy for the province of British Columbia. The manufacturing-processing sector, research and development sector, tourism sector and aquaculture sector are key sectors which you ought to support; other sectors can be subscribed wherever warranted.

As under the small business venture capital program, all shares issued by an employee venture capital corporation must be paid for in cash and cannot be issued for any other form of consideration. A specific portion of the equity capital raised — 40 percent by the end of the first 18 months of operation and 80 percent by the end of 30 months of operation — must be appropriately invested in eligible businesses. These investments must take the form of equity share purchases without any inherent or collateral security. The eligible business must carry on its activities in British Columbia.

An employee venture capital corporation will be required to divest of an investment where control or non-arm's-length restrictions are violated. The program recognizes that its business activities and the percentage of its employees reporting to work in B.C. may change as the company grows in the international marketplace. Thus, once an investment has grown or been on side for five years, the employee venture capital corporation will be allowed to continue to hold the investment, even if the business no longer complies with the prescribed sector and British Columbia wage and salary tests.

The province's involvement will be limited to monitoring compliance with the act and providing incentives. Employer venture capital corporations will be privately owned investment vehicles whose operations are neither sponsored nor guaranteed by the Crown of the province of British Columbia. As with any equity investment, the investors' ultimate return depends on the success of the business invested in. Thus it will be in the best interests of the employee investor that the business invested in is an economic success. It will be in their hands.

The EVCC component of the bill builds on existing success and promises increased venture capital pools for financing business start-ups and expansions in B.C. Since the idea of this program was first announced, my ministry has received nearly 2,000 requests for information. Each week we receive calls from employees and employers alike interested in establishing employee investment plans. We thus anticipate significant program activity once the private sector delivery mechanisms are in place and the program is activated, hopefully by this fall.

Adjustments to this legislation have been made in response to over 25 detailed submissions from individuals and organizations, including Mac D. Campbell Associates, Finning Ltd., Grainger Electric, Teck Corp., Uneeda Wood Products Ltd., the Chartered Accountants' Institute, the Certified General Accountants' Association, the Canadian Bankers' Association, the Vancouver Board of Trade and many others. In addition, this bill has received extensive review by my ministry with help and advice from the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services and the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.

[7:15]

In order to help both employers and employees to build a new economic structure which meets the challenges of the nineties, the proposed program not only provides a tax credit for employees but also an educational component for employers and employees alike. As I indicated earlier, the legislation you are being asked to consider — and I hope you will concur with it today — provides for a provincial tax credit of 20 percent to be provided to employees investing directly in their employer company or any employee venture capital corporation.

In order to ensure the program benefits the greatest number of employees possible, the tax credits are capped at $2,000 annually and $10,000 in a lifetime

[ Page 7409 ]

for each investor. Thus, although experience indicates that the average annual investment per employee will be about $500 per year, an employee will be allowed to invest $10,000 to attract the full-credit incentive. Companies will be restricted to a $5 million investment in the program in any two-year period.

The government is committed to making employee investment a greater part of the British Columbia corporate culture. An estimated 7,000 to 14,000 people are expected to participate initially in one aspect or another of this program. This will be the leading edge for those who follow. Participation is projected to reach at least 35,000 investors in the next few years.

Tax credit payments for employees are expected to result in a forgone revenue to the province of about $4 million in year one, growing to an annual cost of $10 million by year three.

The educational package, which I spoke of earlier, will demonstrate the increased productivity, motivation and employee loyalty that can result from employee investment and participation. The private sector will be tapped to deliver the educational components. It is intended that local experts be cultivated to provide employers and employees alike ready access to professional advice in all areas. This is another example of the government's commitment to provide access to government in your home communities.

Employee groups may be entitled to half the cost of a study for a start-up to a maximum of $5,000 of obtaining professional advice. Identical assistance is also available to companies with not more than 150 employees.

The hallmark of this legislation is flexibility The legislation also contains provisions to ensure that the employee investor is adequately protected. As an example, sections in this bill require, among other things, that all employees have the right to acquire shares. There must be a method for ongoing evaluation of the fair value of the shares, and a method of ensuring share liquidity must be provided. Shareholders have a right to share in company profits, and only voting shares are issued.

I believe that this legislation is another step in the government's commitment to bringing long-term economic growth and diversification to the province of British Columbia. This program will be substantially delivered by the private sector. Tax credits will be administered through the federal-provincial taxation system; thus it is anticipated that the cost of delivering the program will be minimized.

I believe this is a bold new initiative, something I have personally looked forward to since I was Minister of Small Business Development back in 1978. It is an opportunity for a new social and business contract between employees, businesses and government. This legislation is another spoke in the wheel that will help the province roll forward through the nineties Your full consideration in passage of this bill will ensure an opportunity for employees, businesses and government to meet the challenge together. I move second reading of this bill.

MRS. BOONE: We have no serious problems with this bill. However, in the committee debate we want to see some of our concerns addressed about how this bill will be administered, and how it is going to affect the people here.

Obviously there are many positive aspects to this bill. Using the tax system to encourage workers to participate in the economy and to make our economy better is obviously a plus for us. Allowing workers to support new initiatives in B.C. is obviously a plus as well and, of course, giving workers an increased say in decision-making is a given — from either side of the House — as a positive aspect.

We have some concerns about the taxation. I listened very closely to the minister to determine where the tax breaks would be. The previous bill that was introduced last year failed to give federal tax breaks to the investors, and I wasn't sure if the minister actually stated there were going to be federal tax breaks to this or not. I think he says he is working on it. In order for us to give our full support to this, that is one of the things we want to see.

One of the keys to the success of the solidarity fund in Quebec was due to the tax incentives and breaks given to the individuals who participated in that program. They had both provincial and federal tax breaks, which allowed them to make a good return on their money. We would like to see those things addressed, and I am sure that in the committee stage we will be seeing that.

I think my colleague would like to make a few more statements, but my questioning will be limited to questioning the minister when we get to committee stage on this bill.

MR. CLARK: I too will be brief. I think very clearly we can support, in a general way, the elements of the bill; but many questions do remain outstanding, and we will be canvassing them with the minister at committee stage. In my view, though, the bill really appears to be a pale imitation of the Quebec program. The Quebec experience has been a dramatic one. The Quebec Stock Savings Plan and the Solidarity Fund program have had a dramatic impact. That doesn't appear to be contemplated in this bill.

Essentially, there are two ways to look at these kinds of programs. There's a kind of ideological component, and then there's an economic component. Of course, both are elements of all of these kinds of government proposals. But it appears to me, from my review of this, that this is more of an ideological initiative than an economic one. In fact, the minister has said there's a section of the program for education; that part of the proposal is to train workers in the ways of business. He had lots to say about how this is going to train workers to participate. Most of the bill is essentially to buy shares in one's own company in order to make them harder workers and improve their productivity, as the minister said.

The minister talked about the Toronto Stock Exchange study in 1987, but going from memory, his quotes were selective. I recall that study saying that while there was dramatic increase in participation

[ Page 7410 ]

and productivity of employees in the initial period of employee stock ownership plans, after a couple of years the bloom fades and the results are not nearly as promising as when the plans were first initiated. So the '87 Toronto Stock Exchange study does not wholeheartedly support ESOPs, as the minister would like us to believe. In fact, it cautions people about the nature and extent of them and how much impact they actually have on the productivity and efficiency of employees.

The reality is that unless there's real participation in a company, they have very little impact and in fact can frustrate employees. Does anybody really think that employees who buy shares in MacMillan Bloedel and get the tax credit are going to have more say in their workplace? Does anybody really think that employees who have a small share in the business necessarily will be included in decision-making? Of course not. So the reality is that these plans, while they can assist in management participation, don't go very far unless real effective control is transferred to or shared with employees. As I've said, while there are elements in that respect which we can support, it's not at all clear to me that the government is contemplating a real transfer or a real sharing of control; rather, the tax breaks only go to further essentially a narrow ideological perspective.

With respect to the second element of the act, which is the venture capital component, the minister talked about Quebec — 82,000 shareholders; $250-odd million in assets; what a dramatic impact the Solidarity Fund has had; government working in cooperation with organized labour — and I agree. But this bill doesn't contemplate anything near what the Quebec plan has. As I see it, it is limited to small and medium-sized companies, companies with a high-risk component because they're essentially venture capital companies. It limits the assets of the fund, and it limits the size of the companies. It doesn't have as a mandate, as the Quebec Solidarity Fund does, the creation and maintenance of jobs, which has one out of every twelve workers in Quebec participating. It has, for example, purchased one-twentieth of the Quebec Nordiques; it has a tremendous track record in terms of generating jobs in that province.

This is a pale imitation that limits the assets of the company, limits the companies that can be invested in and really contemplates small venture capital high-risk components. It's not at all, I would submit, like the Quebec experience and really not contemplated as a major economic initiative, despite what the minister has said. Beyond that, it's not clear.... We will be asking the minister questions during committee stage. The Quebec Solidarity Fund benefits by a 20 percent federal tax credit. There's 20 percent provincial, 20 percent federal, and if it's rolled into an RRSP, the tax breaks are for the whole amount. As a result, only a small fraction of $100 invested is actually at risk because of the tax credits. The minister has not told us whether there is any pre-approval from the federal government. I would be surprised, frankly, if the pre-approval is there, but maybe the minister can clear that up.

This is much more limited than the Quebec initiative and the recent Saskatchewan initiative, and more limited than the Canadian Federation of Labour initiative. This is more, I submit, an ideological initiative than it is a dramatic or innovative economic initiative. If I can be complimentary for a minute, I think the minister has moved beyond the bill we saw a year ago; it is a slight improvement. There is some movement, some attempt to deal with it. But I can see that they're constrained. It's like this ideological anchor, and they just can't quite bring themselves to contemplate....

MR. WILLIAMS: You're talking about the minister.

MR. CLARK: No, I wasn't talking about the minister. The minister has lost weight, by the way, Mr. Member.

I'm talking about the fact that in Quebec a genuine partnership with organized labour, the federal government and the provincial government has had dramatic consequences, but this government can't seem to take off the ideological blinkers long enough to cooperate with the labour movement and the federal government to do something dramatic, something that would have a major economic impact. Rather, it's constrained.

In some ways it's a move in the right direction. The tax loss in the first year is apparently $4 million, which tells you the scope of the initiative. The minister has talked about how many people will participate, and that remains to be seen. I'd like to ask the minister more on how those numbers are derived. It is a step in the right direction, but it's not nearly the dramatic economic initiative that I think it could have been if the government had chosen a more pragmatic approach rather than an ideological one.

With that, we will have many questions for the minister when it goes to committee.

MR. LOENEN: It's a delight for me to take part in second reading of this legislation. It's something that I and many members and many of the working men and women of this province have looked forward to for a long time. I'm delighted to hear members opposite say that they're going to support this. I just want to commend the minister for putting together a package that will have a fundamental impact on industrial relations in this province, as well as diversification of our economy.

[7:30]

In fact, it will not only lead to better worker-management relations but will, in my mind, be of such fundamental importance that this particular measure will be on the scale of and similar to the very successful homeowner grant program introduced by Social Credit so many years ago. The reason I say this is that we have to acknowledge and recognize that in an industrial society there are basically two forms of income. One is through wages and earnings and the other is through equity. Increasingly, in an industrial society, that amount of the economy that is produced

[ Page 7411 ]

by equity — by capital investment — grows and grows larger all the time, leaving a smaller and smaller chunk of economic activity to income and earnings.

I think we have to recognize that for most people who live only on salaries and earnings, they simply do not have the means to purchase all the things they need or want. It is for that reason that governments are involved in massive redistribution programs. It is for that reason that we have to offer free health care, free educational programs, free social services and a host of other programs.

