1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament
HANSARD


The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.


Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)


TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1989

Morning Sitting

[ Page 7433 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

New Westminster Redevelopment Act, 1989 (Bill 36). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 7433

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989

(Bill 38) Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 7433

Environment Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 34). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 7433

Tabling Documents –– 7433

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

(Hon. Mr. Reid)

On vote 70: minister's office –– 7433

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Kempf

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Blencoe


The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON: In the gallery this morning are 15 adult students from the BCIT campus at Squamish, B.C. These people are accompanied by their instructor and teacher, Mr. R. Taylor. Would you please welcome them to the Legislature.

Introduction of Bills

NEW WESTMINSTER
REDEVELOPMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled New Westminster Redevelopment Act, 1989.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This bill contains measures designed to improve the function of legislation pertaining to the development of the city of New Westminster.

Bill 36 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.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION
AND CULTURE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1989

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Bill 38 contains measures designed to improve the function of legislation pertaining to our fire services, Pacific Northern Gas, industrial sewer charges in Port Moody and, most significantly, improvements to the Revenue Sharing Act.

Bill 38 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.

ENVIRONMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, in moving first reading, let me say that this bill has some administrative corrections to a variety of acts: the Ecological Reserve Act; the Environment Management Act, where it will establish uniform procedures for appealing decisions under ministry legislation; minor amendments to the Water Act with respect to the powers and opportunity given a regional water manager; and there are amendments to the Water Utility Act, discussing the exemption of bottled water distributors from that act.

Bill 34 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.

Hon. Mr. Reid tabled the annual report of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, 1988.

Orders of the Day

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).

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, we have a new audience today, so they are not aware that I wanted to respond to the member from the other side who raised multiculturalism questions before we get on to the balance of the estimates. I'd like to respond to some of the issues raised towards the end of last night's sitting.

In particular, I'd like to correct an impression which might have been left that I was unhappy with the work of the Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage. My comments were intended to underline the complexities and the diversities of the issues. We would all like to change the world overnight, but this is an area where true progress will be made thoughtfully and with care and consultation. That is what the advisory committee is doing, and I respect them for it.

I wouldn't want to leave the impression that nothing concrete has been achieved. For example, the advisory committee has asked me as a priority to look into the effects of the federal cutbacks. My staff have been in touch with the government of Canada and various umbrella groups over the past weeks, and I'm happy to say that we're committed to ensuring that funding will be made available to avoid any reduction in those essential services. We are not going to simply pick up the shortfall. Groups such as the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies, the Vancouver Multicultural Society, the Inter-Cultural Association of Greater Victoria and others are doing important community work that cannot be neglected.

The advisory committee has also asked that I place a high priority on assistance for heritage language instruction outside of the formal education system. This will complement the heritage language initiatives announced by my colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet). I have agreed to this in principle, and I believe we will have a program in place by September.

[ Page 7434 ]

Multicultural facilities have also been given a new emphasis under the Go B.C. and capital funding programs. Such facilities provide an environment where cross-cultural programming can be developed and enriched. In Victoria a major award was recently made to the Jewish Community Centre to establish their headquarters. I am working closely with the Hon. Gerry Weiner towards the establishment of Maison de la Francophonie, a francophone centre in Vancouver. There are others in process across the province, and we will be glad to see them come forward.

I was also asked to outline what was expended in multicultural programs in my ministry last year. The total of non-capital grants was $128,844. Some examples of where that went: the SUCCESS group in Vancouver received $25,000, the Vancouver Multicultural Society received $12,000, the Burnaby Multicultural Society received $10,000 and the Heritage Language Association received $6,500. More than this has already been committed this fiscal year, and additional funding will continue to be approved.

[10:15]

Finally, I want to mention the Komagata Maru. Seventy-five years ago the Komagata Maru arrived in Vancouver harbour with 376 passengers wishing to immigrate to Canada. The events which followed are not ones which we can look back on very comfortably. The rights and wrongs of the past are for historians to determine. If we are wise, we will learn from them. The Komagata Maru incident reminds us that immigration and the changing face of society touch very deep emotions. It reminds us that if we are to have a society which is both diverse and tolerant, we must work at it. All members here would subscribe to the ideal of a society where British Columbians of all cultural backgrounds work and live together harmoniously.

There are things we can do as a society, but there are equally important things we can do as individuals to help achieve this ideal. The anniversary of this unhappy page in our history is a fitting occasion for all of us to re-examine our attitudes and rededicate ourselves to the ideal of a harmonious and tolerant society.

I have been asked whether the province is planning any memorial to the Komagata Maru incident and have indicated that it is not; first, because this is an issue which historically concerns only the government of Canada; and secondly, because I believe that an initiative should not be from the government but from the community itself. The Komagata Maru Foundation of Canada was recently formed by a representative group of Indo-Canadians to promote racial harmony and preserve the history of the Indo-Canadian people in Canada. They have approached me regarding funding for a historic and educational video on the incident, which will be distributed to schools and libraries to ensure the widest possible audience. This project will truly enable us to learn from the past and make contributions to the understanding of our society today. I believe that this will provide the best possible memorial, and assistance will be made available to the foundation for this project.

Finally, I would like to assure the member for Vancouver Centre that I personally regard these issues as being of the highest importance. How we adjust to the changing composition of our society will have more to do with our success in the twenty-first century than free trade or any other issue before us.

MR. BARNES: I will thank the minister for his comments, but I must say that I'm quite flabbergasted by what he had to say. It seems to me as though the minister is interested in trying to do a bit of damage control. The response he gave to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) when he asked the question about the Komagata Maru support and some kind of recognition of this blight on our society was that he had no plans, no intention of doing anything. Perhaps the minister was unaware of or not familiar with this situation and has briefed himself since.

I can commend him for what he said this morning, but the point is that we've been doing a lot of talk. There have been a lot of platitudes. There has been a lot of recognition of the problems. The rhetoric goes on and on.

There's no disputing the fact that this government has been taking more steps backward than it has been taking forward. Last night the minister himself wondered why we were spending so much time talking about money when he felt that the important thing was responsibility on the part of the community and the cooperation and presumably the goodwill of volunteers, etc., in providing programs and services for people who have come to this country.

Mr. Chairman, I think I should just hang on a minute. I think the Premier wants to get in on the debate. I hope he will stick around, because certainly the Premier is one who is most amazing when he gets wound up. The views that he comes forward with never fail to challenge one's capacity to absorb the diverse approaches that he has to simple subjects. There is diversity in reality. We do have our moments of affection, don't we, Mr. Chairman?

I do feel, though, that we have to get down to the hard fact that this government has not been up to scratch as far as multiculturalism is concerned. I want to refer the Provincial Secretary to a study that was done by the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies in 1985. They gave some comparative figures on what the province is spending. In 1982-83, for instance, while the federal government was spending $836,072, which was 42 percent of the multicultural overall operating costs for the province, the provincial government was spending $471,254, which was 28 percent of the total amount required in that year, which, by the way, was $1,709,674. Various municipal governments throughout the provinces spent $93,184. Other sources through programs of solicitations from the private sector were $309,162. That's not too bad when you look at the record today. This is 1982-83.

