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

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 7449 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

AIDS needle-exchange programs. Mr. Perry –– 7450

Open government. Mr. Perry –– 7450

Knight Street Pub investigation. Mr. Sihota –– 7450

Young Offenders Act initiatives. Mrs. Gran –– 7451

Effect of introduction of Bill 39 on ambulance employees' negotiations.

Mr. Sihota –– 7452

Appointment of Dale Parker. Mr. Clark –– 7452

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

(Hon. Mr. Reid)

On vote 70: minister's office –– 7452

Mr. Sihota

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Barnes

Mrs. Boone

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Williams

Mr. Kempf

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Clark

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 16: minister's office –– 7472

Ms. A. Hagen


TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1989

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. REID: In the House today we have a very honoured guest, a person who has worked hard on behalf of his employment throughout the years. We are honoured, Mr. Speaker, to have with us today Mr. Len Norris, editorial cartoonist of the Vancouver Sun from 1950 to 1988, who was immortalized by his drawings of the politics of British Columbia and the proceedings of this House.

Just recently, at the archives building, which comes under my ministry, we were in receipt of some of Len Norris's originals, which will warm the hearts of many members in this House, on both sides, if they take some time to go over and look at some of Len's cartoons. Some of the people here today are in some of his cartoons. He does a very admirable job. I think this House would like to pay a special tribute today to Len Norris and welcome him here.

MR. D'ARCY: Far away from Amblesnide and Tiddly Cove, I would like to welcome my constituency assistant from Fruitvale, British Columbia, Shawn Melenka and her friend from Edmonton, Alberta, Anne McIver.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are some people from the United States of America — as a matter of fact, a delegation from Washington State. These representatives are here to share views and are looking at various issues regarding health care in our province. They are: Mr. Joe King, Speaker of the House; Mr. Dennis Braddock, state representative; Dr. Robert Crittenden, special assistant for health in the office of the Governor; William Hagens, senior research analyst in the office of program research, House of Representatives; and Mr. Don Sloma, senior analyst in the health care and corrections committee, Washington State Senate. Would this House please make them welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the House today another member of the working press, Gordon Priestman, from Salmon Arm. He has worked with the Salmon Arm Observer for 22 years. I'd like the members of the House to make him feel welcome today in the Legislature.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: On behalf of the Minister of Education and myself I'd like to introduce to the House a group of Peace River farmers. Seated in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, are: Mr. Frank Breault, Mrs. Jean Leahy, Mr. Richard Johnson, Mr. Horst David, Mr. Randal Hadland and Mr. Jack McCray. These members of the National Farmers' Union are here today meeting with the Ministry of Agriculture. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sorry to see that the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) is not here, but on his behalf — and I'm sure he will chuckle at this when he reads it in Hansard later on — I'd like to introduce to the House an alderman from Merritt, a good friend of mine both from a family point of view and otherwise, Mr. Harry Lalli.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I have two groups to introduce to the House today. First of all, on behalf of the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) and myself, I would like to welcome 24 students and some of their parents from Aberdeen Elementary School, along with their teacher Mr. Carl Gustafson. They are in the precincts, if not in the gallery, at this moment. I'd like the House to make these young people very welcome.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I have a group of senior systems people from the ministry over once again to see how this end of the democratic and budgeting system works. I'd like the House to welcome Bev Murphy, Debbie Malone, Helen Milledge, Diane Bell, Keith Laxton, Carol Rumley, Manjit Grewal, Isabel Mapson and Pat Stroup to the Legislature.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, seated in the members' gallery today is a dear friend from the constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke. I would ask all members of the House to please join me in making welcome Mr. Gordon Priestman.

MS. PULLINGER: It is with a great deal of pleasure today that I introduce a longtime friend. She used to be a resident of Point Grey and now lives in Scotland. Leslie Joy and her young son Duncan are with us today in the members' gallery.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would like to make this introduction on behalf of my colleagues the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch) and the Minister of International Business and Immigration (Hon. J. Jansen). In the precinct today are two employees of MIBI: Ray Holland, who represents us very well in Korea and was our host while the minister and I were there; and Russell Mark, who represents the government of British Columbia equally well in Japan. We would like to bid these two hard-working civil servants and dedicated British Columbians a very warm welcome back to Canada and to the capital city.

MR. CLARK: Very briefly, I too, on behalf of this side of the House, would like to welcome Russell Mark here. When I was in Tokyo in July of last year, Mr. Mark accompanied me in a briefing on the B.C. government's involvement. I was most impressed by his abilities and his representation of British Columbia in that city. We on this side of the House would also like to commend the public servants we have working for us abroad.

MR. BARNES: I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming 15 Delta students from the Native Education Centre in my constituency, along with their instructor, Mr. Ken Woodsworth. These students are studying public administration, and they

[ Page 7450 ]

met over the lunch hour with me and the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) and the second member for Boundary Similkameen (Mr. Barlee).

Oral Questions

AIDS NEEDLE-EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

MR. PERRY: A question for the Minister of Health. Information presented to the international AIDS conference in Montreal last week showed that a number of jurisdictions are experiencing explosive growth in the spread of the AIDS virus among intravenous drug users. Has the minister's Advisory Committee on AIDS recommended provincial funding of needle exchange programs to prevent this explosive growth in the disease from occurring here?

[2:15]

HON. MR. DUECK: I understand that the city of Vancouver has a needle exchange program and that Victoria either has one in place or is thinking of putting one in place. The provincial government has not at this point gone in that direction. However, we are carefully monitoring the success of that program.

MR. PERRY: A supplementary. The present needle-exchange programs in the lower mainland only cover about 12 percent of the 10,000 estimated intravenous drug abusers there. Given the minister's failure to make public the recommendations of his own advisory committee and his unfortunate comments on making condoms available in schools, is he now prepared to make public all his advisory committee's recommendations on dealing with the AIDS problem?