You know, Mr. Speaker, conservative governments in the free west have for years and years talked about downsizing government and lessening the role of government. Yet we seem incapable of doing that. The reason is, as I have said, that most citizens who rely on wages and earnings as a sole source of income simply do not have the means with which to purchase all the things they need or want.

This initiative opens up a whole new source of income. It is possible under this initiative, once it takes hold and the circle grows wider, for people to look forward to the day when their wages are supplemented by equity earnings, and they will have a stake in the businesses for which they work. As a result, it should be possible for people to become more independent, relying less on government handouts and, as a result, becoming consumers of all the services now provided free of charge.

I believe, contrary to what we heard from the member opposite, that this program is better than the Quebec plan, and significantly better. The Quebec plan is simply a mutual fund. What this legislation aims to do and will do is establish a link for those workers in a particular place of work to see some direct link between the effort expended and the rewards which will accrue to them. I believe that that is a key that is absolutely fundamental to a free enterprise philosophy: that there will always be a reward for the initiative and the effort expended That is what builds our economy. That is what has built this province. That is what makes our province strong.

The minute we seek to eliminate the direct link between the efforts and the initiative and the talents and the abilities that people put to a job and the rewards they will reap, we kill the initiative, and we do not really make people independent. Instead, we make them dependent on government or others. We don't want to do that. We believe in people. We believe that people will rise to the occasion. If they see that through applying themselves, through being loyal to the company for which they work, through taking some initiative indeed there will be rewards for them if they have a piece of the action in the place of their employment, and that after all the years — 30, 40 years — of working in a place, that they will see some benefits because they have part of the action, if we do that, we will see that the engine that creates economic wealth will go on and on. Instead of killing initiative, we're prodding it, rewarding it, helping it along.

I think that's the key of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and it's for that reason that I'm totally supportive of this. It is for that reason that we ought to tell the people, the working men and women of this province, that through this legislation they will have an opportunity to participate fully. This is not an attempt to somehow bypass unions; the unions will still have their membership. But it will be an opportunity for them to not rely simply on handouts, to not rely only on wages as income, but to have a piece of the action. We're talking about voting shares, and I'm happy to see that, because it will give them a say in the management and operation of the enterprise for which they work. They will be full participants and will be treated as such.

I would like to urge the federal government to get on side, to recognize what this legislation can do and the potential embedded in it. It's entirely appropriate for them to make the same type of tax concessions available to the ESOP as they do to the Quebec plan, the mutual fund for the workers there. In fact, I would think that if they were truly interested in a free enterprise economy, and if they were truly interested in helping the little British Columbians, then the feds should recognize the potential of this, and they would not hesitate for one minute to move on this and to make the same tax concessions available so that the small working men and women of this province will have an opportunity to get in on the action and participate in the economic potential of this province. I support it wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I believe that this is innovative legislation for British Columbia.

MR. LOVICK: Does that make it good?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, it's innovative and it's also good.

Mr. Speaker, you are well aware that the Social Credit Party has governed in this province for 34 out of 37 years in this province. I don't remember one time during those 1,200 days when even a pale resemblance of this bill was brought into the Legislature — not one. They talk about a pale imitation of Quebec's plan. It would be a pale imitation if we allowed it to be controlled only by the British Columbia Federation of Labour. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this program is open to all British Columbians, whether they belong to a union — and we hope the unions will participate — or whether they don't.

They talked about an ideological component. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that there is an ideological component. Our ideology is to ensure that business people, that small people, have the right to prosper and grow, and we'll help them any way that we can to do that. That's always been the bent of

[ Page 7412 ]

the Social Credit government; it will always be the bent of the Social Credit Party.

Small and medium-sized companies, Mr. Speaker, grow into large companies. They grow into large companies when they have a helping hand and when the government gets the heck out of the way and lets them do what they need to do. We're going to work with labour, with either union or non-union firms. We welcome all eligible British Columbians to come in and participate In this very forward-looking program.

He talked about job creation. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) talked about job creation. I'm sure he knows that 80 percent of the jobs in this province are created by small- and medium-sized businesses — and this is precisely the area that needs the help in British Columbia or indeed in Canada. These are the ones that need the help to get off the ground and to work.

Mr. Speaker, I realize what he's saying about the federal government, and I want to tell you, we're going to sit on the federal government's doorstep until we have at least the same consideration that they have in Quebec — I'm going to promise you that right now. It's going to happen here in British Columbia. We'll cooperate whether it's labour or non-labour, but we won't be hidebound. This bill is for the help of all British Columbians. Ownership, I believe, helps foster a better relationship between the so-called employer and employees. When people participate and own a piece of the action, they more often, or always, feel better about it.

I think this is a good bill. It's a complete step in the right direction. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 32, Employee Investment Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM
AND PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

On vote 70: minister's office, $260,357 (continued).

MS. EDWARDS: We were discussing a number of problems the tourism industry faces related to taxation of various kinds in jurisdictions in this country. I have a concern that was brought up to me from a ski hill, as a matter of fact, in my riding that is seriously concerned about the federal goods and services tax Before I get ruled out of order, I would like to suggest to the minister that what I want to know is what the minister has done to recognize the danger. I believe, from his comments just before we broke for dinner, that he has some concerns about this business, and I would like to ask further questions.

I do bring up, as a matter of interest, that a study by a reputable accountancy firm in Canada has indicated that the ski industry in British Columbia would, under the proposed federal taxation moves, see a tax increase of 191 percent. That is not inconsiderable, and to put that into context I'd like to suggest that the minister contemplate the Fernie Snow Valley Ski resort. It's not a large ski resort in the scheme of things, but it is a very large part of the economy of the area. It's a large and important business to Fernie and the Elk Valley and beyond that to the East Kootenay. In fact, this one particular resort employs 150 seasonal workers and 24 full-time workers. It runs for an average of 140 days a year, and its capital investment this summer — which is not unusual, I think — is $3 million. Its visitor numbers have been going up and up, and in fact have nearly doubled in about four years; a lot of that is probably due to some of the work they do through Partners in Tourism, and I'm always willing to tell the minister how well that program works when it goes. Another interesting fact is that more and more the hill is being a resort not only for out-of-province people from Alberta and Saskatchewan but also from Ontario and Quebec.

[7:45]

An impact of 191 percent increase in taxation for this particular resort would be echoed many times with all the ski resorts across British Columbia. I am curious to know what the minister has done to investigate the impact of that particular goods and services tax proposed by the federal government. What is the impact of that tax on, for example, not just the ski industry but other industries? Can he tell me if he has looked at the impact of that tax on other segments of the industry so that we know — from now, when we know that the tax is going to come in — what the impact is going to be on various parts of the tourism industry?

HON. MR. REID: I'm pleased to answer that question. As I confirmed earlier in the day, that subject is of great concern to the whole tourism industry for Canada, but British Columbia is the one my staff and my ministry are worried about.

At the most recent meeting we had with the federal Minister of Tourism, we were able to make a very strong case for having visitors from outside of the province of British Columbia tax exempt on the value-added tax to tourism facilities and usage. We had a very good reception and good response. It seems that it's highly possible that that may be a serious consideration on behalf of the federal Treasury Board and my colleague Hon. Tom Hockin from Ottawa. The very strong reception and strong concern for this industry because of the impact it may have.... In emphasizing without question the small community facilities like there are in Fernie, the Griz mountain, and what they add to the whole tourism infrastructure of that Rocky Mountain region in the southeast corner, Madam Member, certainly is recognized by my ministry and by others. We will do our

[ Page 7413 ]

part to make certain that our federal representatives understand the concern we have, and we will not take any major impact on the tourism tax sitting down.

MS. EDWARDS: I don't know if the minister was at the discussions about this tax with the federal government, but was this issue brought out at the general discussions? You say you've had discussions with the federal government on that basis on the tourism industry, and it looks as though you will exempt visitors. How would that be done?

First of all, did you bring this issue out? Tourism is such a major part of the economy of British Columbia. Was it brought out, so that you would have some figures and some idea of the impact It would have on the industry? Secondly, if it were brought out that visitors would be exempt from paying this value-added tax, would that be based on an exemption right there, or would it be on the basis of somebody having to pay the tax, fill out a form, send it in, get their tax back and that kind of awkward stuff that the federal government has said that people who are building things are going to have to go through when they have to deal with this tax?

HON. MR. REID: Madam Member, if you want to ask about the ministry and what I have been talking about with the federal minister and my colleagues across Canada, I told you earlier that we had a meeting of all the ministers of tourism from across Canada, including the federal minister. At that meeting we had a presentation made to us by the Canadian Tourism Research Institute on the impact if all of the concerns about value-added on the industry were applied, and they are horrendous.

The appeal was strong from British Columbia about external visitors having a chance to get a rebate on the value-added to the component of their tourism usage. There is no simple solution, except that you must identify who is an external visitor. If you don't identify that, it's not going to work. There are bureaucracies that go with all forms of taxation, and this is no different than all of the others that have ever been applied.

I want to convince you that we made a very strong case for the infrastructure of the economy of the province, how it relates to tourism and how much of a concern we have for any value-added tax on this industry. I can't emphasize it any more than to say that we made a strong case and we sent the minister scurrying away to find out how he is going to make it work.

MS. EDWARDS: As you know, some countries have a value-added tax. They do rebate it to tourists who go through, but of course they set it up as a rebate system, because most tourists who are on a vacation are not into setting out their letters, keeping their receipts, sending back their receipts and getting the rebate. Is that the kind of thing we're talking about?

HON. MR. REID: The answer is yes.

MS. PULLINGER: A couple of questions about the 2 percent tax, if I may, and then I will move on to something else. I understand, as I mentioned earlier, that Whistler, Vancouver and Victoria are the only areas that have had the 2 percent tax levy approved and the only ones that have been using it. I am interested in knowing, Mr. Minister, how many other communities or groups have applied for the additional tax on hotel rooms, and whether any have been turned down.

HON. MR. REID: From my recollection, the only area of the province that has a request still on the books is Smithers. The reason it is still on the books is that their initiative was not totally supported by the industry in the surrounding area. It was supported by the council, but they didn't have the backup from the industry. We have asked them to revisit it to be certain they get unanimity — not unanimity, but close to it — from the tourism infrastructure and the local council.

MS. PULLINGER: The second part of my question is whether there have been none turned down. That's correct? Okay.

Earlier this year, I understand that there were expressions of interest in pocket cruises and that the government was going to consider running pocket cruises on the coast. I would like to get some answers on how many expressions of interest the ministry has received. Do they come through your ministry?

HON. MR. REID: Yes. Mr. Chairman, so that she doesn't get misled with this information in her own right, the request for additional ferry service between Vancouver and Prince Rupert was a privatization initiative under the management of the hon. Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mr. Michael). We did commission a study both on pocket cruising and the cruise ship industry in total — a cooperative study on behalf of the federal government and provincial government about the viability of the industry and some of the weaknesses and some of the potential that's out there. I would hope that that member also has a copy of each of those reports, which are very informative and very general in nature. It talks about the communities where pocket cruising has some potential and where there are some downsides and upsides, etc. The pocket-cruising survey was done by my ministry, but that's the extent to which my ministry was involved.

MS. PULLINGER: Thank you for that response.