[ Page 7435 ]

In 1983-84 the figure shifted slightly. The feds pretty much maintained the same amount that they were spending — $934,182 — which was up slightly by 56 percent. But the province went from 28 percent to 19 percent of that total budget — $308,835 — and other sources made up the difference. The overall budget for that year was $1,665,353.

In 984-85 the province slipped still further. Keep in mind that in 1982-83 it was 28 percent; in 1983-84 it was 19 percent; in 1984-85 it was 9 percent. The feds' $830,450, which was 63 percent, increased slightly each year. The province: $116,100, 9 percent. Other sources made up the difference of an overall budget of $1,323,192.

From the figures you gave in your opening remarks this morning, you said that your ministry has spent something like $128,000. Is that fiscal 1988-89? Okay. That's what you've spent. That's what you've been spending pretty much ever since the 1985 numbers have come in. I was surprised that you didn't mention the funding to Mosaic, the multilingual orientation society, because they were getting something like $100,000. You can get to that in just a minute. Because that would be to your good. If you can show where you spend it, while still spending that $100,000 plus the $128,000 you've got, then you're up a couple of hundred thousand. It's not as bad as it looks.

HON. MR. REID: It's better.

MR. BARNES: That's what we want to know. I'm not here to give the minister a bad time; I just want to get the facts on the table so that we can know what's real and what's unreal.

You said last night that you want to get away from talking about money because there are other things equally as important, but you know, Mr. Minister, you need some money. You at least need to recognize that if these societies and service agencies are going to utilize volunteers and work those long hours for minimum wages.... You know the situation. The very least the province should want to do in this field of immigrant settlement services is to match them dollar for dollar. If nothing else, while you're waiting for your advisory committee of 24 to assist you in some policies, you should forthwith at least maintain pace with what is happening in other jurisdictions; there should be no hesitation.

There are many examples of what you can do while you're waiting for these studies. Clearly you're taking a step backwards. I think I've just demonstrated that you're going backwards, not forwards, in your funding. You haven't maintained it. So I think you've got some explaining to do in terms of your suggestion that you are very sympathetic, very concerned and want to see things get better.

I see that my colleague the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) is here. I'm sure he'll want to respond to your earlier comments about the Komagata Maru situation. But there are some questions that I feel you were not entirely explicit in dealing with last night. Perhaps you could clarify these as well. Would you please take some notes, Mr. Provincial Secretary.

Last night I asked you if the lotteries branch had rejected the application by Mount St. Joseph Hospital for funding to assist with their language orientation program. Will you tell me whether or not they did apply, and if they applied, what was the result of that application? To expedite things, I should give you several questions that I'd like you to respond to.

What do you mean when you say that you are going to be getting away from talking about ethnic foods, ethnic dresses, etc? You implied last night that you are making a shift. You nod; you know what I am saying. Basically you are saying that there is more to multiculturalism than song and dance, festivities and annual celebrations. We are now talking about getting into the system, into the institutions, changing our view of what multiculturalism really means.

It's something along the lines of what was implied by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), in response to some of my questions, when he talked about multiculturalism pervading the whole system, being something far more encompassing than merely grants here and there to appease the appetites of those image-makers who feel that all you've got to do is go out and give the impression that you are sympathetic and concerned, when in fact you are missing the whole idea of what multiculturalism means in terms of citizenship, our constitution and the rights that we are guaranteeing all citizens, the rights, freedoms and liberties that many people don't fully understand and appreciate, those things that are implied and quite clearly stated, in fact, in the multiculturalism act of Canada.

When I hear you say that you are getting away from the casual approach to public policy respecting this area, I commend you; I think that that shows that you are beginning to get some insights. But we have yet to see you come up with concrete examples of what you are going to do. We are, as I am sure you realize, perhaps the last province in this country that hasn't a formal policy on multiculturalism.

Some people have told me: "You're making a mistake when you accuse the government of not having a policy on multiculturalism." Perhaps I stand corrected. Your policy has been gamesmanship. Your policy has been to exploit the multicultural community by having events here and there. It's a policy. It's basically an image policy, and I am not suggesting that it is yours as such, Mr. Minister, because as I've told you in the past, you more than any other minister have been sensitive to the discussions that we've held, and I think that you probably are sincere.

I don't know if your problem is in cabinet with the cabinet committee — that they are basically opposed and you are having trouble convincing them about the kinds of programs that should come in — or what the situation is. The point that I am making is that time is running out in this province, and we are not keeping pace with what we are going to have to do to deal with racism and attitudes and with preparing our youth for dealing with tomorrow, and to get ready for the demographic changes that certainly are

[ Page 7436 ]

— and we know it — well under way. We know what is happening along the Pacific Rim. We know that British Columbia is the place where people are going to be coming. We know that we are going to be the showplace of the world, either as a success story or as a disaster, depending on our capacity to respond to the clear indicators that are out there.

[10:30]

There are two things I'd like to tie together with what I've just said. One has to do with the current situation in your heritage advisory office. Perhaps you could clarify for us the situation with the heritage adviser, Mr. Enrico Diano. I understand that he has been given notice of termination. Whether that is an accurate interpretation of what I've heard — maybe he has been fired, or maybe he is there — I don't know. In what capacity is he there? What relationship do your 24 advisers have with Mr. Enrico in the event that he is being terminated? Were you suggesting that when you are getting away from the ceremonial events and from these kinds of ethnic occasions, the role of Mr. Enrico Diano hasn't been the kind of role that you will be expecting from your assistants and people designated to work in the field in the future? Could you tell us what his contribution has been and what his areas of responsibilities are? That's one.

Now the other one. Maybe what I will do is say this other one, if you don't mind. You want me to finish it? Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, but your time under standing orders has expired.

MR. D'ARCY: I am enjoying the dissertation of the second member for Vancouver Centre as he develops his theme, and I would like to hear some more of it, as I'm sure the minister would as well.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, you know what happens every time you start referring to newspaper items. You always get into problems with what's in order and what's out of order. So I just want some confirmation.

I am not familiar with your ethnic media adviser, or anything about that. But I did read in a Vaughn Palmer column in May that a Mr. Zaher Meghji-Ahamed.... It's not a name I know. I want you to tell me if this column is accurate in the sense that it suggests that the multicultural media are critical to the success of your government. He's suggesting that his mandate is to exploit the opportunities that are available through the multicultural media, and he is acknowledging that there are opportunities there that your government should recognize from a political point of view.

If your objective in hiring advisers is not political, at the expense of putting at risk the population that is hoping that this government recognizes the danger of this kind of cynical approach to a very sensitive and serious area, then I want you to correct me. Quite frankly, I was surprised to read that this person who recognizes that we are one of only two provinces, first of all, that has no formal multicultural policy, and tells us that his mandate is to ensure that the ethnic media potential is fully exploited, and who recognizes that the trend towards a growing multicultural community is on the increase.... He's estimating that it may be very close to 50 percent by the turn of the century. Clearly this person has some insights into the trends.

The Provincial Secretary, so far, hasn't really addressed the issue of concrete programs. There has been a lot of apprehension on my part, because I don't want to accuse the minister of anything untoward as far as his motives are concerned. But clearly you have been taking steps backwards in terms of dollars, and the philosophy of your cabinet may in fact be in conflict with you.