HON. MR. DUECK: My office does whatever it deems necessary in the pursuit of that particular ministry, and I will not take direction from that member just because he thinks I'm a failure at doing a certain thing or because in his opinion certain things should perhaps be done a different way. When he becomes Health minister, he can do it the way he wishes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

OPEN GOVERNMENT

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I thought the press gallery party was tonight. I'm glad to see it has begun early.

Those were the minister's comments, not mine, but I'd like to ask a different question of the Premier. Is this another example of the open government that the Premier referred to yesterday?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We as a government take great pride in the fact that the cabinet meets in various communities throughout the province from time to time. We have a Cabinet Committee on Regional Development which goes out and seeks input from local government on various issues affecting the regions of the province. We have a social services committee of cabinet that travels and seeks input and thereby comes forth with good programs such as we saw announced today for day care — a tremendous advance in the day care programming because we received that input from the people. Our Minister of Health, with a committee, is travelling through the province getting advice from seniors on their various needs. We will react as we have done in the past to ensure that we continue to have the best programs in the province for providing for seniors. Transportation committees are meeting in all parts of the province in order that people will have input in their local regions with respect to transportation needs and be able to prioritize those things.

We have the most open government this province has ever enjoyed. Furthermore, we're seeking the input from people, unlike the socialists who would like to ram everything down everyone's throats.

KNIGHT STREET PUB INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the true test of open government is when the government is under scrutiny for matters that it's under attack for. Keeping in mind those comments with respect to open government, I know that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Hanson) met on Friday with Mr. Doney. I'm sure that the Minister of Labour was mindful of the question that he has taken on notice with respect to political interference. Did he discuss the political interference with Mr. Doney? And in keeping with the Premier's comments about open government, is he now prepared to share with us what he learned when he asked Mr. Doney the question that he took on notice?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have two points of order that I wish to bring to the Speaker's attention. First of all, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew gets up day after day, knowing that he is out of order, but trying to secure a cheap headline by repeatedly asking a question that the minister has taken on notice. Mr. Speaker, I implore you to remind that member that he is out of order.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) that he will never be Minister of Health in this province.

MR. ROSE: Some of my colleagues have suggested that I bite his ankle, but I really am not that carnivorous today. Besides, have you seen his ankle?

Seriously though, the business about whether or not some person is going to be a Minister of Health some day is speculation. It's really future policy, so we won't discuss it.

But I would like to suggest that most of these points of order should be dealt with afterwards so we don't use all the time up for that, If he wishes to ask his question every day, he's entitled to ask his question every day. If the minister is going to stonewall every day, let him stonewall every day.

[ Page 7451 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I just want to point out to that member that he's the one eating into the time of question period, and I'm entitled to get up on the same point of order every day.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Labour. Can the Minister of Labour tell us who drafted the terms of reference for Mr. Doney's internal report into the Knight Street Pub referendum? Was it the minister or was it Mr. Doney?

HON. L. HANSON: I'm not sure I completely understood the question, but I'll read Hansard later and take the question on notice.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister tell this House when Mr. Hick told him about the phone call of political interference? Mr. Hick has said some time in May. Was it before or after the terms of reference were drafted by his ministry?

HON. L. HANSON: Was it before or after? I guess the answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIHOTA: If this is open government, I want to ask the minister if he will confirm that it was before. Is that what he's saying?

HON. L. HANSON: I have already answered that question. The answer was yes, was it before or after.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister clearly did not understand the question. A question to the Premier. He has now listened carefully to the Minister of Labour's responses and has witnessed his attitude today in the House. Is this the type of open government that the Premier speaks so eloquently of? Is that what you expect from your ministers?

YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT INITIATIVES

MRS. GRAN: My question is to the Attorney-General. It is pressing and something that we deal with today. I wonder if the Attorney-General could tell us, in a better way than the communiqué that came out, what initiatives regarding the Young Offenders Act were decided on and what British Columbia's position is.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I will presume the member is referring to the communiqué from the justice ministers' conference in Charlottetown that was held last week and yes, indeed, the question of the Young Offenders Act was on the agenda. It has been raised by a number of people in British Columbia: law enforcement agencies, citizens and people who are concerned about that particular issue and how we handle it.

At that meeting we did address a number of suggestions that had been made with respect to minimum sentencing. We addressed the question of what ought to be the most important consideration with respect to raising a young offender from youth court to adult court, who ought to take that decision and where the onus for that ought to rest.

I'm pleased to report to the House that the position that was put to the Minister of Justice for Canada was one that was accepted and developed unanimously by the ministers of the provinces and the two territories. We have requested that the justice minister for Canada consider that we change the onus, that we make protection of society the paramount consideration for raising a young offender from youth court to adult court, particularly in matters involving murder. We do not discard the onus of the consideration of the youth but we make paramount consideration the protection of society.

MR. CLARK: Time!

HON. S.D. SMITH: While the second member for Vancouver East says, "Time," I must say he should be listening more thoroughly than anyone to this discussion, because the questions that we were talking about have absolute salutary application to the youth gang problem we have in his riding in Vancouver.

After much discussion we also agreed that for a young person who is convicted of murder in adult court, the eligibility period for parole ought to be left in the discretion of the judge within a range of a minimum of five years and a maximum of ten years. The reason for doing that is that it has been the practice in jurisdictions across this country that judges will not allow the raising of a youth to adult court because of the large minimum period of 20 to 25 years in the case of murder. Frankly, this fact of youths not being able to be raised to adult court, taken together with the minimum sentence, which we asked to be raised, is being used as a major tool for recruitment by youth gangs in the city of Vancouver and other major cities across this country. We have to deal with this for the protection of society.

We also agreed that we should change the minimum sentence period from just three years to three years plus two and a half years of mandatory supervision. In terms of assisting with the

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope this isn't too much of a whimper for the Attorney-General, but on several occasions now we've seen ministers being given advance notice of questions and then coming up and giving what amounts to a ministerial statement during question period. I think it ought to stop; it's an abuse.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind all members that our own standing order 47A(b) asks for questions and answers to be brief, precise, without argument or opinion. I would ask the Attorney-General to complete the answer.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in concluding the answer, the other point that we agreed to was that there ought to be expanded temporary-release provisions for young offenders, because there are times across Canada when they cannot take advantage of

[ Page 7452 ]

certain considerations that are made available to them.