I would like to move on, then, to the privatization of the provincial park campgrounds. I note that Alberta had planned to contract out all its parks services and had moved to do so; in fact, they said they were going to do so but have not. They have exempted certain things. Although they have contracted out some services, they certainly haven't contracted out all of them.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

[ Page 7414 ]

Ontario had also planned to privatize its park campgrounds and has reversed its policy. It's honouring the contracts that it has but is not renewing them. In other words, both of these places are finding that privatization of the parks campgrounds doesn't work. There are many other jurisdictions, both in Canada and the United States, that have reversed their privatization policies because the savings certainly weren't worth the problems that were created. I would just like to ask the minister if any studies were done on the effects of privatizing the parks and whether the safety and comfort of the two million people who use the campgrounds each year would be well served through privatization of the campgrounds.

I'd also like to know whether privatizing the park campgrounds and risking a decline in the quality of park services.... Have you done any studies or seen any research to determine whether that would negatively impact British Columbia's tourism industry?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, fortunately for my staff, who think that at this point they are overburdened with work, I don't have parks under my mandate. If I was giving you an answer from the Minister of Tourism relative to the very last end of your question, the response I have received in the last year relative to the parks operated by the private sector that used to be run by the parks division is that there is a wide acceptance by the traveling public and by the visiting public to British Columbia. They are very happy with the current situation.

MS. PULLINGER: In light of the evidence from many other places, it's my understanding that the privatization has not actually saved us any money but quite the contrary in British Columbia. I appreciate the fact that the parks per se are not part of the Ministry of Tourism. However, I would like to ask the minister whether he will be watching this to make sure the parks, which are obviously the government run campgrounds, have the highest appeal according to all the studies, including your own — if you will be watching these to see just exactly what the impacts are.

I am hearing that there have not been studies done to see what the consequences might be to the tourism industry.

HON. MR. REID: Not to elaborate too much on this subject, the Parks ministry currently operates throughout the eight regions of the province. Since we haven't had a way of marrying up the information from the economic regions into the nine tourism regions, the information hasn't been useful for me at the moment. I think very soon down the road we will be able to utilize some of that information. It may balance out some of the questions we had earlier in the day.

MS. PULLINGER: I would like to move on to something that isn't directly connected with your ministry but certainly has an impact on tourism. One is the Vancouver Island Highway. I believe you said in last year's estimates how very important that highway is to tourism on Vancouver Island. As we know, it's inadequate and has been inadequate for a long time.

I wonder if you are doing anything in terms of trying to push the Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Vant) into doing what he ought to have done a long time ago for the highway: getting a highway that will benefit the tourism industry and facilitate it....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I compliment the member on finding a way of trying to segue this item in. I appreciate a new member wanting to handle these estimates appropriately — and doing an excellent job, from the position of the Chair. But I must caution you, as I would caution other members' that you really can't canvass something that belongs to another minister, so if you would occasionally make constant references back to this ministry, it would be helpful to the Chair.

MS. PULLINGER: Okay. I will throw out that question, then, just to see if you are concerned about that. Obviously it's a problem for tourism. If you can't move people up and down the Island, it's not a good thing for tourism; similarly with the recent cutbacks announced by Via Rail and the fact that we may be looking at the loss of the E&N dayliner, in spite of the fact that the people of British Columbia gave away a quarter of Vancouver Island and some $25 million many years ago for it. Your own Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) has suggested that with proper promotion it could be a very beneficial addition to Vancouver Island's tourism industry. I would ask the minister what steps he has taken to ensure that we don't lose Via Rail and that it is promoted and more successful, as has been shown by recent promotion of Via Rail that it is possible to do.

[8:00]

HON. MR. REID: Starting from the last question first, Via Rail and the proposed abandonment of the E&N line on Vancouver Island are a major concern for the tourism component; no question about it. In the past, every time there's been the suggestion of abandoning that line, we've been able to generate some response and a position on behalf of the different divisions and ministry departments.

It's is no different this time around. We will do everything we can to encourage that that piece of line remain, using whatever resources we have within different ministries to try and encourage that. It is a very strong tourism product. As an example, the Royal Hudson, between North Vancouver and Squamish, and the dayliner to Whistler are the kinds of additions that ads for the tourism component.... We could even do that better. The question about Via Rail's possible abandonment.... It's pretty likely that they're going to try, and I will give you my assurance that this ministry will do everything I can, with my colleagues, to encourage that to continue, because it

[ Page 7415 ]

is a component. Once we lose it, it would be very difficult to reintroduce it. I will certainly take your concerns on that, and I will continue to speak on that issue.

The other one deals with the position of the Ministry of Tourism on the Vancouver Island Highway. If I had my druthers, as I said last year — and I still feel strongly about it — there are some circuitous routes I'd rather work strongly on to get the tourists traversing Vancouver Island more generally, rather than taking the major corridor up the centre of the Island. I know that's not what most of my colleagues and some of the members on that side of the House want to hear.

If you're asking me as the Minister of Tourism, I think there is a lot we could do, just as we were able to do last year in Pacific Rim Park on the upper end near Tofino. With assistance from this side of the House and that side of the House, we got them to improve that short section. Now there is a quality road from Port Alberni right into Tofino. I know it wasn't four-laned, and some of the other sections are being pressed, but as I said last year, and as I continue to reiterate, my priority would be to have better roads in the interim as much as possible right up to the north end of Vancouver Island and to concentrate on the long haul to the major four-lane corridors. I would rather that we concentrate on some of the circuitous routes so that our tourists get to stay longer in each of the communities throughout the whole of Vancouver Island.

MS. PULLINGER: I hope that the minister would have some input into the Ministry of Transportation and Highways because of its importance and because over half of our tourism traffic is rubber-tire traffic. I hope you would work towards that end. The highway is not safe, nor is it efficient. However, I'll leave that.

I would just like to ask a question about customs Recently U.S. Customs — again, it's perhaps tangential in a way — has decided not to pre-clear people when they come in from cruise ships to Canada Place There's a concern that there will be an awful lot of money lost, tourism dollars that could be spent in Vancouver, and that it will create congestion, both at Canada Place and at the airport. I wonder if the minister can tell me if he's taken any steps towards finding out the alternatives we have and whether the American government would reconsider having that customs person left there because it's of such importance to the tourism industry.

HON. MR. REID: I appreciate your research. It's certainly very accurate, and it's timely. It is a concern to my staff. My assistant deputy minister and the deputy met on Friday with Mr. Rogers, who's now the new president of the Downtown Vancouver Association, because there is a very strong concern about that decision on behalf of U.S. Customs. They met with Mr. Sam Fromowitzs representative, who happened to be available on Friday. He's the consul-general of the United States. He's due back this week, and my people have been put on his agenda for the minute he gets back. We can address it with him and ask for his assistance in encouraging U.S. Customs to reinstitute that operation, because it has a major impact on us. It's not the end of the world. The sky isn't falling as a result of it, because there are alternative things that we can ask the industry to do to pick it up. But it certainly was an assistance to those major blocks of visitors who were able to send their luggage on and spend some of their remaining time in Stanley Park and the lower mainland area during the balance of their post-tour.

So we have a concern about that, but I think we're dealing with all the principles necessary at the moment, and I could report back at another time when I get some further update on it.

MS. PULLINGER: I'm pleased to hear that the ministry is taking steps to deal with that. Perhaps the minister could enlighten me as well on the plans for the rubber-tire vehicle traffic border crossings between here and the United States. You indicated earlier that you'd reopened the Douglas border crossing and you had made the decision to close it. Has it been decided that all the border crossings will be contracted out?

HON. MR. REID: The simple answer is yes, but I'll elaborate a little if you wish. We will have contract operations at all the major crossings — at Mount Robson, Douglas and any other major centre that will require us to provide some contractual services in order to make certain that we give quality service there. But the reopening of Douglas at its current location — and I want to make this abundantly clear — is a temporary location, only because it really troubles us in relation to its safety. But service to the public is key, so we're going to do our best to service them out of there this year. By this time next year we'll have a new facility close to the border, which will provide all the services for the traveling public that we really want to have there.

MS. PULLINGER: Thank you for that answer.

I'd like to ask a couple of questions about land use. Last Saturday in the Sun there was a story about clearcutting on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Essentially the article — it was Outside magazine — told readers that the whole area of Vancouver Island is not worth touring because of the damage done by logging. This magazine is probably the most well-read camping magazine in the United States. Obviously there's a problem with land use. I would like to ask if the ministry was consulted before the decision was made to allow logging companies to clearcut to the waterline on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Was your ministry consulted?

HON. MR. REID: Yes, my ministry is concerned. Whether we were consulted on that particular portion of the west coast of Vancouver Island, I'm not familiar with the exact part you're talking about, because I haven't read the article, but I can tell you

[ Page 7416 ]

that I spent last Friday up in the area, at Tofino, and had a chance to visit the area north of there by air — Clayoquot Sound and beyond Sulphur Passage. I don't know exactly what area you're talking about, but I did see, as minister responsible for tourism and visual landscape, by virtue of a flyover of most of the areas up there, some of the concerns of the tourism community of Tofino and Ucluelet and the areas to be considered, and where the problem around Meares Island was, and where the problems of the construction of that road along part of the exposed island was started and stopped.

I saw all that, and I agree, as Minister of Tourism, that it's our mandate to try as best we can to work with multi-use and in cooperation with the forestry industry, to encourage them to use the best logging practices possible and to protect landscapes and view-scopes where possible. Whatever happens up there I'll have to deal with at another time. She asked me the question about the west coast of Vancouver Island, and I haven't received the article, but after seeing it last Friday, I do have a concern for what you're talking about. If I saw the article, I'd probably fly back up and have a look at the area, because I'm not conversant with the particular area.

MS. PULLINGER: just an additional question on the same issue, along the same line. I wonder if the minister could tell me if, given this unfavourable publicity on Vancouver Island and given that this problem isn't just an isolated case, your ministry is actively pursuing any way to take a more proactive role in land use decisions, so that we don't have this kind of difficulty any longer.

HON. MR. REID: To the member, I was getting the proper description. We are currently doing a search for a land use planner for the Ministry of Tourism's development department. We have opportunity for input, but we certainly have to have somebody on staff who can continue to address the concerns and issues as they come forward.

We are adding one person too — not a contractor, but right on staff with full pay, full benefits, full everything.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps members would respect the wishes of the people in Hansard and either stand to make their comments or wait until they are recognized.

MR. GABELMANN: just a few words on the issue raised by the second member for Nanaimo. The particular area that the member is talking about is, in fact, between Estevan Point and Brooks Peninsula, which is not at all the Clayoquot Sound-Tofino area This area includes — starting from the southeast side, once you get into it a little bit — Friendly Cove, Nootka Island and all of that historical area; and moving on north through Port Eliza and Rugged Point, coming into Kyuquot, and then from Kyuquot and Kyuquot Sound on up toward and through the Bunsby Islands, just reaching to the southern side of Brooks Peninsula. I was there eight days ago for two or three days, and I say without exaggeration that this area could make Hawaii look like a slum for tourism development. This area is phenomenal in terms of its potential. I am talking about the whole area from the Brooks Peninsula southeast down to Estevan Point.

It includes the whole of that historical area where Captain Cook first arrived. It includes some wonderful settlements that have been in existence for thousands of years. It includes Kyuquot Sound, which probably — and I won't say this too loudly for fear of my Campbell River constituency — includes some of the best fishing potential anywhere on this coast. It includes the Bunsby Islands, which certainly must become a provincial park for tourism purposes at some future date.

It includes that whole shoreline which has been a favourite for kayakers, who perhaps don't bring a lot of money to our economy, but a significant amount and, more important, the kind of goodwill and publicity that comes from word of mouth, which is, in my view, our best tourism promotional vehicle. The word of mouth going back to the States now from kayakers who go up and down the west coast of Vancouver Island is: "Don't go anymore."