When I listen to you speak, I get the impression that you care. You spoke last night about trying to encourage this new group of advisers to work together, to overcome their differences. You talked about the difficulty of multicultural committees, and some of the problems. You stated that one of the problems with multiculturalism is that when you get a group of these people together, it takes a little time for them to learn to communicate. All that may well be true, but I don't think that it should take seven months, which it has taken up to now. You are suggesting that you have yet to get a clear statement from them as to what their objectives and goals will be. I know this morning you just stood up and said two or three things, which surprises me, because last night you were saying that so far you hadn't been able to achieve anything and that you'd be meeting on the 17th to discuss this. It seems to me like you're doing a little damage control.

I want to assure you that this morning is different from last night, and this is different from all of those other sessions we've held, because time is running out. I think that you may be trying to stall until there's an election, hopefully, to get that out of the way, and then we can forget it. What we want from you are dollars. We want commitments and we want action, and we want it now.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have the minister respond to some of my questions.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I was just about to ask for protection, because the member was getting almost violent in his approach — and I know he didn't mean that.

Last night when I was elaborating on some of the activities of the committee, I said that the committee is bringing forward recommendations on an ongoing basis and they had spent a lot of time trying to build a program.

The member wanted to know about the Mosaic. If I could just convey this to the member, there are other ongoing programs within other ministries. That's one which does not come under my ministry, but I do encourage it to continue; and it has to do with Mosaic. Last year it received $150,000, but it received it from the Ministry of Social Services. Income assistance for immigrants to the province last

[ Page 7437 ]

year received $30 million to $40 million. ESL received $5 million last year. The Ministry of Education expended over $30 million for ESL training, of which $24 million was expended in the lower mainland alone.

As I said to the member last night in all sincerity, I was waiting for the reports from each of the ministries of which you asked questions to the minister in this House. I was waiting for all the material relating to money to come back so I could compile it and give it to you in a very documented manner. As I said, if you want to get into the money end of it — because that is the way people measure whether the government cares or not — I'll give you all the money we spend attributed to all the questions of immigration, multiculturalism and the ethnic groups. I don't have all of it at my fingertips, but it is large in comparison to other provinces across Canada. If you extrapolate one little component and say: you don't do enough for travel for senior ethnic groups, that may be so, but I'll tell you one thing for sure: we'll stand our record up against any other province in Canada with the money we spend in the overall scheme of the immigration services. I believe that. I'll get you the numbers to convince you of that.

When you take a $228,000 contribution to folk festivals, dances and those kinds of things, I'm not happy with that. I said to you last night: I don't think we should continue to encourage this government giving $1,000 to some group to have a folk festival and a dance and put on the ethnic food, and that's the pat on the back you give them. I think there's something wrong with that. They've been doing that for too long.

I think we have to respond to the needs of the community, but also the community has got to understand that they've got to mix. They have to fit into the community called British Columbia and Canada. The culture of Canada has to be important. The culture of British Columbia has to be important, and so should the culture of the community be maintained. There has to be a balance there. In doing it, each ministry takes it upon themselves to try and allow that balance.

My role as minister of multiculturalism is to have the overall scene of it, not the administrative money for most of those programs. I don't have administration money for most of them, but I do encourage it on an ongoing basis. I will give you — as I told you before — a compiled report. I didn't have it ready for these estimates. I wish I had, but I'll get it for you so you'll have some evidence that this government does care.

I want to get on to the Mount St. Joseph Hospital question. The very particular request they had is one that we always have a difficulty in dealing with, and that's when an organization wants operating money from lotteries to pay salaries. We do not provide money to pay salaries for operations of any organization, because the Lottery Corporation is not built on continual income. If you get an organization that starts to survive on continual income from grants, ultimately the day may come when there are no funds there. As a matter of practice we do not fund any operating grants for almost any organization across the province, regardless of who they are.

We fund capital. We fund assistance towards other uses, but we do not fund salaries and operation costs. We try not to get locked into that, because it creates a problem sometimes down the road. Go to the community. Get the community to provide some salaries.

MR. BARNES: What about the government's responsibility to supplement those people?

HON. MR. REID: I just told you, Mr. Member, we just picked up a program that the federal government abandoned.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: If the member could spend more time at Mount St. Joseph and get me more details on how we may be able to help without setting a precedent for every other operating request across the province, I'd be prepared to listen.

We are also putting an extra $250,000 this year into language training programs. That's a whole new program. That may be part of it. I'm telling you that the heritage language is getting $250,000 extra this year that we didn't have last year and may be part of that component. That's what they're talking about in relation to Mount St. Joseph. It may work into that program. The request that we saw was for salaries for another purpose. Let me just leave that for you. Since you're my critic in this regard, I'm prepared to listen to another submission on it from you if you could follow it up for me.

The cultural heritage adviser was a contractor to the government and has been for 12 years. His contract came up for renewal this year, and we decided — after talking to the new cabinet committee members and in talking to my colleagues — that it was time that maybe we had some new, fresh people in the advisory capacity between that committee and government. That contract was not renewed. We're looking at a very qualified person to fill that role. I think once that position is filled, you'll be satisfied. We have made a step forward in relation to that communications and that secretariat between those two groups.

[10:45]

It was very difficult, because the roles changed as a result of the creation of that committee which reported directly to the cabinet committee and then to the minister. As a result of that, it created two separate entities, so to speak, and it really should have meshed. It didn't, but that's reality. As a result, we did not renew the contract. The contract expired March 31 of this year. We continued it on for a month while the transition process was going through so as not to leave the Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage in limbo, because they have some secretarial and consulting work which has to be continued on their behalf. They can't get direct access to the minister on a daily basis, if they have an issue or

[ Page 7438 ]

problem. That's what the adviser was to do. It wasn't working as well as we'd like, so we made a change. Mr. Diano served the cultural community very well and very effectively over the years, but it was the opinion of our collective staff that a change should be made. That's why it was made.

The other one, to do with Mr. Meghji.... I don't know the full title. He served as an adviser to the public affairs division of my ministry in assisting the ethnic papers and communications to learn about government programs that were going on and how they should get better access to them. That was his role: to make certain that the messages being produced in all the other papers and on television were also being provided to their papers and to make certain, as this minister requested, that we have better communications between the communities out there which don't understand some of the English language material that we provide most effectively in some of the other media.

He was also a contractor and took it upon himself to perceive his role to be beyond that, which was not his contractual arrangement. His contractual arrangements were as I just outlined to you. There was never any sinister contract offered to him to do anything else. He might have perceived that, but it certainly wasn't this minister's contract with him. It was to cover and provide to that ethnic paper and communications community some up-to-date material, translation and whatever, with the limited funds we had available. That was the role. There was a different interpretation by some. Vaughn Palmer has been wrong before and he was wrong again this time. I'm not surprised. This is the second time in his life, I guess, that he was wrong.

MR. WILLIAMS: Say it isn't so.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vicious attack on the media. Withdraw.

HON. MR. REID: I withdraw. He couldn't have been wrong.

That covers the member's questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, the first member for Langley has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. GRAN: On behalf of the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson), temporarily seated beside me, I'd like to recognize that we have 27 students from Blacklock Elementary School from Langley, along with their teacher, Mr. Maye. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey would also like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. MARZARI: In a convoy of mammoth proportions, grades 4 and 5 from Bayview School in Kitsilano in Vancouver came over this morning with their teacher, Mrs. Beverly Nicholas. I was a member of that convoy, and I tell you that it was a life experience to come across on the ferry with 35 kids. My own son is in that class, Robert Straker. I want this House to welcome my son, his teacher, the students and all the brave parents who ventured forth this morning on stormy seas.