Finally, we agreed that the capping provisions that will cost British Columbia $37 million over the next five years is something that the federal government ought to reconsider, because it is an important program, and there is a great need.

Interjections.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the cacophony of noise coming from the other side that this is indeed an important issue to British Columbia and is one that if they had any decency or courage they would be concerned about.

EFFECT OF INTRODUCTION OF BILL 39
ON AMBULANCE EMPLOYEES' NEGOTIATIONS

MR. SIHOTA: I have another question on a different issue to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday the government introduced Bill 39. As a consequence, negotiations today were broken off between provincial ambulance employees and the provincial ambulance service. There of course now is the possible disruption of ambulance service in this province. Was the introduction of the bill a calculated attempt by the government to provoke confrontation, or was it simply an oversight that will or could possibly result in the disruption of ambulance service in British Columbia? What was it, Mr. Minister?

[2:30]

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I guess the answer to both those questions is no.

APPOINTMENT OF DALE PARKER

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Finance. B.C. Bancorp has recently been found in violation of the spirit and intent of the federal Bank Act by regulators as a result of a loan given to the movie studio in North Van. In light of this, has the minister decided to reconsider the appointment of Dale Parker, the CEO of Bancorp, to the new position of czar in charge of regulating financial institutions in British Columbia?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The government is extremely pleased with the calibre of Mr. Parker's reputation and the obviously meritorious contribution he is going to make in regulating financial institutions in the province.

Dealing with the issue of the superintendent Mr. Mackenzie's comment last weekend or early this week — I forget the exact date — I can tell the House that I have been in telephone conversation with Mr. Mackenzie on that point. I am satisfied that he and I are. ad idem on the issue of the investment by B.C. Bancorp into a pretty well secured loan situation. As a consequence of those discussions, I further understand that Mr. Parker, acting as trustee for the shareholders of B.C. Bancorp I am satisfied he acted in their best interests, and he acted upon receipt of legal advice.

I am pleased to tell the House that the opinion of Mr. Mackenzie and myself jointly is that Mr. Parker's reputation for integrity, openness and fair dealing is well known throughout the country, and the issue is resolved satisfactorily. I am very pleased that, as a consequence of these discussions, the industry will be the beneficiary.

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).

MR. SIHOTA: This morning I was asking the Minister of Tourism some questions with respect to Mr. Ahamed's contract. I am wondering if over the break the minister has had an opportunity to secure that contract and now can tell us how much the taxpayers paid for his services.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, he was receiving $2,000 a month.

MR. SIHOTA: What was the total amount paid out? How many months did he work?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, his total contract was nine months.

MR. SIHOTA: Then it is my understanding that he received.... I'll assume, Mr. Speaker, unless the minister says something else, that he indeed received $18,000. Could the minister tell the House when Mr. Ahamed's contract was terminated?

This is not a difficult question. The minister said this morning that he was terminated, and that he went beyond the scope of his terms of reference. Could he tell the House when the individual was terminated, Mr. Chairman?

I have another question to the minister. Am I correct in understanding from what the minister said this morning, that Mr. Ahamed was fired because he went into areas that the contract did not expect him to go into — in other words, areas of political advice to government, when his job was otherwise? Could the minister confirm that was the reason for his termination?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I'll read into the record that Zaher Meghji-Ahamed was retained on contract by the public affairs bureau in October 1988 to work part-time as a media liaison adviser with the ethnic media. His contract was renewed for six months, effective April 1, 1989, at a monthly fee of $2,000. The public affairs bureau undertook a review of branch responsibilities in May 1989, and as an

[ Page 7453 ]

outcome, the work of media liaison was turned over to a public affairs branch member. Mr. Meghji was advised that his services would be discontinued, effective June 30. Mr. Meghji's report to the PAB did not cover the areas of his contracted services, and he was advised his remarks were totally inappropriate.

This is his contract. You wanted a statement of his contract. His contract says, under "services":

"The contractor will provide liaison for the province with the multicultural media in British Columbia; arrange interviews for cabinet ministers on an as-needed basis; submit regular monthly reports to the executive director, including a short overview and assessment of media coverage of government news and evaluation of editorial comment; and maintain and provide to the executive director, on request, an up-to-date list of the multicultural media in British Columbia."

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the minister for reading that into the record.

I want to ask the minister this question: was he terminated after the Vaughn Palmer article was published? Is that when that notice of termination, which you referred to, was directed to him?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: That's my question to the minister — not to the Minister of Education, but to the Minister of Tourism.

The minister this morning was well aware of the Vaughn Palmer column. He made references to Mr. Palmer's column during the course of discussion this morning, as I did, and as did my colleague from Vancouver Centre. I want to know whether or not the notice of termination predated that column, or was it as a consequence of that column?

Is the minister prepared to concede that it really had nothing to do with the fact that he overstepped his boundaries, in terms of giving the government advice on 16 swing seats? That wasn't what was wrong. That fact was that it got into Mr. Palmer's hands; that's what was wrong. Is it not true, Mr. Minister, that the reason the man was terminated had nothing to do with what you said this morning, but everything to do with the fact that Mr. Palmer received a copy of this report, and the termination notice was delivered after the publication of that column? Is that not true?

Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move on to another matter. I'm going to return to this in a few minutes. But I want a copy of that column, and I know my colleague from Vancouver Centre has gone to get it.

I see the Premier is here, and I want him to be mindful of the way in which his minister is refusing to answer this question. We'll be back to revisit this issue in a moment.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister wants to make a comment.