You look at mountain slopes that are near to being vertical, and they are logged from the tidewater mark all the way up to the top, down the next side, all the way down to the river or creek at the bottom of the next mountain, and up the next mountain on the second range — clearcut. It reminds me of an 18-year-old kid being inducted into the American army and what happens to his hair: it is shaved clean.

What is happening to those hillsides after this shaving is that they are sliding. The roads were built badly, and there are mudslides and devastation. The kayakers and other tourists are not coming back. If this province wants to do something about its tourism potential, it needs to recognize that these wilderness areas have got to be maintained in a state that allows people to feel some rapport with nature. That doesn't mean no logging. We can still log those areas, and we can log them sensitively with small clearcuts and not going to the waterline. If there is a wind problem, as the forestry people will all tell us, then log wind firm.

[8:15]

The Tourism ministry, if it wants to ensure a future for what is in fact one of the greatest potential future resources of this province — our wilderness tourism — has got to make sure that the kind of god-awful logging that takes place on that west coast never happens again.

HON. MR. REID: I appreciate the enthusiasm. If I took the words right out of Hansard tomorrow and put them in one of our publications, I am sure it would do a great job towards the tourism market. I am talking about the very first part of your comments.

[ Page 7417 ]

The last part, of course, gives me some concern — "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" is what gives us the problem. We sometimes get extra attention to an area which.... If all of the ministries take it upon themselves to look at the wilderness tourism potential.... I haven't seen this so I can't speak at great length about it, but I do have your concerns.

I also have the other concern. I sat around this House two years ago when we talked about Lyell Island and what Lyell Island would mean to the economy of tourism. I can't get tourists there; as the Minister of Tourism I can't utilize that. We've got loggers out of work. We've got the economy devastated in some areas as a result of it.

I talk at great length at times to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) about how we can balance this out. I do hear you, but the economy of the province certainly cannot be brought to a dead halt. I know that when you see these areas — and they have such a potential for balancing the economy by being used for tourism.... We must continue to pay attention to the devastation that happens when you cut it right down to the water.

I am not a logger, so I can't justify it, but I know what my eyes tell me and I know what our customers tell us. I hear you, Mr. Member.

MS. EDWARDS: Recently the ministry funded a project which involved setting up a capability map for tourism in British Columbia. There were some very capable people who put together a map. It was the same sort of thing as might be done for other industries, and this one in particular, under a ministry program, was done and it laid out the very highest-capability areas in British Columbia — for wilderness tourism, at any rate. Has the minister done anything with the map? Is that part of the planning process within the ministry? What happened to the map, or what is going to happen to the map, if it's that slow? Could the minister comment somehow on what happened to it?

HON. MR. REID: The map still exists. The map was commissioned for consultative purposes and for discussion purposes of the ministry about the overall land use potential of tourism and other uses across the province. It was our ministry that put together the opportunities for wilderness tourism, high-level tourism, corridor tourism, the whole works. But none of it was acted upon. The information came through to my staff, and that's why we are anxiously awaiting this new addition to the staff who will be able to deal with that question of land use planning, for which I don't have anybody on staff at the moment.

MS. EDWARDS: Just one follow-up question: the minister is a member of the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet. As I understood it, the minister was a member of that committee before the Tourism Advisory Council was formed, but he said differently today. I thought the minister was on the Environment Committee of cabinet for a while. Is that tourism capability map accepted by the Environment Committee for interdepartmental planning purposes?

HON. MR. REID: By my ministry, the answer is yes.

MS. PULLINGER: I would like to canvass the area of tourism and labour — working people. The industry, of course, is dominated by service-sector types of jobs. The vast majority are minimum wage, and primarily women and young people are in those jobs. Obviously the increase in tourism, with things the way they are now, is going to mean an increase in low-paying, part-time, temporary jobs. Tourism, as you know, is the province's major employer, and the majority of those jobs, as I say, are minimum-wage jobs.

I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of that problem and if he has sat down with anyone in the tourism industry to discover ways to address it. Quite clearly, $4.50-per-hour jobs are less than it takes to live in this day and age. The minimum wage obviously needs to be raised, and there's the whole issue of what to do with people when they have temporary seasonal jobs. That's fine for students, if they pay a decent wage, but there are an awful lot of other people who work in the industry who need to have more than just a short-term job.

Now the problem is exacerbated with the federal cutbacks in unemployment insurance. I would like to ask the minister: is he aware of these problems and of the fact that they particularly apply to women and to young people? I wonder what you have done or what you plan to do to address the issue. It's obviously a serious one.

HON. MR. REID: The first thing that we've done is develop the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism, which is an institute to bring more of the high schools and the higher-level classroom students into knowledge about the career paths there are available in tourism.

Madam Member, I take exception to the fact that members on that side of the House, including some of your advocates like Jack Munro and others, talk about the 50-cent popcorn salesmen working in Victoria. I take exception to that, because there are none. There are no employees in our industry working for less than minimum wage. They sure don't work for 50 cents an hour, and Jack Munro never worked for 50 cents an hour in his life, even when he was born a punk in Nelson. For him to stand on the steps of this building and talk about what this industry doesn't do for the youth of today and the employment opportunities of today...

The reverse is true. It creates more jobs daily in the province of British Columbia than any other industry. But there are levels at which you must enter any workforce. To enter the workforce untrained, unskilled, with no talent or whatever, you have to come in at a level which can be afforded by the industry of today.

The reason for improvement in the industry is that we are becoming not a seasonal operation. We're

[ Page 7418 ]

hoping to get out of that syndrome where we are a six- or seven-month operation. The way it's working across most of the areas of the province right now, it's a 12-month season, and the more we can encourage more tourists to come to us for different reasons to all areas of the province, the more it becomes a full season. It doesn't become part-time employment. Without the current operations that are part-time, God forbid what would happen out there during some of the seasons of the year, when you pick up in some of the mountain areas of the province where ski activities take off when the summer facilities close down. There's a rotation now happening across the province.

There's also a pride in the tourism businesses, in the employees in tourism. Most of the people in the industry take exception to comments like "low pay" and "low wages." There are lots of people in the industry who are the highest-paid in the province. It covers a wide spectrum, because it's the largest employer.

We're working very closely with operations like our Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism. That program itself is changing the attitude of thousands of students. In the four months we've had career paths in place it's changed the attitude of students throughout the province toward the opportunities in directing themselves into a career path of accommodation, tour guiding, food services, liquor services, transportation, you name it. There are eight or nine categories these young students can get into today. Sure, they can't enter the industry at $12 an hour if they're going to work as a housekeeper in a motel that only has four units. I wish there were sufficient income in some of these small operations to pay the kind of wages paid by other industries, but the other industries have apprenticeship programs, which we haven't had in place up until now. We have them coming on stream and we have training programs coming on stream, and I can tell you we're working diligently with the post-secondary education system, the senior high school components and the colleges and universities, because it's the fastest-growing industry in the world, and we will be number one by the year 2000.

So in looking ahead, there are other opportunities, but we also have to know that to balance the economy out it's the income that will make it work. For opponents of the industry to continue to try and downgrade the industry by saying it's the lowest paying.... Your spokespersons out there on the steps of this building last week were talking about 50 cents an hour. That's ludicrous.

MS. PULLINGER: I'm interested that the hon. member has decided to attack Jack Munro. Obviously you're missing the symbolism of what he's saying. However, that's not surprising.

I doubt very much that people take exception to my pointing out the wages they're earning are, quite frankly, poverty wages. I really think that people would much appreciate, rather than your saying they have no talent and they've got to start somewhere and accusing me of destroying their pride In their minimum-wage, poverty-level jobs.... You might be much better advised to have a look at minimum wage and the fact that it is not a minimal wage by about 30 percent these days.

As I pointed out, the vast majority of people working in that service sector are women. It may come as a surprise, but women don't work for pin-money; they work for real money. They work to support themselves and to support their children. It's not surprising that the gap between those who have and those who do not have in our province has grown faster in the last decade under Social Credit government than in any other decade in our history. When we left office in 1975 the minimum wage was above the poverty line; it was something you could live on. To say that's fine for people who are just entering the workforce is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Once again we're into the realm of another ministry. The minimum wage is not determined by the Minister of Tourism; it's a matter for the Ministry of Labour. I appreciate that the member wishes to canvass the issue, but this is not the appropriate time to do it.

MS. PULLINGER: Fair enough, but it is certainly a factor in tourism. The nature of the industry, what tourism is — part-time, seasonal work — and the fact that it's minimum wage, obviously have something to do.... By the minister's own admission, one of the primary reasons people come to British Columbia is friendly workers. Well, as people are dropping further and further behind it's difficult to keep people. It's not easy, and the industry is having that trouble. I would think that if the minister did some canvassing of his own with his own Minister of Labour to get us a decent minimum wage, it might help.

However, I will move on to the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism, which you pointed out as something you were doing about the difficulty In the tourist industry of jobs that are not attractive and not viable in terms of people supporting themselves. Certainly that is a very worthwhile enterprise, and as well as a decent wage you need to have some career path.

I would just like to ask a few questions on the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism. What is the provincial contribution to that institute for 1989-90?

HON. MR. REID: The government's grant to establish the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism was $300,000.

MS. PULLINGER: That is exactly the same as last year, minus inflation.

Can the minister tell me what the federal contribution to the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism will be for 1989-90?

[8:30]

HON. MR. REID: You may not be surprised: the federal commitment at this point is zero for 1989-90.

[ Page 7419 ]

MS. PULLINGER: You're right, I'm not surprised. I would like to know, then, if the funding for that very important institute is going to be made up from another source, or if it is simply going to be decreased.

HON. MR. REID: The establishment of the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism was for it to stand on its own within three years of launching, and that the private sector, the beneficiaries of the training, research and supervisory training programs, was to be brought in on a continual basis until it could actually fund the total operation. They will be the ultimate recipients. It's a kick-start operation on the part of my ministry and the government, and its intention in the three-year period is to have it handed off to the private sector.

MS. PULLINGER: I can appreciate that, but I would think also that the federal funding was expected to continue, and given that it isn't, I would expect that to have a negative effect on their long-term plans. I would be interested to know the dollar amount of the funding.

Earlier this year the minister announced a program called "A Career in Tourism: It's a Natural, " which was to be delivered to grade 10 students. I wonder if the minister can describe the program in a little more detail. For instance, who is delivering the program? Is it going to be part of the school curriculum? Have many students participated? If so, how many? What's the budget for the program?

HON. MR. REID: "A Career in Tourism: It's a Natural" was launched in March, and it now has enveloped 41 different schools across the province. In its first go-round it was a one-hour presentation of a video made, using students in a natural setting, about the opportunities in careers in tourism. The application in those 41 schools has been so well received that we have a bit of a problem in September: the requests for expansion of the program into the curriculum of the senior secondary schools is so demanding that I don't think we'll be able to keep up. It has worked very well. Obviously the appetite for the program is vast, and it certainly tells us that the time has come for us to be out there with this program. It's been very well received and very successful — a bit scary at its take-up, because we weren't prepared for it.

MS. PULLINGER: I would like to ask one last question. Before I do, I'd like to thank the minister for his responses, as I am finished with the Tourism estimates.

I wonder if you can tell me what other programs the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism has developed or sponsored this year.