MR. BARNES: I just wanted to thank the minister for his response to my questions. We will certainly be talking quite a bit in the next few weeks. I'm satisfied at this stage, however, that the material he has given me is sufficient for me to formulate some further questions in the near future.

I'd like to yield now to my colleague from Esquimalt-Fort Renfrew who wants to question the minister a bit further on the ethnic media adviser, Mr. Meghji-Ahamed.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to ask the minister a number of questions; the first is this. He's talked about the contract with Mr. Ahamed. Could he tell the House what the value of that contract was? How much were we paying for this gentleman's services?

HON. MR. REID: If the member has a number of questions, he can ask them. I'll make a note of them and get the answers for each as we go along.

MR. SIHOTA: There was a six-month extension to that contract, as I understand it from Mr. Palmer's column. I'd like to know what the value of that was as well. How much were we paying the gentleman during that?

The minister said in response to comments from my colleague the second member for Vancouver Centre that the government had engaged this individual to make sure that ethnic communities would get better access to government programs and provide translation of government advertising material, I take it. Could the minister elaborate for me? I don't think this is one you have to write down. Could he just tell me again in some detail what the terms of that contract were? What were the terms of reference? What was this man supposed to do?

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

MR. SIHOTA: I don't know why the minister is not prepared to answer. It's a very basic question, Mr. Chairman.

Let me put it another way. Could the minister tell us whether it was in the terms of reference of this individual to do some work with taxpayers' funds to advise the government on political matters in terms of the ethnic community — what approaches needed to be made to the ethnic community, how best to secure favour with the ethnic community in political

[ Page 7439 ]

terms? Was that part of what he was engaged to do, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister said that Mr. Palmer may be right or wrong on a number of matters, but I would assume that he's correct in the quotes that he has attributed to the report from Mr. Ahamed. The report is quoted as follows, talking about ethnic communities: "About 30 percent of the population — it's projected to be about 42 percent by 1995...." This is what I want to emphasize: "That can impact significantly the outcome of elections, especially the 16 swing ridings on the lower mainland."

If this individual was hired to advise the government on how to make sure that government programs are printed in the ethnic media, that's one thing. But if he's hired to give the government advice on how the ethnic vote can have an effect on the outcome of swing seats, it seems to me that he's been engaged for political purposes, and that flies in the face of the minister's response.

I want to quote again what he says in the report: "That can impact significantly the outcome of elections, especially the 16 swing ridings on the lower mainland." It seems very clear to me. He is giving the government some advice on how its policies can affect the electoral outcome in various ridings. I want to know from the minister again: if he is not engaged to give the government political advice, why is he writing reports to the minister telling him about the impact that this type of work can have on 16 critical seats in the lower mainland? Why is that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I take exception to the member's continuing to pursue the question, because the answer was no. He's getting into the realm of politics, and politics is not the role for which the man was hired. He took himself with some gratuitous advice which he prepared to offer.

I take exception to your saying that the information came to the minister. I never did see the material, because it was not commissioned by me. He did not work directly for me; he worked for the public affairs department. He had a contract, and the contract has not been renewed. At the end of June he is finished working on behalf of public affairs, because he continued to take those gratuitous positions of his own, which were not the position of this government relative to his role. His role was to advise the cultural advisory committee of my cabinet and to advise Public Affairs on the issues of the ethnic needs across the province of British Columbia as related to communications in the media.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says that he was not hired for these purposes. Is the minister saying that he just decided upon his own to give government advice on those 16 seats? Is that what it is?

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to say it one last time, and I will not answer this question any longer. It was not his role; it's not part of my estimates. Vote 70 has nothing to do with the political role of a person who decides to do something which was not contracted for. If he decides to do that report and send letters and information to Vaughn Palmer and others about what he thinks his role should be or about what he ought to be doing out there.... I want to emphasize: his contractual arrangements, Mr. Member, were not to do that. As a lawyer, you know what that means: contractually, you do only what you're paid to do. What you do outside of that gratuitously is not something that I will accept and that I will have happen within my ministry, and that's why at the end of June that man no longer works for this ministry.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister is very angry about this, and rightfully so if the man overstepped his terms of reference and if his report went beyond what government expected. If he's going to be gone, then I would say....

HON. MR. REID: You too.

MR. SIHOTA: No, I won't go that far.

If he overstepped and if he did more than what his contract stipulated for, then I guess the minister would have no difficulty in (a) tabling the contract in the House and (b) tabling his report. Is the minister prepared to do that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 70 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS: It's that silence again.

MR. SIHOTA: It's the silence that causes me concern.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When the member takes his seat he must first be re-identified by the Chair. There were other members standing. I'll recognize you on this particular occasion, but please wait to be seen.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's the silence that concerns me. If the minister is correct that the person's contract provided for that which he has told us, and if he's correct that the person was not engaged to give the government political advice, could he explain to this House why he hesitates to table the contract and the report? The taxpayers paid for that report, not the Social Credit Party of British Columbia, and they have a right to know what was prepared on their behalf. Is the minister denying that the taxpayers paid for it? If the minister would put that on the record....

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, the department did not request the report to encompass the material he had in it. If he did that, he must have done it on his own time, because we did not contract with him to provide the report in the entirety in which it was

[ Page 7440 ]

provided. It was not requested of him, and it was not in his contract to provide the elaborateness that the report encompassed. It was not part of his contract, so if at midnight he wanted to continue to write a report and say other things about the 16 so-called constituencies and all that.... That was not his mandate, and he was not paid with taxpayers' money to do that. If he wanted to do it from midnight till six or eight in the morning, when he started to work for PAB, fair enough.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me ask the minister this: was the contract with the Ministry of Tourism, or was it with another ministry?

HON. MR. REID: The employee was employed under contract by the public affairs bureau, which is the communications arm of government. He was a so-called communications expert. He has a lot of expertise, but he also went beyond the bounds of the expertise we hired him for. We hired him for his ethnic and multiculturalism ability, which he has lots of, but he also perceives himself to be highly politically knowledgeable — he considers himself maybe even to be better than you — about the ethnic community and what they demand from politics. That's not what we hired him to do, and it's not what we want him to do; that's why he no longer works for us. His contract did not require him to report on those issues, so we wouldn't have paid him for it.

[11:00]

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to know from the minister — he is obviously very upset about this — what matters other than the 16 swing seats he reported on fall within the purview of politics, as the minister describes it.

Is it only the reference to 16 swing seats that deals with political matters, or were there more? If it was just the 16 swing seats, then I'm sure the minister will tell us that. If he went beyond that, tell us how far, Mr. Minister. Tell us what else he had in his report that caused you concern, in that it dealt with politics.

HON. MR. REID: I want to make it abundantly clear to that member that there were only three copies made of his special report, which he called his own report. I did not get a copy of the report. I was not a recipient of the three copies.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister tell the House who the three recipients were?

AN HON. MEMBER: Get back to the estimates.

MR. SIHOTA: This has everything to do with estimates. Does the public affairs bureau — and I could be wrong about this — not fall within the purview of the minister's responsibilities as Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary?