HON. MR. REID: I want to make it abundantly clear that I read into the record the status of the consultant. I want to make it personally clear that it's a personnel matter beyond that, and I do not interfere directly or indirectly with personnel matters within the government.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not asking for the reasons for termination; I want to know the timing of the termination. The minister is already on the record this morning giving us certain reasons. At that point, he was not hesitant to talk about why Mr. Ahamed was let go. He himself opened the box to those questions, and he explained why the individual was terminated.

Now I have another thesis, and that is that it flowed from the Palmer column. I'm asking the minister to confirm or deny that. The easiest way to deny that is to provide proof to the House that it was before the appearance of the Palmer column — which I see the minister and his officials have. I just want to know from the minister whether it was before or after. If it was before, then that certainly puts the matter to rest; if it was after, it invites further question. I want to know from the minister just when the government took that action.

While the minister is looking that over with his deputy, I want to move to another issue: the minister's statement this morning with respect to the Komagata Maru, which I read with some interest. I want to tell the minister that I was, quite frankly and honestly, surprised at the response he gave me in question period when I asked him about the Komagata Maru several weeks ago. I know that since then the minister and the Premier have received several bits of correspondence from Indo-Canadian groups across the province. I know the Premier made certain assurances when he was speaking in Surrey. I know the Premier also received correspondence from the Khalsa Diwan Society, which has represented the Indo-Canadian community in British Columbia since 1906.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How come you're reading my mail?

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier wants to know why I'm reading his mail. It's because he doesn't read it. Groups often wonder why he takes so long to respond. They send me copies and we respond.

We responded in that instance by raising in this House the request of the Indo-Canadian community to have a commemorative established in British Columbia with respect to the Komagata Maru incident. It wasn't a large request, and it wasn't a request for a significant financial contribution. The minister said — and he surprised me at the time — no, he would not provide any assistance to the Indo-Canadian community in that regard. Later on in press reports, he indicated that the reason he failed to do so was that no requests had been made to government along those lines. Since that time I'm sure the minister has been aware that a whole raft of correspondence making such requests had been directed to the

[ Page 7454 ]

Premier and to him. That, of course, blows out of the water the argument the minister put forward at that time. Subsequently the government had an opportunity to reconsider its determination to not provide any level of assistance.

I want to let the minister know that the Komagata Maru incident is a flashpoint in terms of the Indo-Canadian community in British Columbia. It is a dark day in Canadian history. It is a sad and tragic event that occurred in waters just off the shore of Vancouver, when 376 British subjects showed up to this British dominion and asked for the opportunity to set up here. They were met with a deluge of bigotry, racism and insensitivity. For two months they sat in that harbour trying to assert their rights as British subjects. They lost the battle, but fortunately they won the war, and ultimately individuals from my family and others were able to settle here and, I believe, make a first-class contribution to this nation.

[2:45]

I happen to stand as someone who represents that ethnic community because of my ethnic background, and I take some pleasure in the fact that I am the first one from the Indo-Canadian community ever to be elected to a Legislature in British Columbia. So it was not unexpected that members of that community would let me be informed of their request to government.

In light of the minister's response, it's not surprising that they also let me know of their outrage at the minister's statement. This is an issue that in some ways has tremendous analogies to the Japanese redress issue. In that instance, of course, there was compensation paid to the Japanese; in this instance no compensation is expected or requested. Am apology may be in order for what transpired in Vancouver between May 23 and July 24, 1914, some 75 years ago. An official apology is sought, I know, at all levels — municipal, federal and provincial — but no compensation in that same fashion is requested.

Some signal from government that this type of issue will never again come upon us in Canadian society is what the Indo-Canadian community wants. One of the ways to make sure that signal is maintained forever is through some type of commemorative, recognizing that the event occurred and committing that it will never happen again. It's not a very expensive request, but it is a significant and meaningful one on the part of that community, and it would be in order for the government to recognize it with that in mind.

I know that the minister said this morning that some money will be put into a video to commemorate that incident, and I give him credit for that. Obviously the government has embarked upon damage control after the minister's initial comments, which in the ethnic press were severely criticized, editorial after editorial. But it would be far more appropriate for the minister — who in some ways insulted the Indo-Canadian community in this province by what he said in this House — to now revisit the issue and state in this House....

HON. MR. REID: Point of order. I think the member is out of order. I alluded to that subject this morning. He's going beyond the bounds of the estimates. I have a letter that I'm going to bring forward that I received from the Indo-Canadian community, which I'd like to read into the record as soon as I can, and it may put to bed some of the positions he's taking.

MR. SIHOTA: I have 66 letters I'd be happy to read into the record as well that reinforce what I'm saying. I'll give the minister the benefit of the opportunity to read it into the record. I don't think that it addresses the entirety of the issue; what would address it is a statement now from the minister agreeing to make sure that a commemorative is established in Vancouver by the province recognizing this event — this sad day in Canadian history — and making a commitment through that commemorative that this type of event would never happen again. Is the minister now prepared to reverse himself and take that step?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 70 pass?

MR. SIHOTA: The minister said he had a letter. He said he wanted to put something on the record. I'm at a loss to understand why, given the opportunity, the minister is not prepared to say anything further.

I will tell the minister this: I'll be quite happy to mail out to all of those groups that I did the initial mailing to after his response in question period my comments on the record today as well as his comments. I want to give him the opportunity to deal with this rather significant component in British Columbia society and offer his words to them. I'll make a commitment: I will mail out what I say and also what he says. Is the minister now prepared to reverse himself and make a commitment that his government will establish that commemorative?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: It's in Hansard; it's better than writing.

Could the minister explain why he's not prepared to answer this very basic question? I thought he had a letter. The minister can nod. I see a letter has now arrived at his desk. I see him now opening the letter. I see him now putting down the letter.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: It's in the mail. I want to let the minister know that this is not a trivial issue to that ethnic community. I'm not the critic for multiculturalism and seldom do I stand up in the House and talk about issues that relate to the ethnic community where I find my roots, but this is one issue which not only I feel deeply about but every individual of Indo-Canadian persuasion in this country feels very passionately about.