HON. MR. REID: The first one we initiated out of there was the tourism supervisory development program. We brought through that one because we needed the supervisory program to be in place in order for the career paths one to be taken up. The second one we launched was the tourism career awareness program. Last but not least, one we unveiled on April 15, I think it was: a resource centre at Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism in downtown Vancouver, with up-to-date knowledge, research, studies and programs that can be drawn in from anywhere in the world, which are currently in place and have been in place, with ideas and suggestions on just about anything to do with tourism, in the form of publications, videos, study programs, educational programs — the whole works. It is currently being libraried at the resource centre, which has a full operational staff to provide ongoing details daily to anybody interested in the industry call tourism.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to see that the flesh around your eye has returned to its normal configuration.

I have a few questions for the minister. At the outset I want to say to the committee that I have appreciated the minister's assistance in a number of concerns on behalf of my constituents. Whatever criticisms of his ministry we on this side of the House may have from time to time, I have certainly not had difficulty dealing with him personally — philosophically perhaps on occasion.

A question on regulation. Mr. Chairman, I hope you don't find this outside strict relevancy. One aspect of the minister's responsibility is the Lottery Corporation Act. The Lottery Corporation is a publicly owned Crown corporation. Within the area of gaming and gaming practices — let's call it gambling in general — not only must the process be fair but of course it must be seen to be fair. Hence the government, under the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree), has a public gaming branch and a Gaming Commission. However, the government, even though it quite correctly has watchdogs overseeing gaming and gambling in the private sector, has not seen fit to have the same scrutiny of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

I would like the minister to tell the committee, and hence the public of British Columbia, whether he wishes to pursue that with his cabinet colleagues. Not that the Lottery Corporation should be discriminated against in any way, but it should simply be subject to the same scrutiny, rules and regulations, licensing provisions and so forth that private sector gaming operations in B.C. are subject to. After all, we keep hearing from the government that they believe in open government and free enterprise. Certainly I especially, and we on this side of the House, would not like to think that public enterprise is granted privileges by government in any way that private sector entrepreneurs are not.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

This afternoon there was some discussion of the elections branch, which is also under this minister. I don't want to recanvass any of that. However, it does appear from the fact that we have had a commission looking into electoral boundaries, and we've had statements advocating electoral reform from the Pre-

[ Page 7420 ]

mier and other members on the government side for the past two and a half years.... As has been indicated today, a substantial amount of public funds has already been spent on this question.

Without anticipating what the government may do with the Fisher commission, or indeed with any report that may come from the committee, it does appear that there is going to be some redrawing of electoral maps. The question I have for the minister is: if the elections branch is to do this, do they have the tools to do the job? Has the minister anticipated the need for redrawing the maps and put the machinery in place to do that when and if the government should make a decision that that would be required? For two and a half years we have been hearing that that indeed would be happening. We don't know when it's going to happen and we don't know what the shape of the new electoral map is going to be, but we have heard consistently that it's going to happen.

I notice in the estimates provided by the Minister of Finance under vote 70 that there was only an inflationary increase, roughly 5 percent, in the allotment for the elections branch. That means to me either that the tools are already in place to do the job or that the minister has not provided the elections branch with those tools. I would like to know what the minister intends to do with the mechanics of redrawing the electoral map when and if the orders come down to do that.

Perhaps we'll have the minister deal with those two issues and then we'll go into other areas, so there's not too much on the plate at once.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I was getting such a vicious attack from the other side of the House that I was trying to concentrate on which ones were the most vicious: either my own colleagues or the members across the House.

In response to the member for Rossland-Trail, the second question first. Let me give you the comfort that the minute the committee reports in and the Legislature makes a decision relative to electoral boundaries, the machinery within the elections branch is ready to go to work and will be able to address it in, I understand, a maximum of seven months. I've been told that just today. The question is: will it happen? The answer is yes.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: Look, you asked me, so I'm giving you the answer. My staff in the elections branch, who are the best in North America.... I have full confidence in them. Information was provided to the Select Standing Committee on Labour, justice and Intergovernmental Relations, and they were told that it was down to seven months possibly, but not to count on it; something has to go out in the ointment So the answer is that the machinery will be put in place the minute the instructions are given from my ministry, and I can tell you that we produce results.

I'm not exactly certain how to answer the question relative to regulations on lotteries. Do I interpret that there is something the Lottery Corporation is doing that doesn't sit well with the other side of the House? I'm not sure what you're asking. You say that it should operate under the same guidelines as the gaming branch. The gaming branch is a smaller entity....

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: But that's what I thought I heard you say. That's why I have a concern. I don't know if there are other models we could try to embellish here, but the Lottery Corporation as such is very successful. It meets all of the stringent regulations and all of the requirements of the act it's structured under.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: The Lottery Corporation needs a chairman of the board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, I'd ask you to address the Chair in the future, and possibly the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) could control himself and also address his remarks to the Chair.

MR. D'ARCY: I don't want to carry on all night on these two issues. I will try and be more articulate and maybe the minister will try and meet me halfway on it.

The question, first of all, on the electoral map. It would seem to me that given the legal descriptions.... We've already had one set of them. The government doesn't want to accept them. That's fine; they can accept something else. But with one set of legal descriptions from Judge Fisher, it seems to me a group of energetic high school geography students could do the mapping in a good deal less than seven months.

[8:45]

The point I was making relative to the Lottery Corporation was not that it should be run by the Gaming Commission. The point I'm making is that there is a wide variety of legalized gambling and gambling operations in the province of British Columbia. There are bingos, horse-racing, licensed gaming clubs and casino operations. There's a wide variety. All of them are under the regulation and scrutiny of the Ministry of Solicitor-General — with one exception. There is one area of legal gambling in British Columbia which is not regulated by the Solicitor-General's ministry. It doesn't really matter what ministry; it could be your ministry. I don't really care — but under government regulation. It is the Lottery Corporation.

My question to the minister is: does he have any objection to having the Lottery Corporation under the same scrutiny? Because as I said earlier, things must not only be fair; they must be seen to be fair in gaming in British Columbia.

[ Page 7421 ]

As far as the general public is concerned, with all of the philosophical statements we have had over the decades from the Social Credit Party on their commitment to free enterprise, it does seem a contradiction and an absurdity that a corporation run entirely by the government will have no scrutiny by the government's own regulators, but all of the private sector operations have to be subjected to it. Certainly, if we're going to have open government in British Columbia — and we've had a discussion of that to a great degree by government spokesmen today — it would be in keeping with that philosophy if the corporation were regulated or at least under the scrutiny of the Gaming Commission or the gaming branch, like all other legal gambling operations in British Columbia.

HON. MR. REID: Quite wide-ranging. The one basic difference between the Lottery Corporation and all those other scattered operations that you talk about out there.... "Scams" is the word used by the member for Vancouver East, not used by this member. Those organizations, casinos and those types of things are not Crown corporations of this govern ment. This Crown corporation is operated by a board of directors and fully....

MR. D'ARCY: What have you got to hide?

HON. MR. REID: I've got nothing to hide. I tabled in this House — and I will table another one very shortly — a full audited statement of the Lottery Corporation with all the legal ramifications it has under the act; a full audited statement of Thorne Ernst and Whinney each year. I'm not so sure I understand what the member is getting at. It's fully audited, fully reportable.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, it's nice to engage in this in a formal way and with your recognition.

Maybe we could begin, Mr. Minister, with just a question about the auditor-general. There are many of these Crown corporations — or some — remaining that are not under the purview of the auditor-general. The Lottery Corporation, of all, should be under the auditor-general. What do you have to say to that?

You said: "We've got nothing to hide." We have an auditor-general in this province whose mandate should be to deal with all of these Crown corporations. The Lottery Corporation is one that we know, all too often, sees things in a partisan manner. It desperately needs review. Maybe the place to begin is with an officer of the entire Legislature, not some hired group. What do you say to having the auditor general look at that operation from stem to stern, Mr. Minister, if you have nothing to hide?

You say nothing. Let Hansard note that he says nothing. A minute ago he said: "We have nothing to hide." If you've got nothing to hide with respect to the Lottery Corporation, then you would have had the auditor-general monitoring that from the day of its inception. Your silence speaks volumes about that corporation. So what do you say?

MR. CLARK: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister, who was pounding his desk in question period when the Premier talked about open government, has on several occasions refused to answer questions. What about specific questions about the Lottery Corporation, given that the silence seems to indicate some problem there? We may have to pursue some specific questions. Can the minister confirm that the Lottery Corporation has an architect on contract in Kamloops?

HON. MR. REID: We do not have a architect on permanent contract. The answer is no.

MR. CLARK: Can the minister explain why an architect had to be flown down from Kamloops by the Lottery Corporation to do work in Vancouver?

HON. MR. REID: I'm not sure what question the member is getting to. I was just talking to the vice-president of the Lottery Corporation, and we have an architect who has contractual services to the corporation, from Vernon, who has not done work in the Vancouver area for close to two years. Are you going back two years? Because the estimates that we're talking about start in April of this year. So if you're talking about these current estimates, I'm not sure what you're leading to, because I don't know what you're talking about.

MR. CLARK: I'm just curious about the contractual relationship with a Vernon architect to do work in all aspects of the Lottery Corporation. My information is that in the past year or so an architect from Vernon had to be flown in to look at minor matters in the lower mainland. I was of the opinion or belief that there is a contractual relationship with a specific architect, and I wonder if the minister could explain what that relationship is and whether there's an annual retainer given by the Lottery Corporation. Is there an annual retainer to this particular architect? Is there a relationship that goes beyond...? It seems to me that normally the location of the architect would be in the vicinity of the facilities. The information I've got is that it's not necessarily the case.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, we have an architect who understands the complexities of lottery operations and counters or whatever. He works out of Vernon, and we use him on an as-needed basis. He's not on a permanent contract.

MR. CLARK: But if you need him in Vancouver, you use him? The minister nods his head. It seems somewhat of a curious relationship, but we can probe that some more.

I wonder if the minister could tell me about security at the Lottery Corporation. I've been informed that boxes with certain lottery tickets go out, and that it's been privatized. I wonder, first, if the minister could tell me whether the transportation of lottery tickets has been privatized to Loomis Courier or one of those organizations.

[ Page 7422 ]

HON. MR. REID: Most of the operation is our own employees. We use courier for quick distribution of bulk blocks of volumes of tickets.

MR. CLARK: What happens if the tickets go out and the pub or whoever is receiving them refuses the box because it has been opened and sends it back for a new shipment?

HON. MR. REID: I'm not aware of any such incident.

MR. CLARK: But I didn't see you discuss with your vice-chairman any such incident. I'd appreciate it if you could check it, because that's not the information I've been given.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I may be getting a little edgy, because I understand that this could be perceived as a breach in security or operation, or a malfunction within the operation. I have daily contact with the Lottery Corporation. I'm not aware of any incident. If you have one, would you please bring it forward, being very specific? Because there are none, to my knowledge, as of today.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister could advise us about the headquarters of the Lottery Corporation in Kamloops and the arrangements there in terms of the lease. That's the old Woodward's building in Kamloops. Could we be advised of what current lease levels are at the lottery's head office?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, we currently occupy that space at below current market value. The building has on occasion been considered for purchase for the long-range use of the Lottery Corporation. There are ongoing negotiations between the owner of the property and the corporation to try to establish when the balance between the corporation's lease requirements match the ongoing balance of the saving to the corporation. It's an ongoing negotiation, and consideration of purchase of the building is discussed by the board at almost every second meeting to find out what the marketplace is. Because the building and the operation of the Lottery Corporation in the community of Kamloops is one of the largest employers in the community. We have a concern as a corporation about its profile.