Could the minister just tell this House who the contract was with? Was it with his ministry or another industry?

HON. MR. REID: The contract was with the public affairs bureau of my ministry.

MR. SIHOTA: If it was with the public affairs bureau of your ministry, then it falls within your ambit of authority. We can't ask questions of any other minister, because it falls within the ambit of your authority. Would you be kind enough to tell this House who were the recipients of that report? I see the minister is shaking his head. Would the minister explain why he's not prepared to tell this House and the taxpayers of this province who paid for that report, who that report went to? Obviously one copy may have gone to Vaughn Palmer; I don't know. Who did it go to? Who were the recipients? If he's not prepared to tell us who they are, could he tell us why he's not prepared to tell the House? We paid for it. The taxpayers, those people up in the gallery there watching.... A chunk of their income goes each year in taxes to support this kind of stuff. They want to know and I want to know, and I think it's appropriate that the minister answer the question.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I'm getting a little worked up over this, because it was an uncommissioned report. Obviously many copies were made, but I was told there were only three official copies delivered at his discretion to the public affairs department, who were his contractors.

You probably have a copy, and Vaughn Palmer has a copy. Obviously there were more than three, because three were in the public affairs bureau's offices. The information I received was that there were only three out. Surprise, surprise; there are more. It was an uncommissioned report not paid for by the taxpayers, so I refuse to answer the question any further, because we did not pay for the report.

MR. SIHOTA: Look, let's get this straight. Is the minister saying that we didn't pay for the services Mr. Ahamed rendered, or did we pay for those services? When he says we didn't pay for the report, is he saying we didn't pay for the political component of the report, but we paid for other components of the report? Is that what the minister is saying? Are we splitting hairs in that regard, or are we saying that this person prepared this report on his own, without any consideration from government, in terms of financial remuneration? He did it on his own, submitted it to the public affairs bureau without request and without payment, and then it went on from there. Is that what the minister is saying, or is he splitting hairs and saying that the political component wasn't paid for?

MR. CHAIRMAN: This matter is becoming somewhat repetitious. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is cautioned by the Chair that the matter has been canvassed quite thoroughly, but the member can continue.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, the reason it's getting repetitious is that the minister is not answering

[ Page 7441 ]

the question. It's difficult to be called on being repetitious and tedious, when the reason one gets repetitious is because we're not getting answers to questions. The ministers aren't getting up, and when they do, they don't adequately advise the public and this House as to what the agreement is.

MR. WILLIAMS: Report A and B. Let's hear about A.

MR. SIHOTA: Yes, if there were reports A and B, then let's get the details on report A.

I see the minister's staff have now come in. I don't know if they've got the terms of the contract there, but perhaps the minister could now advise whether you've got the terms of the contract in the House, tell us what the contract was for and how much it was. I see some information has come in. Can the minister confirm that it relates to that contract?

AN HON. MEMBER: Way to go, Jack.

MR. KEMPF: My fan club is here this morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

I want to go back for a moment, because I read the Blues very carefully this morning, and there seem to be two answers from the minister with respect to the very important question I put to him yesterday regarding the B.C. tourism zone boundaries and the suspected changes with those boundaries to conform with ministry-of-state boundaries in British Columbia. In reading the Blues, I find that the minister gave two different answers to my question. I really can't project two responses to the people in northern British Columbia who are so interested in this matter, so I have to have it clarified before we allow these estimates to go through this House.

The minister yesterday — and I quote from the Blues — responded to my question: "Mr. Minister, is it your intent to change the tourism zones to conform with ministry-of-state boundaries in British Columbia?" The answer I received was: "The answer to the question is yes." However, later on in the afternoon, in responding to another question, the minister said: "No, that wasn't the intent of my answer. The intent was that we are going to change from nine boundaries to eight." So my question remains: which is correct? Which is the answer?

You'll get your turn in a minute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the minister please take his seat, unless he's rising on a point of order.

MR. KEMPF: Which is the answer you're going to give to the people of one-half of this province? Yesterday afternoon you accused me of being parochial, Mr. Minister. Speaking up on this particular subject for half of the province of British Columbia can hardly be considered, in my mind at least, parochial. I think we have to have a definitive answer I checked with the north this morning. I spoke to the community of Prince George. I spoke to the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine. Incidentally, for the information of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) — whose riding is in that regional district — they spoke out very vehemently against any changes to the tourism boundaries with respect to the northern half of this province. I'm surprised we don't see the Minister of Forests on his feet in these estimates, going to bat for those northern people.

So we've got to have definitive answers. I sent all those answers I got yesterday to those people by fax so they could see firsthand. You know, the fax machine is a wonderful tool: it's almost instant. What happens here in this House, through the Blues, can be learned out in the hinterland within 24 hours. It's marvellous. The response I'm getting back is one of amazement.

I'm surprised that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) isn't on his feet speaking against these boundary changes, because the city of Prince George can't even believe that the government is considering them. But they'll find out very soon, I'm sure. The way I read the minister is that it's a fait accompli. The government is going to do this, regardless of the feelings of the people who live in the northern half of this province. Admittedly, Mr. Chairman, we don't have as many votes up there as you do in the southern half of British Columbia. And that makes it very easy, at times, to do things that are not politically acceptable to the people of the north.

But this is a very serious question. It goes to the very root of the democratic process. We heard the minister yesterday speak very highly of democracy and of his Tourism Advisory Council, on which he boasts are two people from the area covered by North-By-Northwest who are going to make all of those decisions. But he speaks of democracy. And in this case, he's not listening to the people concerned in that area.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: You can make a global sign if you wish, Mr. Minister. I know you would like to represent the whole world, but you only represent British Columbia, and in this case only southern British Columbia because northern British Columbia is not interested in those changes you suggest. So I've got to ask the question once again: do you intend to change the B.C. tourism boundaries to coincide with ministry-of-state boundaries in British Columbia? And if there's a definitive yes answer to this, then why is the Tourism Advisory Council seeking input to this very question of the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, let me get through that thick head over there to that member....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must ask the minister to withdraw.

[11:15]

HON. MR. REID: I withdraw. He doesn't have a thick head.

[ Page 7442 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I asked the minister to make an unequivocal withdrawal.

HON. MR. REID: I withdraw.

Let me make it abundantly clear that there will ultimately be eight tourism regions within the boundaries of the province of British Columbia. The current boundary line adjustments are being considered and requested from the regions, in order to encompass eight regions of tourism across the province. Those tourism region lines have not been finalized.

MR. KEMPF: The minister hasn't answered my question. He is becoming very articulate at that. Whether he accuses me of having a thick head or not, I told him yesterday that I am not here for the member for Omineca; I am here because I am a duly, democratically elected representative from the north, and whether the minister likes it or not, that is the case. That will remain the case.

I don't know anything about this question of swing ridings, but I've got to tell you there are going to be a lot of members over there swinging in the next election.

I didn't want to break the calm and tranquility of this debate, but we are talking about an area.... I am surprised. I see three northern members sitting over there this morning on the back of the front benches. I have letters that I can read into the record....

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Can you?

MR. KEMPF: Sure. I have a letter from the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine.

HON. MR. PARKER: You've learned something, have you? When did you learn to read?