[ Page 7455 ]

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Heckling from the Premier and the silence of the minister do nothing to give that community some comfort that the government is now prepared to reconsider its earlier statement.

You've had correspondence that goes back months in this regard. All those contacts that the government makes with the Indo-Canadian community are seen as showbiz if they aren't backed up with some type of action. The community doesn't ask much in terms of action from government. This happens to be one of the things that the Indo-Canadian community has asked for.

I know the Premier most recently visited a temple in Surrey. I remember the famous visit he made to the Sikh temple in Richmond during the election campaign. I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) has as well. All those things don't matter one iota if they're done simply as some type of show without any follow-up action.

The follow-up action that the Indo-Canadian community is asking for is some type of commemorative dealing with the Komagata Maru incident. I want to ask the minister again, because I see his assistants have now returned: is he prepared to reverse himself and to establish the commemorative that the community has asked for? Is he now prepared to reverse himself?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a comment to remind hon members that they have the right to ask any question they please, as long as it's in order, but the minister is not compelled to respond. The member has asked his question in three or four different ways, and perhaps it might be time to go on to another subject.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, let the record show that the minister chose not to utter one word, chose not to make one commitment, chose not to say one thing that would amount to even an ounce of reconsideration on his part. Shame on the minister for that type of arrogance!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sorry to interrupt you again, but your time has expired under standing orders.

MR. CLARK: We were listening to the member, so I'd like him to continue.

MR. SIHOTA: Let the record note that the minister is not prepared to utter one word. In 1914 the authorities sat silent in a similar way while for two months that boat sat at Burrard Inlet. For two months provincial politicians remained silent on the racism and bigotry that was being demonstrated in British Columbia. When I consider the silence of the minister, I can't help but reflect on the comparisons.

The Chairman has asked me to move on to another topic. I'll give the minister one last chance to respond. If he doesn't, I'll move on. Is the minister prepared to respond?

HON. MR. REID: I'm going to respond in the following manner.

My ministry is in receipt of ongoing reports and recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage. The committee is made up of a cross-section of the ethnic community of the province of B.C. Far be it from this government — this open government — to do and make decisions in isolation from an advisory committee which is put in place to do the very things this member is demanding. We're waiting for a report and some recommendations back from that committee.

The Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage is made up of the following members: Baldwin Ackermann from Richmond; Mark Ando from West Vancouver; Steve Babakaiff from Grand Forks; Jacques Baillaut from Vancouver; Betty Bautista from Prince Rupert; Tony Bevacqua from Fort St. John; Celso Boscariol from Burnaby; Narinder Dhir from Burnaby; Ranjit Diwana from Matsqui, Ed Eduljee from North Vancouver; Mike Kennedy from Prince George; Riasat Khan from Vancouver; Kewal Khosla, an Indo-Canadian from Surrey and chairman of the committee — there are some Indo-Canadians on this list; Ben Lee from Kelowna; Bang Luu from Vancouver; Isaac Moss from Vancouver; Irene Olljum from Vancouver; Buncy Pagely, an Indo-Canadian from Victoria; Sylvia Posch from Richmond; Rudy Spence from Burnaby; John Stashuk from Vancouver; Jan Van Bruchern from Vancouver; K.T. Yue from Vancouver; Alan Yuen from Victoria.

Mr. Member, these people represent an advisory committee to this minister. Anything beyond what has currently been agreed to will not be advanced without advice from our cultural ethnic community advisers. You may have a select group of people that you converse with, Mr. Member, but we went throughout the province to select ideal people to represent the community, including a large section of the Indo-Canadian community, which I'm proud are on this committee, including the chairman. Far be It from me as the minister responsible to do anything contrary to open government in relation to this committee.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've been sitting here listening to the member from Esquimalt make all sorts of comments about how he thinks that we somehow do not care about those who were involved with the Komagata Maru back 75 years ago, and I take great exception to that.

[3:00]

I happen to have a lot of Indo-Canadians in my constituency., Yes, I do visit these Indo-Canadians during my time in the constituency and not only during elections. I visit these temples and these people during their other activities on numerous occasions. I have a good rapport with those of East Indian descent in my constituency. For that member to stand up and suggest that something that happened before any of us in the House here were born is an event that we must, as people here today, somehow assume responsibility for, directly or other-

[ Page 7456 ]

wise, and we're somehow not concerned, I would suggest is an insult and simply an attempt by that member to make politics out of a very serious issue. We all regret what happened 75 years ago, but no one here was born at the time and had any control or can today correct what occurred 75 years ago.

The member stands up in the House and is accusing us and suggesting we do not care. I can recall going to the temple in Surrey where we were shown a video and where it was explained to us in some detail what exactly occurred 75 years ago according to all of the documentation and the video they had available at that particular event. A suggestion was then made as well by someone there that perhaps maybe there could be some recognition through us, meaning anyone in the Legislature, participating in that day set aside this summer when they will remember the event and, of course, express the regrets for it having happened.

There was no suggestion that we should somehow, as a government, put up the funds. Frankly, I think the Indo-Canadian community probably had it in mind to do this themselves as their way of showing Canadians and British Columbians that it was an event that should not be forgotten. They weren't looking to government to see this done. Frankly, if they came to me, as I hope you might if they came to you, I would probably contribute personally, not suggest that somehow government must do this. If you wish to make a sacrifice, Mr. Member, if you're as sincere as you claim to be, if you're the only one who's right and cares enough, if that's your suggestion, then perhaps instead of asking government to do this, maybe you should set the example and personally make that first contribution and then ask others to do likewise.

It's easy for you to stand up there and say that you're the only one who cares, that you're the only one who's right and that no one here somehow in your opinion is right. You want to get this into the record, I gather, so that you might distribute it to people in the Indo-Canadian community in order to further emphasize that point — and I know that's what you have in mind; I'm satisfied that's what you have in mind. I would suggest that you're using your position, your heritage and this assembly abusively. You ought to instead, if you're so concerned, set the example, make the contribution, and not turn to government but say: "I, as a British Columbian — never mind government — wish to contribute something to see this happen because I care, and I would ask British Columbians individually to join in and make that contribution because they care."