If the building were to change hands, we have an option on it. We would have some concern if it were to change hands because the modifications of that building were tremendous in order to accommodate all of the electronic equipment necessary to provide the computer operations for the whole province. We have over 2,000 stations operating through the Kamloops mainframe computer. As a result of that, the cost of that installation was major, so consideration for the disruption that we may have if the corporation had to move on a short notice would be tremendous, and so would the morale situation around the community of Kamloops. We, as a corporation, continue to look at the potential and the best business case for that building as it relates to us.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister could elaborate on the costs that were involved in terms of those electronic installations and all those various improvements that were made.

HON. MR. REID: I would have some difficulty with that, because that was three or four years ago — before I came responsible for the corporation. I could give you the square footage cost today in relation to the corporation's use: $4.10 a square foot, weighted average, whatever that means — base rate; tower space is $4; on the ground floor it's $4.50, and we have an option for an additional ten years at that rate; we have 150 parking stalls included in the rent; we have approximately $3 per square foot of operating costs because of the electronic equipment.

A comparable building not far away is $10 a square foot — parking is included — with $7 operating costs. I have other similar comparisons, and they all go up from that graph, Mr. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's not clear then. You're saying that you have options over a 20-year period at that base rate — continuously through the 20 years? There are normal escalation charges, surely.

HON. MR. REID: I'm sorry, I wasn't intending to mislead the member. The first ten years is at a fixed rate. After that, the next ten years is negotiable. We're into it for about five years, so we have about five years in the original one, and then there will be a renegotiated, escalated rate. You know more about that because you're in the real estate business; I'm not.

MR. WILLIAMS: I take it that's net, net, net, then — triple net.

HON. MR. REID: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: So in addition to this unit cost, you are paying for the taxes and other costs in management, etc.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: "Why not, " says the minister. What's the total square footage being rented?

HON. MR. REID: In Kamloops, it's 60,000 square feet.

[9:00]

MR. WILLIAMS: That's 60,000 square feet at base rate. That's $270,000 a year then — that would be the base rate at the $4.50 number.

Interjection.

[ Page 7423 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the members to address their remarks through the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's a good price, yes. With all those figures, the minister doesn't seem to have the actual amount that the corporation spent on improving the building. That's an interesting question, I think.

HON. MR. REID: I said I wasn't the minister responsible; I did not say I didn't have the details. I can give you the details. If you want, I can read them all. It was dated October 1984: the first supplier was Barval Installations from Kelowna, with costs to the corporation for the remodelling of $338,774; Benton and Overbury Ltd. from Surrey, $50,420; Bill Koehler Painting and Paper Hanging for wallpaper, $53,350; D and T Developments (Kamloops) Ltd., $1,361,598; Division Ten Enterprises Inc., Richmond, $61,279; Elmac Elevator Service, Kelowna, $115,824; Inland Glass and Aluminum Ltd., Kamloops, double-paned windows or whatever, $863,899; Kal West Contractors, Vernon, $855,587; Kamloops Carpet Warehouse Ltd., $109,883; Maryson Roofing of Kamloops, $66,622; McGregor and Thompson Hardware of Kelowna, $95,314; Renson Construction from Kelowna, $59,579; and Ron Brown Ltd. from Vernon, $1, 058,884 — for a total renovation cost in 1984 of $5,091,013.

MR. WILLIAMS: In addition to this, then, there would have been the cost of the electronic inputs as well. Would that be the case?

HON. MR. REID: The answer is yes. The cost of the special installation of electronics would have been in any building we moved into. I don't have that number as part of this. That's the concern we have; it's probably a big number. I don't have it here.

MR. WILLIAMS: As the minister says, in the case of the Lottery Corporation they spent $5,091,000 in improvements, which is well beyond normal leasehold improvements. Normal leasehold improvements would be the carpeting, maybe subdividing the office space, and that sort of thing. What we're talking about here is rebuilding the building. You put new windows on for $855,000, if my memory serves me right; you put a new roof on; you put in all of these other elements. Then you would ask yourselves: "Would any prudent corporation do this?" Wouldn't any prudent corporation have bought the building in the first place?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Member, if any prudent corporation could have predetermined that they were going to get the space at $4.10 a square foot, compared to $8.50, $7.50, $9, $9.50 or $10, and the facility had to be upgraded and improved in order to accommodate a very specialized kind of operation, which is the Lottery Corporation and its computer mainframe.... It's not just any plain building. It was in 1984. I don't make excuses for it, but if I was asked today, I'd still say it was the best business decision of any building in Kamloops, because you're getting it at $4.10 a square foot. That's cheaper than a vacant warehouse.

MR. WILLIAMS: The thing is that you spent $5 million-plus in 1984 dollars, or earlier, The Lottery Corporation outlaid $5 million, so if you just apply an interest rate to that, we're talking about $500,000 to $600,000 or more per year at current interest rates, to which you must then add what you're paying in rent, which is the additional $300,000, or close to it. So what you're talking about is $1 million a year in rent, or perilously close to it.

The real question then is.... You ask yourself all these things: "Well, I wonder who owns the building. I wonder if it would be a prominent Social Crediter or anything like that. I wonder if that's just possible. I wonder if it would be a past member of the executive of the Social Credit Party in Kamloops or something like that. Isn't there just the possibility of that?" Doesn't that then colour...?

Oh, maybe the minister from Kamloops can provide some help in that regard.

HON. MR. REID: I want to convey that it's Trelco Enterprises from Kamloops that owns the building.

MR. WILLIAMS: The property has changed hands, has it then? Or has it always been in those hands?

HON. MR. REID: Not since I've been chairman of the board it hasn't — since August '88. It's been Trelco since I've been chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS: I haven't checked the ownership lately, but the interesting thing is that the Woodward's building was indeed acquired by executive members of the Social Credit Party in Kamloops. Subsequently the rental arrangements were made. It was a given, for the Lottery Corporation.... Oh, the minister shakes his head.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You stand up and make your accusation. You're usually wrong, and the press will pick it up.

MR. WILLIAMS: You mean nobody who was ever involved in the executive of the Social Credit Party in Kamloops was involved...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask all the members just to be seated for a moment. We can proceed at an orderly pace if we all take our time and address our remarks to the Chair. I would ask the Minister of Tourism to proceed.

HON. MR. REID: I have no reluctance in naming the.... As far as I know, and this is from my own recollection, I don't know if they're even Socred members, and I don't know if they're on the executive of any party in Kamloops, because I don't have any reason to ask that question. The vice-president of the

[ Page 7424 ]

Lottery Corporation tells me that the three principals of Trelco are Roy Cooper, Wayne Cooper and Gary Cooper.

MR. WILLIAMS: It hasn't changed hands. It's the same people....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: So you're wrong again.

MR. WILLIAMS: The member for Kamloops keeps saying: "You're wrong again." Is he saying that none of the Coopers were ever on the executive of the Social Credit Party in Kamloops? He keeps mumbling there. You will find earlier stories in the Kamloops News regarding membership on the executive of the Social Credit Party in Kamloops. The Minister of Human Resources knows that all too well.

The point is that the old Woodward's building in downtown Kamloops was a bit of a problem, but it wouldn't be a problem if you had a long-term tenant. The building could suddenly become an amazing asset if you had a 20-year tenant. Ask any landlord if he wouldn't be very well off if he had a 20-year lease with a government tenant. You bet. It's a blue-chip arrangement for the landlord. If my memory serves me right, the building was acquired for some $3 million at the most. It might have been less; I'd have to check my files. It might have been $2 million, but in that range. The Lottery Corporation then spends $5 million renovating it: putting in windows, putting on a roof, fixing it all up, and then spending Lord knows how much on the electronic side, which the minister hasn't gone into. He's catalogued a list here of some $5 million, which may be double what they paid for the building in the first place — these people who had been on the Social Credit Party executive.

So it begs the question again: do we get value for money out of the Lottery Corporation? And it's thumbs up. The real test in terms of value for money is a value-for-money audit out of the auditor-general, Mr. Minister. We had silence a little while ago when we asked if you were prepared.... I'll put it a little differently: are you prepared to ask the executive council to have the auditor-general become the auditor for the Lottery Corporation?

HON. MR. REID: I would have no problem in asking the executive council to consider that.

MR. WILLIAMS: I commend the minister for that, and I hope he will indeed make that recommendation to the executive council. I think this corporation and all the Crown corporations — I don't want to single out the Lottery Corporation, tempting as it is — should be under the purview of the auditor-general. I think that was the intent of establishing the auditor general, and I'm encouraged by what the minister says. If the auditor-general begins to look in a normal audit way at these Crown corporations and then subsequently at a value-for-money audit of the corporations, we would indeed all be better off.

MR. D'ARCY: Now to something completely different but under the minister's responsibility.

A few days ago in the central interior of the province the Premier indicated publicly that he thought it would be a good idea if a couple of major Crown corporations moved their headquarters out of the lower mainland and into the interior or the north, specifically B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail. These would be major government initiatives, and I'm sure the public, particularly in the lower mainland, would be very interested.

The normal method of releasing detailed information on these sorts of things is through government information services, specifically the public affairs branch. Can the minister who is responsible for those operations indicate to the people of B.C. when they intend to expand on these initiatives and to make them public to the executives and employees of those two corporate head offices located in the lower mainland which the government has a philosophy of moving to some other part of the province?

HON. MR. REID: The responsibility of conveying that kind of information and news and decision to those corporations is certainly that of the minister directly responsible for that function. The public affairs department is simply that; it's an adviser in most cases, a communicator after the fact. I think that's probably what you're alluding to. The concerns that I think the employees would have in the examples you gave would be better served by the minister responsible for those two major Crown corporations, as to their potential for relocation. It would be up to my ministry and the public affairs department to convey the decision and the message.

MR. D'ARCY: Those two corporations have a tremendous asset value and some debt responsibility which is borne by all British Columbia residents and taxpayers. The minister would indicate that he somehow doesn't feel that government information services should be major disseminators of information involving significant initiatives regarding them, which is passing strange to me. In any event, those operations — the public affairs bureau in particular — have a certain staff level. Could the minister indicate how many people are on staff in the public affairs bureau and whether that has been raised or altered this fiscal year, for the estimates we're discussing relative to those for the previous fiscal year?

HON. MR. REID: The total complement in the public affairs department is 19, an increase of three. I inherited 16 from the Premier's office when it was transferred to my ministry. Because we've taken on additional responsibilities, there are three additions.

[9:15]

MR. D'ARCY: I think that means there are three more this year than last year. According to the vote estimates tabled in the House by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), the budget for this particular segment is going

[ Page 7425 ]

up by approximately $2 million. Since the staff level is only going up by three, can the minister indicate exactly what the $2 million is for?

HON. MR. REID: Part of the major increase in the budget is additional advertising. The advertising budget is up by $1,300,000, and it's called "Get the Message Out." The different departments of each ministry have a requirement to get the messages out on seniors, on the TRY program — information, communications.

British Columbia placed seventy-sixth in a recent survey of Canadian advertisers, well behind the federal government, which is first. Ontario was tenth, Quebec thirty-fifth and Alberta fifty-fourth.

MR. D'ARCY: It was my, and I think most other people's, understanding and recollection that the government had announced that ministries would be doing their own advertising and that the advertising budgets for the government in general were up substantially — much higher than what the minister just indicated. Is it possible that the budgetary increase has to do with the production costs of advertisement rather than the placing of the advertisements themselves?

HON. MR. REID: The simplistic answer is no. The $3.5 million in informational advertising goes to support government-wide initiatives, preparation of informational materials on interministerial programs and initiatives that overlap, production and placement of advertising, news release distribution, publication of Provincial Report, program directories, regional media directories, etc. Creative services, writing, display, research and photography are all lumped into that $3.5 million.