MR. KEMPF: Before you, Mr. Minister. I can read into the record what the regional district in whose area your riding exists thinks about the intended changes of your Minister of Tourism.

HON. MR. PARKER: Does it also include Atlin?

MR. KEMPF: Oh, we'll talk about Atlin, and we'll talk about Stewart, Buffalo Head and all of those things in your estimates, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. PARKER: We'll talk about log exports, too.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, we'll talk about that as well. You bet we will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could the present and past Ministers of Forests please discuss the forestry estimates at another time.

MR. KEMPF: Indeed, we will, if they ever call them. If they ever get guts enough to call them in this House Mr. Chairman, we'll do that. I don't think they're afraid of calling the estimates; they're afraid of what the minister might say in the estimates. He rather runs off at the mouth at times.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's get back to vote 70.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, back to the subject at hand. But we can't let this flounder over there off the hook.

MR. DAVIDSON: Are you fishing?

MR. KEMPF: We're fishing for answers — answers that the people of half of this province want to hear. We're talking about an area that stretches from the Alberta border to the Pacific Ocean and from the Yukon border south to Quesnel. These people up there must have the answer to this question, and I want that answer: do you intend, or does the government intend — again, I say it's probably not you, because I truly believe you know better — to change the B.C. tourism zones to coincide with the boundaries of the ministries of state? That's the question that I wish a definitive answer to. It's very simple: yes or no. If it's yes, then I want to read into the record all of these letters that I've received from people all the way from Prince Rupert to the Alberta border speaking vehemently against such a change. These are people that those three ministers over there represent, and they're mum. They're quiet. They say nothing on behalf of their constituents.

MR. SIHOTA: Gagged.

MR. KEMPF: Take that gag out of your mouth.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Where can I put it?

MR. KEMPF: It would be unparliamentary, Mr. Minister, for me to tell you. You don't even know where to put it, eh? Well, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please relate these deliberations to vote 70.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll try and be very parliamentary about this whole thing.

I want to have the answer to that question. After the meeting that was held here in Victoria on May 30, and the feedback that I got out of that meeting, surely the minister knows now whether he's going to adhere to the directive from the corner office or not with respect to the change in these tourism boundaries. The people of British Columbia, at least the northern half, expect that answer. Are you going to change those boundaries to conform to the ministry-of-state boundaries or not? Yes or no.

HON. MR. REID: In answer to the member, the democracy among the tourism council of regions.... That group met on May 30, and I'm expecting a report this week about the lines and boundaries that they are suggesting — that's democracy. There are nine regions talking about being reduced to eight

[ Page 7443 ]

regions and how they are going to suggest the boundary alignments be made. When I get that, Mr. Member — talk about democracy — I'm going to listen to all of the regions and their advice to my ministry, not a parochial group, like yours, that speaks about only one particular area of the province. If you'll talk about the whole province in general, Mr. Member, and talk about democracy and wait till we get input from the other 170 organizations that want to respond to this.... That's what I'm doing: I'm waiting. When I get that, I will then respond to the question about where the boundary lines will be.

MR. KEMPF: We're getting there slowly, Mr. Chairman. The minister is telling us that it's more democratic to listen to a tourism advisory group, a group of political appointees, than it is to listen to the people who live and make their living in the area we're talking about. Parochial indeed, Mr. Minister! We're talking about the people in half of the province of British Columbia. That's your idea of parochial? I'm sorry, I don't see it that way at all. I can read out, as you did yesterday, the names on this advisory council, 95 percent of whom live in southern British Columbia. You're going to take their advice?

HON. MR. REID: You've got it wrong again.

MR. KEMPF: I don't think I've got it wrong, Mr. Minister. I've seen it go this way too many times.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) will have the opportunity to find out who's right and who's wrong when his own estimates come before this House.

We're talking about the wishes.... I'll read the letter into the record. It's addressed to that minister over there, the Minister of State for North Coast development region.

"Dear Mr. Minister:

"Re: Tourism Region Boundaries

"With the advent of the development regions, there appears to be the possibility of amending the boundaries of the nine provincial tourism regions to make them coincident with the development regions. This regional district wishes to record its opposition to possible changes to the boundaries of the North By-Northwest tourism region.

"A prime objective of the regional tourism associations is to market definable sub regions of the province. It is unlikely that the development regions would be appropriate for the particular function of tourism marketing. In this area, for example, the promotion of tourism for the Stewart-Cassiar Highway 37 should not be divided, as it once was, between two agencies. Instead, Highways 16 and 37 should remain as much as possible available for integrated tourism promotion packaging.

"The North-By-Northwest region incorporates its major gateways of Prince George and Prince Rupert. To separate such major centres from the tourism region would impede effective marketing. It would also significantly diminish the revenues available to the association. The tourism region needs the assessment levied against a combination of smaller and larger communities. Without these revenues, tourism promotion programs will be curtailed and the recruitment of qualified staff made more difficult."

It's signed by the chairman of the Stikine regional district, the mayor of the district of Terrace, Jack Talstra.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: The city of Terrace. Thank you, Mr. Minister; you do know something.

The minister consistently, repeatedly, has said in these estimates that he is not going to listen to the wishes of people such as the Kitimat-Stikine and Bulkley-Nechako regional districts, and the municipalities of Vanderhoof, Burns Lake and Smithers. I could go on and on; I could spend the next three hours reading letters into the record of this House. They do not want this change in boundaries. I want to make that very clear. You did it to us in regard to economic development, by doing away with the Northern Development Council — or practically so. You are not going to do it in tourism. We've had enough of the high-handedness of this administration.

You talk about the socialists; you talk about that era of '72 to '75. I wonder which socialist is which. Who is worse? That's the question asked out there, and that's why many members over there are going to swing in the next election. Open government indeed! Listening to whom — politically appointed hacks, running offices at $750,000 a shot? We will talk about that too, when the ministry-of-state estimates come before this House.

[11:30]

We've had enough of it in the north. We may not have many members in this House, and we have very few who have guts enough to open their mouths; but I'll tell you, the wishes of the north are going to be heard here, if I'm the only one who's going to stand up for them.

Let's talk a moment about the blueprint that is being put in place with respect to regionalization as it affects tourism. It's going to be a wonderful blueprint. You don't hear these people over here speaking against it. They're going to love to take over from you, Mr. Minister. You know, there would have been bloodshed in the streets if they had tried to bring in this kind of system, and you're doing it. Which socialist is which?

I want an answer to my question: are you intending to change those boundaries to coincide with ministry-of-state boundaries? Yes or no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The matter has been fairly thoroughly canvassed on a number of occasions. Now that the member has finished, I would ask him to read the section of standing orders dealing with repetition.

HON. MR. REID: First of all, I'm a little troubled that the member calls the representatives on the

[ Page 7444 ]

Provincial Tourism Advisory Council political hacks. But be that as it may.

He is in error, of course, in talking about the process of advice coming to my ministry about the regional boundaries. It is not on the agenda of the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council, period. It is on the agenda of the council of regions. I wish the member would make note: the council of regions has a representative from each of the regions throughout the province. It's that group, representing all the regions, who are giving advice to this ministry about boundary adjustments.

If the member would confine his comments in relation to that to the council of regions, which he has no knowledge of.... Unfortunately, he has only researched his own little parochial area. It's the last time he's going to get elected, so he might as well make the best of it this time around. In any event, if he would only do his research in relation to the council of regions — that democratic process —which is advising me relative to the question of boundaries....