You know, Mr. Member, that's hard for you NDPers to understand, but it's personal contributions that really count. It isn't always government. It shouldn't always be government. And people, regardless of their ethnic origin — and least of all, frankly, in my opinion, the Indo-Canadians, because they are a wonderfully hard-working, independent people who do not turn to government at every turn.... That's why I don't believe the majority of them are NDP, frankly. I think very few are, only a few lost ones.

These people will, I'm sure, much more appreciate it when there is that personal commitment and when it's not always government.

The minister cares and the minister was responsible for the establishment of a multicultural committee, a committee that has the opportunity and does take the time and really creates the opportunities for people to come forth and make submissions to give us their views on what we can do to assist the various cultural communities in our province. It's working wonderfully well.

It was the minister's initiative, and the people from the list, as he suggested, are across the spectrum. There are a number of people representing the Indo-Canadian community. The chairman certainly is one I know extremely well and he is a wonderful, very committed, extremely dedicated individual. They are all doing a good job and I'm sure that this will continue. They care; the minister cares; we all care.

You are not the only one who somehow cares about all of this, Mr. Member. Just because your demands of government aren't always responded to as you would have it, and just because I stand here today and say that maybe you should consider setting the example by contributing personally and asking others to do likewise, maybe you should rethink what has been said. It doesn't mean you're the right one.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is going to respond to the Premier directly. He certainly needs no defence from me. I think the Premier is probably at his sanctimonious best in standing here this after noon and telling the House that some of us who were not born at the particular time of the unfortunate incident with the Komagata Maru should have no responsibility or be insensitive to those historic events.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Just hang on a moment. I'll tell you what you are saying. What you are implying....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: You seem to be impatient. You're implying that if you weren't born at the time, you have no responsibility or concern. What is your point?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that in estimates the questions and answers are to be relevant to the minister's estimates. I wonder how this discussion that we're hearing right now in any way — by any stretch of the imagination — could be considered relevant.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, if I'm incorrect, then.... I'm sure the minister will correct himself

[ Page 7457 ]

later. We'll be reading the Blues to see exactly what he meant by saying that some of us weren't even born at the time. I think the record speaks for itself.

Some of us weren't born when the Indian lands were cut off, either. That's another matter that we have to address. Some of us were not born when the Japanese Canadians were interned, and that is another matter we have addressed.

Notwithstanding any of that, all the member is saying is that this is a part of our history that we should address to the best of our ability and in a sensitive way by showing some kind of gesture or commemorative effort on behalf of government and of the people of the province of British Columbia, in order to show some leadership and some sensitivity I'm not suggesting that we can change history, but we must recognize in an honest, forthright way that those unfortunate events did occur. That's all this debate is about. You are trying to twist it into ulterior motives and political posturing, which has nothing to do with the situation. This is what you're very good at, Mr. Premier.

This is all I wanted to say, and I'm sure the member has no need to be concerned about the tactics you're using. But it's about time we stopped to realize that things that were wrong in the past should be recognized, and we shouldn't try to duck and dodge. This Premier is trying to suggest that we should go to the individuals, and they should be showing leadership. We're talking about the government; we are the leaders. This is why we're talking about multiculturalism, because your government has not taken the leadership and has not shown the responsibility.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, the Premier and the Provincial Secretary have suggested that the multicultural advisory body of 24 individuals across this province are going to be consulted and depended upon to make recommendations with respect to public policy on multiculturalism. This will be the first time in the history of this province that the government has taken the recommendations from any advisory body and followed them. In the past you've been saying that you never would do such a thing; now you're telling us that you're going to follow this body. Well, it will be the first time. I say hear, hear — if you're going to do it. Maybe democracy is finally arriving, but we shall see.

I hope that you will be telling us when they will be holding public meetings and giving us an opportunity to make representation, and I hope that you will be an open government and let us know what they really think. I'm sure that they are going to be very interested in this debate this afternoon.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, again I have to respond briefly to the member for Vancouver Centre, who is attributing motives to what I said that obviously weren't there, and the record will show this. But let me say again — and I wanted to emphasize this in my comments — that if you really care, don't turn to government. Don't say, "We want somebody else to give all of this recognition," because that's so easy. It's so easy for you, the member for Vancouver Centre and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, to stand up here and say: "I care. The government should pay for something." Are you willing to contribute something, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre? Do you care so much that you think government should do it all? Or are you really prepared to become involved personally? Is the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew prepared to become involved personally? Maybe he will, if he's called upon now, but I didn't hear that suggestion earlier. It was that government should do this; government must do that. I say: care enough to become personally involved.

It was, after all, as I said, 75 years ago.

MRS. BOONE: It's the minister's estimates.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member for Prince George North keeps interfering, Mr. Chairman. She keeps saying it's the minister's estimates. I came here to listen to the minister's estimates, and frankly, it has been all but that since we began. But maybe that will change.

Again, Mr. Member, what I suggested was that if you cared so much, help out personally. Do something yourself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the matter of relevancy, which was raised as a point of order... The relevancy in this particular issue.... I suppose the Chair has at least accepted the fact that it is relevant because the minister is responsible for this particular subject. The Chair suggested some 25 minutes ago that the subject had been very well canvassed and that perhaps it was time we moved along to something else. I just bring that to your attention again. It has been well canvassed. I have heard the same questions asked a number of times....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would really appreciate it if the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) would not interrupt the Chair.

The debate continues.

MR. SIHOTA: I want the Premier to understand, first of all, that I am going to try to be very measured in my response, because my gut is telling me to respond in a totally different way. I want him to listen with care.

Does the Premier understand that he and I can't change history, but that he and I can show that we have learned from the lessons of history and that we have all changed? That's what this debate is all about: to show that as a consequence of something that

[ Page 7458 ]

occurred 75 years ago, we as a society have come a long way and we are now prepared to vow that those events that occurred then will never be repeated. That's what this debate is all about. It's not about personal contributions; it's all about lessons learned from history.