MR. D'ARCY: Perhaps the minister could give a specific answer, then. Does his ministry produce any advertising material or contract the production of advertising material specifically aimed at use on commercial television in British Columbia?

HON. MR. REID: A simple answer would be yes. There's a very small caption we've just put together through my ministry staff with the expertise they have: a small video on either one of the economic thrusts or maybe even the senior citizens' advisory committee or something. Nothing major is done within the ministry in relation to production of videos, films etc.

MR. D'ARCY: Can the minister indicate to the committee any contractual relationship any department of his ministry has with any advertising agency?

HON. MR. REID: The public affairs bureau.... Under advertising contracts, we have 130 private sector agencies and suppliers who provide us with advertising, creative services, etc. The major one, of course, is Baker Lovick, which is our agency of record.

You've got the Strengthening the Family program, you've got Security for Seniors, you've got the care card program, you've got the health care education program. We've got the TRY program, we've got Counterattack, we've got Employment Plus, and we've got Economic Print. You've got Challenging the Nineties, museums, privatization opportunities, Go B.C.; you've got International Business, Education, Tourism, Advanced Education and other ministries. Those are the programs that are directed through my public affairs division and which they research and direct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Chair recognizes the member for Rossland-Trail, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey requests leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY: I'd like to welcome to the House this evening two very special guests. It's quite unusual at this time of the evening to have somebody visiting from the great province of Ontario. I'd like to introduce Dr. Mark Robson from Arnprior, Ontario, and Dr. Wolfgang Wetzer from the great constituency of Saanich and the Islands. I'll just yield to the member for Prince Rupert, for one minute, at your pleasure, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I'm informed by my colleague from Point Grey that accompanying the two people he has just introduced is Dr. Don Lovely from Prince Rupert. I would ask the House to make him welcome at this late hour.

MR. D'ARCY: If we have visitors at this time of night, they must indeed have rolled up the sidewalks in Victoria.

Mr. Chairman, to the minister, does any part of the ministry have any contracts with Dome Advertising?

HON. MR. REID: Yes, Dome does the Challenging the Nineties television sequences.

MR. D'ARCY: Can the minister tell the committee how much money has been expended or will be expended on producing this series of advertisements?

HON. MR. REID: The total program, including the television time, is $255,000.

MR. D'ARCY: Can the minister tell the committee — I think that a lot of us have been rather interested in this — whether or not, through the public affairs branch, in particular, or government information

[ Page 7426 ]

services, they have had any activity regarding familiarizing public information officers with how to deal with what the government considers to be important public information questions; in other words, how to talk to the press or the public whenever there are issues involved in public information officer briefings?

HON. MR. REID: The member didn't mention a Mr. Tortorella from Los Angeles. Is that the subject you're talking about — Mr. Tortorella, the man who offered his advice and assistance to the public affairs branch? Is that the question? I'm not sure I got the question.

MR. DARCY. I don't have any direct knowledge of that, but certainly there have been indications that the government has wanted to involve some of its people in training on what is popularly called "damage control." I have no knowledge of who you consult with. Certainly the government is free to make phone calls or bring in people any time they wish, or to go out and meet with people. The question is really in the public interest: how much is the government spending on this sort of training? What we'd really like to know in this committee, and what I think the public needs to know, is how the money is being spent and how it is going to be useful.

HON. MR. REID: First of all, how will it be useful? It's always useful that the public gets correct and timely information on issues and programs and government initiatives. When you talk about the public affairs department being in a position to respond on damage control, such as the oil spill at Tofino on the west coast of Vancouver Island.... As you know, it was very serious. We have a serious one now — talking about damage control — about the news and information given on the availability and the potential of South Moresby as a tourism attraction. The difficulty is that we have too many tourists coming to the Queen Charlottes and South Moresby who cannot get to the facility and are going away disappointed because we have not got the provisions or the infrastructure to entertain them. So that kind of information we emulate as much as possible.

All the training is done internally. It's done by qualified staff that we have in daily and weekly meetings on what the issues are. We produce for all members of this House weekly information such as B.C. Update, which talks in highlighted form about some of the major issues happening each week. Those are the kinds of things that public affairs does very effectively.

MR. DARCY. It's very important that information disseminated by government in any way, particularly through the public affairs branch, is credible, objective and issued in a dispassionate way. After all, it is the public's own money. One of the major complaints that I've been receiving is that the public does not take too seriously what the government says, that most of it is public relations and that the damage control that the government is more concerned about is for political image rather than about the image of British Columbia in general.

In any event, I want to move along here, because it's getting late this evening. The minister rather kindly spoke to me regarding an issue that I had raised with him earlier by letter about assistance for British Columbians who had shown excellence in a particular discipline — in this case it was athletic, although I guess it could be any discipline — and had received national recognition. I had asked the minister to consider providing a funding subsidy for interprovincial travel. He indicated to me that they were looking at the whole question but couldn't really deal with it, because if you start funding one, you have to fund them all. What I would like to ask the minister here tonight is whether he and his advisers have come up with any sort of rationale for deciding what a recognizable discipline is, in particular in athletics. I would think a good place to start would be those disciplines which are recognized, say, as Olympic or national sports, and that where there is a national championship, to make some assistance available.

I think the same criterion could be applied to cultural issues, heritage issues and so forth. Certainly it does seem somewhat absurd that funding assistance for travel is provided in the province, but when somebody is excellent enough to represent the province on a national basis, they are reduced to their own resources. What happens, Mr. Chairman, very often is that only a financial elite can afford to take advantage of their own excellence, which they've already proven. I hope the minister has had time to work this one over and, as I say, define in advance those areas or disciplines which are going to get recognized. That way you don't get stuck with — oh, I don't know; I'll probably offend somebody — financing a visit to a basket weaving convention in central Africa or something of that nature.

[9:30]

Similarly I would like to see some better guidelines relative to the protocol office. Your protocol office, Mr. Minister, is always ready, willing and able to assist MLAs. Very often they don't have the resources or the tools to do the job that's required of them. I think it would assist members of this House, as well as the people in your own protocol office, if there were some more detailed guidelines as to what assistance could be available, particularly for interior ridings. I can't really speak for the lower mainland ridings.

In interior ridings we have a tremendous number of requests — other MLAs have indicated this to me, as well as my own experience — from constituents who, once again, are representing some part of the province, either interprovincially or internationally, and are usually recognized for excellence in some field or recognized by a Rotary Club, some service organization, Scout or Girl Guide agencies, cadets or whatever. Very often they have major requests for pins and flags. Your protocol office labours mightily to keep people supplied, but I rather think it would

[ Page 7427 ]

help a whole lot if there were some guidelines and beefing up of that program.

Before I let the minister answer, I want to note that on March 16 or 17 I put a question on the order paper. I thought it was a fairly simplistic and straightforward question that shouldn't be too hard to answer. It is now, I see — if there is a certain seniority in this — somewhere around third of about 57 questions on the order paper, and nearly three months have gone by. I'm just wondering if perhaps the minister could — without using the expression "in the fullness of time" — indicate when some answer to that rather simplistic couple of questions, that have been on the order paper for some time, might be forthcoming for the public in British Columbia.

HON. MR. REID: Starting with the first question, on the issue of assistance to national competitions and national groups, the whole dilemma around sport-governing bodies and the level of funding that should be appropriately provided if it was available is, as I told the member before, currently being discussed with the minister responsible for sport, who is the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mrs. Johnston). We are working on trying to provide a mechanism whereby more assistance can be provided to these groups. Up until last year, when we had that real dilemma around the Olympics, we had our Best Ever program in place, which allowed us some flexibility in covering those kinds of travel programs.

I take your concern with interest, and I will certainly, I think within a month or six weeks, be able to get back with an acceptable program to look after those other issues which are currently unaddressed, and I do share the same concern the member has.

The second question was protocol. When I took over responsibility for the protocol office, I also felt the frustration from members of that side of the House and this side of the House about adequate items of presentation on their behalf to their communities in the form of flags and pins, etc. I was not aware, until you just raised it, that my protocol office was still frustrated. I made a strong case in my budget allocations — if you looked into them here — for a further and stronger application of funds in order to provide a larger volume of at least pins to the members for distribution. The pins are now being distributed through the public information department of my ministry in order that we can more effectively respond in a hurry. So I hope you still don't have a pin problem. Flags were a problem, in that previous ministers had not seen the need to provide larger inventories of small flags. I have accelerated that campaign in the same light and would hope that it is not currently a dilemma.

In relation to the significant one-, two-, three-time MLA kind of presentation to your community, the protocol office also has available, at the discretion of members, some major presentation items which are for the use of all members of the House. If you've not felt comfortable asking that question in the past, I'd certainly like to deal with it further with you. I certainly want every member of the House to know that we have tried to provide sufficient funds to make certain that we are doing a proper job of that. So if it's currently happening, Mr. Member, I am not aware of it. I will certainly follow that up.

Last but not least was the question that the member has on the order paper, No. 8. I am having trouble researching rejections because I don't know of too many rejections that we've had, and specifically those that deal with his constituency Unless they didn't qualify at all, which was obvious to the applicant.... I am not aware of any rejections at the ministerial level that didn't qualify except that they just didn't meet the criteria at all. You will get a written response to that, Mr. Member. I'm sorry. I sent that out in March and I haven't got a response. We're trying to find the number.

MR. D'ARCY: The question, really, was not about applications that were not in order. The question really related to those which were in order as far as the line staff were concerned. If any were not approved — in other words, rejected — at the political level, and I don't use the term "political" unkindly, that's really what I wanted to know, and also any that were put through that were not recommended by line staff.

However, I am going on to a specific question. I normally disagree with doing this, but I hope the minister will bear with me, because it's really a question of regional importance to all of us from the southeast, particularly the West Kootenay, and it does relate to the community that the minister lived in for a considerable part of his life. There has been an application in for some time — and I know the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks) has done some work on this — for a Go B.C. grant for the re-establishment of a segment of the original streetcar line in the city of Nelson. As the minister no doubt is aware, the community there has restored one of their original streetcars. They have not only rebuilt the body, but have replaced the running gear and the operating gear. The minister may not be aware, but there has recently been a gift from the Canadian Pacific Railway — who very seldom make gifts to anybody of anything — of over two miles of railway track that was surplus with the abandonment of the Rosebery-Nakusp line.

So this is all in place. It's my understanding from the society involved that they could proceed with this restoration project — that is, the actual track-laying and the installation of overhead electrified wires — if they had the Go B.C. grant. I know the minister probably wouldn't make a commitment tonight, even if he was going to, because it's perhaps not the appropriate forum. But I would like at least an indication from the minister that this particular application is in the final stages of approval. I think it's important, not only for the people of the region but for all of British Columbia, that there be a traditional street railway in operation somewhere in the province — not run by the province of B.C. but by

[ Page 7428 ]

the local community, because they have done all the legwork so far. With the financial infusion, they really could go all the way.

HON. MR. REID: I know full well of what the member speaks; I know of the application. I hope my staff have made some notes of the comments he's just advanced, but I hope it doesn't prejudice their overall grant process, because most of their application cost was to do with purchasing some rail. If they had it as a gift.... So let me just give you the assurance that I will talk to my staff tomorrow to find out where that's at, because that initiative from a community such as Nelson, which has a very effective restored streetcar, which is really a component that will help the overall economy... It's certainly one that I would give a lot of serious consideration to, and I promise the member that I will look at it post-haste.

MR. D'ARCY: It's my understanding that there is a certain series of guidelines that the ministry has relative to the two-thirds requirement and that the evaluation they have done is within those guidelines I don't think there's any funny business relative to putting a price tag on things which have been contributed, whether they be equipment, labour or whatever it is. The society is simply not that kind of operation. Perhaps the minister was only jesting when he said that, but I really don't think there's a problem there.