MR. G. JANSSEN: First, I'd like to thank the minister for wearing a rather sedate cravat today in the House. It makes it much easier to concentrate on his estimates.

Yesterday in the House, reading from Hansard, the minister made a statement: "Now there is a quality road from Port Alberni right into Tofino." I know that the minister has been there, and I would like to know what parameters he is using to define "quality road" — one that still has the original wooden logging bridges on it, one that has many curves so tight that motor homes that visit the Pacific Rim National Park actually have to back up to get around the corners. He obviously must have flown in or driven in in a limousine — or something much smaller. It's not a quality road. I think the minister should reappraise his estimate of that road before he makes those statements in the House.

Yesterday some comments were made when the member for Nanaimo was canvassing the minister on the wages paid in the tourism industry. I hope that the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism that has recently started up does define some categories and does in fact train some people who will become organized and raise the level of income in the tourism industry. More and more people are leaving the forest industry, either through lack of jobs or through modernization, and are seeking other forms of employment that pay much less than the forest industry. I hope he's not following the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), who on May 26 made a statement in the House that said the service areas are able to provide some basic income levels for those who wish to do something in a gratuitous sense for society. People don't go to work for a gratuitous sense. As a free-enterpriser, I would hope that the minister would realize that people go to work to make money, to raise families, to go to school. And I hope that he makes some effort in his Tourism ministry to see that the wage level is raised from the minuscule $4.50 an hour that is now paid, which is below the poverty line. And if, in fact, the wages since 1975 had matched inflation, they would now be $7.32 an hour. I would hope that the people working in the tourism industry could rely on the minister who represents them to see that those wages are raised and that they reach a level of income they can live on, raise families on, and take some pride in going to work for.

I also would like to question the minister on a number of issues....

Interjections.

MR. G. JANSSEN: We'll speak about the Minister of Forests' estimates when we discuss the Carmanah Valley.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) and the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), please, either confine their activities to orderly conduct in the House or dismiss themselves from House and carry on in the hall. The member for Alberni has the floor.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the minister is undoubtedly aware, the Lady Rose institutes a major tourist attraction in Port Alberni. It does a tremendous business in the summertime taking tourists up and down the Alberni Canal. They have been without a contract in the B.C. Ferry Corporation for some time now. The Ferry Corporation, in fact, is dragging its rudder on seeing that the Lady Rose stays in service. The owner of that vessel is considering removing it from service if the B.C. Ferry Corporation does not finalize a contract fairly soon. Has the minister made representation through his ministry to the B.C. Ferry Corporation to see that that does not happen?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question would be more appropriately put to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. But the Minister of Tourism is affected, so he may answer.

HON. MR. REID: Just in direct answer to the question, yes.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Could he give the House some indication as to when he expects that contract to be signed and finalized?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is out of order. It's for the wrong minister. The Chair has reason to know, having signed it himself in a previous capacity, so it is the wrong ministry.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I appreciate the remark, Mr. Chairman. I was simply attempting to find a minister who showed more interest in seeing that that contract was signed than the minister who is in fact responsible for the Ferry Corporation.

I realize that I have been elected but a short seven months, but the election that took place in Alberni,

[ Page 7445 ]

that the Premier called on the same day as the municipal election and two days before the federal election, and that created a tremendous amount of confusion in the riding....

MR. SERWA: That's apparent.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The Social Credit Party, as a matter of fact, was even more surprised and had trouble coming up with a quality candidate, so they obviously shared some of that confusion.

The traditional polling places had already been booked, and qualified help, poll officials, had already been hired to work for the municipal election or the federal election. Telephone numbers: there was a great amount of confusion, with people phoning different offices attempting to find out where the polling places were, what day they were voting. There was no access for disabled people at those polling stations, which was a tragedy. The turnout dropped from 85.8 percent in 1968 to 60.5 percent in the November 19, 1988, election. Could the minister assure us that elections are not called on that date in the future and that every effort is made to see that people have an opportunity to exercise their democratic right in the easiest and most equitable manner possible?

HON. MR. REID: The capacity I hold is not to call elections. And I'm not in the running for a position, which won't be open for a couple of years in any event.

Talk about the confusion in the Port Alberni by-election. I can emphasize the concern that the chief electoral officer had relative to that, but I can emphasize it even more as a person who visited the valley when the election was on. If ever a party flagrantly abused the campaign process, it certainly was the party which you represent. Along with the federal component, you had both names on the same sign, which appeared to me to be fragrantly abusing the electoral process and confusing the public even more.

I take exception to the fact that the confusion was caused by the timing of it. It was certainly accelerated by the members who ran in tandem, and the confusion of the public was about who was really running for the other party. It seemed to me a little flagrant to use the same piece of plywood with two names painted on it; it must have to be justified to some electoral process that half was paid by each candidate. I'm not so sure that's ever been followed up, but I'm sure it must be a question and a concern for the electorate in the Alberni Valley.

MR. SIHOTA: A point of order. That minister is hurling an innuendo and ascribing a motive to my colleague, suggesting that he was doing something illegal in terms of the Election Act. I would ask the minister to withdraw that comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We ask members to withdraw when unparliamentary remarks are made, but if they were asked to withdraw when uncomplimentary remarks were made, I believe that the Chair would be constantly interrupting the members, I don't believe that actually would sustain itself as a point of order. Perhaps the member could acquaint me with which standing order the minister has offended. In any event, I was about to recognize the member for his continuation of estimates, since the others have.... The member for Alberni.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I appreciate the remarks of the Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary. I realize that the slaughter that took place in Alberni was rather hard to take, when they won only one poll and won it by only one vote. I appreciate the embarrassment that the minister is facing along with other members on that side of the House. I expect him to retaliate somewhat in this House, when the citizens and the electorate in Alberni sent a clear message to his government, which was followed by other clear messages since then and will probably be followed by a clear message when and if they have the nerve to call the election in Cariboo.

I do object to the remark that the New Democratic Party used plywood. If he were aware of the amount of money spent there by the New Democratic Party, he would know it was far less than that spent by the Social Credit Party in that election. In fact, the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Chair could take this opportunity to remind the committee what vote we're on, for the sake of both the minister and the other members. We're discussing the Ministry of Tourism and Provincial Secretary, and the Ministry of Provincial Secretary does have authority over certain actions that take place on polling day. But the process of the election.... The minister's remarks were out of order, so I'll let you go on a bit and ask that you confine your remarks to something more appropriate for this vote.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'll be very direct. Did the Premier consult with the minister before he called the election about whether the Alberni riding could sustain those three elections in that short period of time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's really not relevant to this particular vote. The Provincial Secretary's ministry merely administers the machinery. They don't actually have anything to do with the mechanics of the calling; that is between the leaders and the various operators.

[11:45]

MR. G. JANSSEN: My question is merely to see if the Provincial Secretary, who you indicated to me is in charge of the mechanics of elections, was consulted by the Premier as to whether or not the mechanics were available to call an election.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 70. The member for Alberni.