Is the Premier saying that the Canadian government was wrong when it apologized to the Japanese? Are you saying, Mr. Premier, that it was wrong to take that action, to reflect on the errors of those who were responsible for the internment of the Japanese, and to apologize today and vow that it will never happen again? Is the Premier saying that the Dutch were wrong in redressing their actions in Indonesia? What does the Premier intend to say to the Chinese when they come to government, as they inevitably will, and ask for some apology, both provincial and federal, with respect to the Chinese head tax?

[3:15]

If you accept the Premier's comments, he would say that we were wrong to apologize as a nation to the Japanese, that the Dutch were wrong in their redressing in Indonesia, and that he would not entertain an apology to the Chinese on the basis that he wasn't in power then, somebody else was, and that they should go back to those who have long gone, to those who perpetrated the injustice.

I think those examples should get the Premier to reflect on what he has just had to say and to recognize that there are times for us — all of us, because all of us have a multicultural heritage; all of us have family who have come from different portions of the world — to think that perhaps when groups make approaches to government and ask that the errors of the past be commemorated, recognized and vowed not to be repeated, that's exactly what should happen.

This is not a large request. The Premier is right; the Indo-Canadian community seldom comes to government and asks for financial assistance. This is a symbolic request, in part an approach to government because it was government — provincially, federally and municipally — that perpetrated the type of bigotry we saw in this country 75 years ago. They are saying: "Yes, we would like government to set the example because it was they themselves that caused the injustice." Is it really wrong for them to come to government and ask for a symbolic gesture? I say no.

It's not a matter of personal contributions. I would be quite happy to talk to the Premier — not here today, but outside this chamber at any other time — about my personal contributions to that community and my personal involvement in this issue as well, which, I would venture to say, far surpasses his. It's a matter of recognizing what happened 75 years ago and saying that it ought not happen again.

The Premier said during his comments that he would think that the Indo-Canadian community would want to do it themselves and not come to government. No doubt after they read what the Premier had to say — the Premier's correct; these comments will be mailed out — they will be sufficiently offended to choose to bypass this government in its entirety.

The request for funds was made to the Premier in correspondence that he received and correspondence that I have, so for him to suggest that no such request came forward is erroneous. The same request was made to the advisory council that the Minister of Tourism talks about. I've talked to the people on that council, and they are aware that this request was made to them. Don't try to tell me today, Mr. Minister, that they aren't seized of the matter, that they aren't aware of the request — they are. They've been seized of it for quite some time.

It's interesting, Mr. Minister, to watch how your story changes. On the first day, it was that no request had been made. The Indo-Canadian community wrote to the minister and the Premier requesting funds. On the second day, this morning, the attitude was: "...this is an issue which historically concerns only the government of Canada" — and that's why they turned down the application. The minister admits to knowing history and, indeed, what history says about what British Columbia did. When that wasn't good enough....

HON. MR. REID: Read the rest of it. You weren't here, so read the rest of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair will recognize individual members when it's time for them to speak.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister, who is unprepared to respond to my questions...

HON. MR. REID: I did this morning and you weren't here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SIHOTA: ... who is unprepared to rise from his seat and address the issue in the best traditions of the House, seems to have all sorts of courage when he's sitting on his butt and can heckle back and forth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I don't think that that can be construed as parliamentary language. Perhaps you could withdraw it.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll withdraw the reference to the minister's butt.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Withdraw the whole statement. Resign!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Where's your rake?

MR. SIHOTA: Did the minister say where's my rug?

[ Page 7459 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Where's your rake? Muck rake.

MR. SIHOTA: I want the Minister of State for Vancouver Island (Hon. Mr. Huberts), the Minister of Tourism, the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) to understand that there is a creeping anger in the Indo-Canadian community. Their comments today in this Legislature have done nothing to arrest that anger and in fact have served to inflame it. There will be a reaction to this, and it's not one that the government is going to be proud of. I want to give the minister one more chance.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Don't get involved in it....

MR. SIHOTA: The Minister of Education heckles that this is a racist discussion.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's what you're doing: you're trying to make it into a racist issue.

MR. SIHOTA: We're talking about a racial injustice which occured in this province 75 years ago. We're talking about saying as a society that we should put an end to racism, and the minister makes that type of comment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's what you're doing: you're trying to turn it into a racist issue.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister suggests a motive on my part. I'll tell the minister what the motive is: simply to get the government in this province to recognize that an injustice occurred 75 years ago and to establish some type of commemorative, swearing that it would never happen again. That's the motive. There's no need for the government and its ministers to feel defensive. There's no need for them to feel fear that they're being lulled into some corner.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: You're flattering yourself.

MR. SIHOTA: Let Hansard record that minister after minister — now the member for Surrey-Newton (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) — is choosing to heckle. They're very sensitive to this issue. I'm going to give the minister a chance. Is the government prepared to reverse itself and establish a commemorative in Vancouver recognizing that this event occurred, and secondly, swearing that it will never happen again? It's a very, very simple request. Is the minister prepared to do so?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know how long this debate will continue, but I don't think I'm alone. I think everyone in this House, whether they're down on the floor or in the gallery, should be offended by the comments that have been made by the member for Esquimalt. There is not anywhere in the world a more charitable, a more generous, a more tolerant, a more sympathetic people than British Columbians and Canadians. When I hear the member from Esquimalt say that he will take out what's been said — his words; he'll probably selectively clip them — and mail this to the Indo-Canadian people.... He says, as a part of his message just a moment ago, that they'll be down on government; they'll be mad; they'll be upset; and it will create all sorts of furore. What are you trying to do? What is your motive, I ask you? Are you part of this harmony that British Columbia and Canada is noted for, or are you simply attempting to incite a little bit of friction among the various cultural groups in this province?