I would thank the minister for his comments on that, because as I say, I think the project is tremendously important for all of British Columbia. It is especially important to those of us who live in the West Kootenay. I also have to recognize the government's contribution in a similar vein toward the restoration of the steamship Moyie in Kaslo Without that money, quite frankly, a lot of federal funds probably wouldn't have been realized. In that sense, it was seed capital.

MR. BARNES: I just wanted to canvass a few questions with the Provincial Secretary on the....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Oh, congratulations? Okay, I suppose we are congratulating you for something, Mr. Provincial Secretary. Whatever it is, congratulations. It certainly isn't for bringing in any multicultural policies as far as the province is concerned. This subject has been canvassed so many times in this House that I'm almost tempted to agree with the.... What, is your portfolio now? I'm almost tempted to agree with the member talking from his seat that we probably won't make much progress on this issue.

I was just thinking as I sat here: this minister and I have discussed this subject of multiculturalism month after month, and we usually agree that it's a matter that deserves more commitment than has been the case in the past. We've generally been gentlemanly about it, as far as our exchanges go, but I'm getting a little bit discouraged by events. I hope that this exchange.... I'm sure that every other member on this side of the House will want to participate in this aspect of the minister's responsibilities. I hope that this time we'll get some clear direction with respect to the government's actions — not their intentions or sympathies, but actions. I quite frankly think the government deserves to be condemned. I really mean that, and I say it with regret.

[9:45]

I'm not normally one to be negative and certainly not offensive. I prefer to see cooperation and sincerity in the House. I think all of these issues are important, but sometimes you get a little discouraged; the minister knows what I'm talking about. Last year in November, prior to his appointment of the 25 cultural heritage advisers, we had some exchanges. I told the minister how I felt, and he agreed that the Social Credit government's past was not that good as far as multicultural policy was concerned, and that he was committed to try to do something about it. The minister agreed that things had gone from bad to worse....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Yes, you did agree. You'll get a chance to respond when you stand up. But you will agree that they haven't improved all that much since you've been responsible.

just to get right down to points of fact, I want to ask why the minister has not found time to answer some of the questions that I've placed on the order paper. For over two months I've had questions on the order paper. You're aware of them, aren't you? Have you answered them? No you haven't. This is even after discussing these matters in private in the hall and without getting too inflammatory. These are basic questions that should have been answered immediately. In fact, I've asked that question not only of your ministry but of every other ministry, every single one. Do you know how many answers I've received? How many answers do you think I've received? I have received one answer from one ministry. Which one was it? No, it wasn't Health; it was Education, and I'm very pleased to receive it. But why not from all of the ministries?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You say it's coming? That's good; I'm looking forward to it

Let's get down to business. The first question I asked was No. 26, and perhaps the minister could respond to it. This was after he had appointed the Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage. I asked you questions which I believe are valid and which I had hoped would have been part of the mandate of that committee initially so that we could see that they were going to be doing something. It's been over seven months now. I don't know if the committee has ever said anything at all about what they're doing. They may have met with you, but they certainly haven't been heard from publicly.

[ Page 7429 ]

One of the questions was: how many public meetings has the committee held? To my knowledge they have held none. Where were they held, if they held any? What recommendations has the committee produced addressing multicultural requirements? Very simple; very basic.

Certainly when you consider the rather grand reception that was held at the former B.C. Place site, that rather grand reception with people coming from all over, representing all the multicultural communities, there was a fair amount of enthusiasm and excitement about an opportunity to participate in the formulation of relevant programs, of specifics that they were going to be recommending. Now you're shaking your head as though they weren't going to be doing anything in a specific way.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: No, they haven't yet. But when are they going to do it? Time is moving on. You guys are getting ready for another election. You're going to force the opposition to think that this is no different than the past: the same old game, the same old thing You announce a multicultural conference, have everybody come and get excited and give recommendations, and then you call an election and forget about it. That's what it looks like is happening here, because we've had no change so far.

When you're responding, I would appreciate it if you would also answer question 27. Are any multicultural societies and service agencies currently receiving provincial funding — any at all?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, name them. You say: "Lots of them." Name them; name them all. That's what we want to know. It's a simple question; give us a straightforward answer. In other words, where are the dollars being spent? If the answer is yes for each agency, we not only want you to identify them but to tell us in what categories this money has been spent over the last three fiscal periods. In other words, is it going up or is it going down? I can recall around 1983 or so when the government was spending many times more money on programs, especially on immigrant settlement programs, than he's spending today. As I understand it, Mosaic may be the only agency receiving any significant amount of money from the provincial government — around $100,000 dollars. If that's incorrect, would you please clarify, because we're talking about dollars that the government is spending in the field of multiculturalism today.

Today I was visiting Mount St. Joseph Hospital. As you know, that's one of the hospitals in our community that perhaps has more of a demographic mix in terms of races and cultures than any other in the province. I'm not suggesting that because of that, it is to be singled out as the multicultural hospital, but it is clearly an example of the need for infusion of funds to support the complex problems they have, for instance, with respect to communicating with the patients who come there, the language problems they have, the resources they need to meet the cultural diversity on an intake basis.

All hospitals have this to a degree, and hopefully there will be a policy in place to deal with these agencies providing health services to people with health needs throughout the province. But I'm thinking specifically of areas where there's a concentration, as in the East End, of an intense kind of multicultural diversity, where there is well-known diversity in that area.

They applied for funding through the Lottery Fund, and I would like the minister to confirm whether they were accepted. They needed the money to deal with their language interpretation program. Surely the minister is going to be appalled if what has happened.... Obviously, by the look on your face, you don't believe they would have been turned down, and I would agree with you that they certainly shouldn't have been, but it's my understanding that they have applied unsuccessfully through the branch. If they haven't been turned down, maybe you could confirm that and clarify That's the kind of thing that concerns us.

The question I'm asking about says the whole thing. We've been through all the speeches, the rhetoric, the platitudes, and you've indicated that you care about doing more than talk. I think the time has come for us to take a look at where the dollars are going and how much money the government has spent. That's going to be the final analysis. We know there are needs in the community. We know the problems we've been talking about are becoming more complex every day. We know the whole menagerie of concerns — everything from attitudes about the demographic changes, the displacement of people as a result of immigration, the lack of facilities in place to cope with settlement programs for people who are coming into this country.... It goes on and on. The thing is whether the government really understands its responsibility in this province.

We also know that other provinces throughout the country have made pretty definite commitments with respect to policies, with respect to designating people in cabinet to deal with problems. Some of them even have legislation on the books dealing with multiculturalism. This province has yet to make those kinds of commitments. It is still operating on the basis of a grant mentality, dealing hit and miss here and there.

I think we're going to have to be far more informed about what is happening. Perhaps the minister could respond a bit before we proceed.

HON. MR. REID: First of all, let me make it abundantly clear that I do appreciate his concern and his interest and his ongoing requirement and demand for further action on the part of government. It's been a very complex department within my ministry. It has probably been the most difficult one in which we've shown some action. We've created an advisory council of wide-ranging representation across the province from every ethnic group we could, and tried

[ Page 7430 ]

to have input both ways, to the committee and back to the cabinet committee, getting the committee to first of all get comfort within their own representatives, and their goals and aspirations and principles and objectives, which they finally came forward with.

We only had them at our disposal, Mr. Member, at the best, for five weeks. The policy objectives and principles of that committee, and the mandate of that organization, finally come forward to MY committee not a month ago. It was very difficult for them because of their diverse backgrounds and the input. As you say, It's a collection, a mosaic of people who all pull in their own directions for a while, and if there is ever anything difficult about the whole question of multiculturalism, it's getting people to work together for a common cause.

We've been working on it, and I'm satisfied that we've picked the right people for the right time to serve on that committee. I'm convinced that, with a couple of exceptions, they are all working very collectively as a team together and that they will — very shortly, I think — bring forward through me, through you and through this Legislature, some direction, plans and goals that we can meet.

I wish we could get off the question of money, because money doesn't always equate to responsibility and response to need. Money sometimes can equate. If you don't have it, it's sure a dilemma. Small organizations, especially the ethnic groups, don't have at their own fingertips groups of people they can go to for funds. We've got away from the mentality, I think, of talking about folk festivals and ethnic foods. We've got away from that. We've got into responding to the needs.

Getting into the question that you asked earlier, I really want you to know that I'm troubled that we haven't got you all the answers to all your questions which were generic to all the ministries. My staff and all the other ministries have understood the sincerity in your request, and you haven't got a single, flippant, one-line response.

I am asking them all to come forward with all the ramifications and questions relative to the multiculturalism overflow in relation to their ministries You had the Education one. I've just had handed to me today the Health one, which you should receive very shortly. I was hoping they would bring them all through us, to my staff, and we could put them all together, compile them, see that your questions were adequately answered, and if they weren't we could send them back for further review. I wasn't expecting this delay; I thought we would get them back to you sooner.

In saying that, the overall operation of the ministry and the concern for the ethnic community out there and your concerns, Mr. Member.... There aren't enough hours in the day that a person can show towards the ethnic community and the multicultural community to satisfy them all, because they are so diverse and so widespread. I can tell you that my cabinet colleagues have instructed me to continue to do whatever we can for that community out there and respond to the advisory committee first.

They have not come back as aggressively as I thought they would about the general issues. Some very specific ones from isolated members.... But they have to go through the committee process so that they can collectively come forward with a team approach and a team request. It has not been as fast as I wanted. We're having another meeting very shortly; this coming Saturday is the third meeting. They have not been public yet, because, I think, they have finally reached the status of a committee; they're prepared now to go out and have some public meetings, now that they know they understand each other. And that's the most difficult part. But I think they do.

I think we have responded — my ministry and my advisers — in relation to funding where appropriate and where there was evidence that the need was something that should be served by us.

[10:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I regret to inform the minister....

HON. MR. REID: So, Mr. Member, in wrapping up, I'm satisfied that we're on the right track. I wish we had more time, but I think between the two of us we could talk about the rest of the stages of the multiculturalism policy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to draw your attention to the clock.

MR. BARNES: I was just going to draw your attention to the clock, Mr. Chairman, and move that the 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. DAVIDSON: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today, in the period earmarked for introductions, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) once again brought personal biases of a very political nature into the introduction period, and in the opinion of this member, was something of an embarrassment to the guests who were already seated on the floor of this chamber. The tradition in this House has been that introduction period is a non-political, non-biased time for members to simply introduce people in the gallery. If introduction period is going to turn into this type of thing, then I think we are straying far from the course for which introductions was intended. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you could give some direction on this, both this time to that member and for the future.

MR. MILLER: On the same point, I wasn't here, but I have the Blues of introductions. I find nothing wrong with the very simple introduction of representatives from New Zealand and acknowledgment that

[ Page 7431 ]

that country has acted in terms of an issue that is dominating world politics. I find the point of order somewhat frivolous.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just a brief comment. I think the member for Prince Rupert made the member for Delta's point when he said he made a political comment, and that was the exact point that the member from Delta brought up. If we're going to have an introduction period, it should be for introductions, and that goes for all members — not just on that side of the House.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, unless you have a comment to make....

MR. SPEAKER: The government House Leader makes a very good point: at times lately members on both sides have extended the introduction period a little longer than it should be, and I would ask members to read the standing orders. If they all held to the standing orders, introduction period might finish at 2:10 instead of 2:15 or 2:18.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: And it might not be political.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish everyone a pleasant good evening, and I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:03 p.m.