[ Page 7446 ]

MR. G. JANSSEN: It seems a simple question to me. I recognize that I am new to the House, but the Chair explained to me the responsibilities of the minister, and I attempted to ask questions in the realm of his responsibilities. Obviously he doesn't think that elections and the mechanics of running them in this province are his responsibility. I guess we will find out, if and when the Fisher commission report is implemented, whether he thinks that is his responsibility.

MR. BLENCOE: I just want to touch on an issue that is extremely important to the tourist industry in Victoria and somewhat of an institution in this community. It may not necessarily be within the minister's parameters, and he may wish not to comment. I suspect he feels it is important in terms of how this particular institution, the Princess Marguerite.... The minister and I have talked about it in the hall and joked about how important the boat is and how we all love it.

As the minister is aware, the Princess Marguerite is an extremely important component of our tourism industry. It brings thousands of people here — day trips, sometimes longer — and it has an incredible image in the United States. As far south as California, people talk about the old steamship. In my view there are still many years left in the ship. There is now every indication by Stena Line that after this year the Princess Marguerite will be history. They are looking to turn it into a restaurant or onshore.... I wonder if the minister has had any communication, contact or discussion with Stena, or any of his colleagues who may have some closer responsibility for this ship. Is there any concern by this minister or by the government in general that the Marguerite will be gone after this year? We've gone through this many times before in this community. My colleague from Vancouver East knows the ship well and has a lot more knowledge about it than I do, in terms of its history. We know how important that ship and the image it creates is for this community. It's not just for this community, though, it's for the entire province.

Is the minister prepared this morning to state that he realizes how important that ship is? Has he made any representation, as the Minister of Tourism, on behalf of small business, the chamber of commerce and this community to the Minister of Finance (Hon Mr. Couvelier) perhaps — or anybody else on that side who might be interested — to see if we can convince Stena that the ship has many years' service? It's not just the Victoria community that benefits by that great ship; it's the entire province. You talk to tourists who come here. They have heard about this steamship south of the border. It's one of the few left in the world, and we are proud to have it on the Victoria-Seattle run, and we're proud of the service it's done to this community and this province.

Now this Stena company surprises everybody.... My understanding is that the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith), the former Attorney-General, has expressed very recently that even he was surprised that less than a year after taking over, they're going to junk that old ship.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: We've fought this fight before. This community has stood up for that ship before. There's all the evidence that the ship has many years to go. Is this government prepared to see Stena Line put the Marguerite on the junk pile?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It Is the responsibility of another ministry, in terms of the ship, but it does have a tourism component.

MR. BLENCOE: That's the point I'm making. I'm surprised the minister wouldn't rise to at least express a view on behalf of the business community, the chamber of commerce and the thousands of people who benefit from the tourism industry in this community and say something about whether he's had some communication with other ministers, or he's looking into it, or his staff are concerned about it. Is he prepared to sit there and just let it sink and let nothing happen?

I would appreciate some response from the Minister of Tourism. The importance of that ship as a focus for tourism in this community cannot be overstated, Mr. Chairman. I would really appreciate some response on behalf of this great community. Citizens have seen the ship serve the community for many years. It brings thousands of people here. Is the Minister of Tourism not concerned about that? Can't he say something about that today?

HON. MR. REID: The subject that he's approaching is not part of my estimates, but in respect to the concern I have, I met with Sten Olsen, the owner of Stena Line. I happened to sail to Seattle with the Vancouver Island Princess on their inaugural run to see the reception that both ferries still get in the Seattle market. There is no question that it has a strong impact as an international focus for tourism. Mr. Olsen has promised further discussions later this year, after this season's operation, to discuss with all the ministries involved the impact of reallocating the Princess Marguerite for other services or whatever. It has not been conveyed to me since the meeting I had with Mr. Olsen that there is any change. The sky is not falling today.

It's you, Mr. Member — the negative nannies on that side of the House — who want to continue to make this a dilemma. It's not a dilemma at the moment, because we have been promised by Sten Olsen, the owner of the ships, that there will be consultation with all facets of the tourism industry as it relates to us, the industry and them, before any major decisions are made relative to any of the ships.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not interested in getting into the political banter and negative Nellies or whatever. I'm interested in trying to deal with this issue as it serves this community.

[ Page 7447 ]

The minister may not be aware, but there have been statements and there are documents indicating, and the local executive director of Stena here in Victoria has told me face-to-face, that after this year the Marguerite will no longer be with us. They can see no use for it. The documents are there that Stena sees no use for the Marguerite after this year. She's going to be mothballed or something. They don't see any use for it even serving on the seas. God knows what will happen to it therefore.

I don't think this is an issue where we should get into who's right. The issue is that the company has clearly said to me, my colleagues and the media in this community that that ship is history as far as they're concerned. I would like to know, without the minister saying that I'm bringing the House down by raising this — we have this place to raise this so we can get some attention to it, and thank God we have this place — if the minister has requested Stena to ensure that the Marguerite continues on that run as long as possible. Has that been made...?

We've just given this ship and all the ancillary services that go with it to this company, and within less than a year they move into this community and say that old ship can no longer be in service, cannot be used. I think that's a bit of an insult, and I think that government in its wisdom should be concerned about that, because that was an asset of ours, and in some respects it still is.

Are the minister and his colleagues prepared to say to Stena: "Look, that ship is too important to just say it's going to move off that run. We want to make sure it's maintained." My information is that it's got many more years to go yet. If it's maintained properly it can continue to benefit this community. Has the minister or cabinet or the Premier asked the Swedish line to keep that ship?

HON. MR. REID: The question is whether this ministry will encourage Stena to keep the Princess Marguerite in operation as long as possible. The answer is yes. What is possible? I don't know the answer to that one.

MR. BLENCOE: Can I get some clarification. Are there ongoing discussions with Stena on that very topic?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately that member is in receipt of more up-to-date material from the people on staff in the Victoria operation. I had the courtesy of a face-to-face discussion with the owner of the ship a couple of months ago, and since that time I've had no correspondence in any direction from anybody at the senior level of Stena Line in relation to that subject.

MR. BLENCOE: Could I get it from the minister and whoever else of his colleagues in cabinet have some role to play that they are prepared — and maybe the Premier, because the Premier, I'm sure, is aware of the importance of this ship to this community — to sit down with Stena in the very near future to get their long-term plans — and the number one priority is to try and ensure that the Marguerite stays on the run? If I can get that assurance this morning that you're prepared to do that, I think we can leave this topic now. I don't think this issue should be this side to save the Maggie or that side to save the Maggie. I think we know that that ship is so important that we're all prepared to collectively work in that direction; I'm sure the Premier is, and you are, Mr. Minister. If I can get some assurance this morning that you will update, and that your capable staff will get some meetings together with Stena and try to convince them that the Maggie should stay in this community, I think this community can rest a little easier today and know that there's a really good chance it will be back next year.

MR. KEMPF: After a day and a half of debate, I still haven't got a definitive answer. I see the Premier in the House, and I think perhaps, in the very few moments that we have left before lunch, we could wrap these estimates right up by me being given a definitive answer to my question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is that all it takes?

MR. KEMPF: That's all it's going to take. We've got two minutes, and all it will take is a wink or a nod from the Premier to the Minister of Tourism. Does this government intend to change the tourism boundaries to coincide with the ministry-of-state boundaries in British Columbia? Yes or no, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, having gotten no answer, I move the committee rise and 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.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.