MR. CLARK: On a point of order, we've heard claptrap in here before, but this is offensive in the extreme from the Premier. He should withdraw any motives imputed to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, and he should withdraw uncategorically.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly, it's against the rules of the House to impute motives to any member. If the Premier was imputing motives, perhaps he would withdraw.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What motives? I was questioning his motives, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would hon. members take their seats. Did the second member for Vancouver East want to rise on another point of order?

MR. CLARK: Yes, on a point of order. The Premier very clearly accused the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew of inciting racial hatred in this province. He should withdraw that remark categorically.

HON. MR. REE: The member for Vancouver East made certain comments. I'm sure when he reads the Blues tomorrow it will be otherwise. My ears distinctly heard the Premier ask the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew what his motives were. He was asking a question; he was not saying that his motives were adverse.

MR. SIHOTA: The rule, as I understand it, deals with imputing a motive. In the course of his comments the Premier was clearly imputing a motive to me and suggesting that somehow these comments were designed to incur some type of racial backlash in this province.

Mr. Chairman, first of all....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm rising on a point of order here. I want the Premier, first of all, to withdraw....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the member finished with his point of order?

MR. SIHOTA: No, I'm not; I'm just about finished. I want to say this. First of all, I said during the text of

[ Page 7460 ]

my comments exactly what my motive was. I put it on the record what I was trying to do very clearly, in terms of saying I was trying to get the government to fund some type of commemorative in Vancouver. I made that very clear. Then there was heckling with respect to my motive.

For the Premier, in light of that explanation, Mr. Chairman, to make the statement that he has....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not trying to make a speech; I'm arguing a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member has gone on at some length on this point of order. I think his point has been made already.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm asking the Premier to withdraw his statement.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, if there was anything that was offensive in my comments, I withdraw them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

[3:30]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, as I said, without a doubt British Columbians and Canadians are the most charitable and most tolerant people in the world. We are a mix of people from all parts of the world. Many of us come from countries where undoubtedly there have been frictions and there have been very regrettable events between countries. I'm sure the Scots will argue that the Brits should erect something for what might have been done some many years back as they feuded. It has occurred between different groups, and it's regrettable always. We certainly would hope that such would never, ever occur again, and from what I see in our society, our people would not stand for that sort of thing.

If it helps, I too will apologize for what the Canadian government at the time permitted to happen in Vancouver. It happened 75 years ago. It was an immigration matter. It was a federal situation. If it helps, I too will apologize, as I'm sure everyone in the gallery and elsewhere would like to, for what occurred during those weeks and months 75 years ago.

But I think that in this House, if we really want to serve the Indo-Canadian community, the Dutch-Canadian community, the Scottish Canadians, the French Canadians, it doesn't matter which, let's call them all British Columbian Canadians.... If we really want to serve those people, let's talk about the good things that are happening today. Let's talk about how people in various groups are in fact working together in order to establish a better relationship between all of the people in the province.

I'm proud of what I see, I'm proud of British Columbia, and I'm proud of British Columbians, and I'll not be a party to stirring up and attempting to divide between one group or the other. I can assure the member from Esquimalt that I'll not be mailing out all of this discussion that took place today to the various ethnic groups. I'll not do that. I'll not attempt to use your comments to stir up ill feelings, perhaps, between one or the other. I think we ought to instead be talking about the many positive things that are happening and the good relations between people of all races and all backgrounds in this province. We have a lot to be proud of. We have without a doubt the kindest, the most tolerant, the most charitable people anywhere in the world right here in British Columbia.

HON. MR. REID: To the member who was absent this morning, I want to read into the record one more time — because he selectively used only a couple of lines — the position on the Komagata Maru incident.

"It reminds us that immigration and the changing face of society touch very deep emotions" — and it's pretty obvious. "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 which 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 to 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 I have indicated that...." We are not planning a memorial "...first, because this is an issue which historically concerns only the government of Canada, and secondly...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 to preserve the history of Indo-Canadian people in Canada. They have approached me regarding the 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 to make contributions to our understanding of 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 from Vancouver Centre" — and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew — that "I personally regard this issue 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. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, I would like to tell you all that when I sit up here and listen to what is said from both sides very carefully, I think — and I

[ Page 7461 ]

suggest this to all hon. members — that with the best of motives from both sides we have embarked on a very rocky road. I find that emotion is entering into the debate as opposed to reason, and that things can be said, could be said or maybe have been said that are really not appropriate. I think this whole matter has been very well canvassed.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has made a great many points. He has been responded to by the Premier and by the minister. I do believe that this is the time when we should move on to another subject or when members should be prepared to speak on something else. If there are those here who are not prepared to speak on anything but the subject we have just covered for maybe the last hour and 20 minutes, I think they should remain in their seats.

MR. SIHOTA: I hope the Premier is not about to leave this debate, in light of the comments he's just made. In the course of his comments....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What a bunch of garbage!

MR. SIHOTA: The Minister of Education calls this debate a bunch of garbage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Obviously the members didn't hear what I just said. I don't want to repeat it. Would the member like to proceed, through the Chair.

MR. SIHOTA: In his comments the Premier referred to this as a tolerant and understanding province; I agree with that. My regret is that this does not appear to be a tolerant and understanding government. The essence of understanding....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we're getting right back into the subject that I suggested had been well canvassed. Has the member got something else he would like to debate?

MR. SIHOTA: I intend to debate this issue, because the minister and the Premier made comments in light of the comments I just made, Mr. Chairman. I think it's my right as a member of this House to stand up and respond to what they had to say.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't think I should be foreclosed upon in terms of my right in this chamber to deal with this very significant issue.

My regret is that this does not appear to be a tolerant and understanding government.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I realize that the member is relatively new to this House, but there are rules of debate in this House and in every parliament that are time-honoured and time-tested. The Chairman has made an appeal to all members of this House. It is the duty of each and every member to obey the direction of the Chairman.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but this member is continually flaunting those rules, and I would ask that you bring him to order.

MR. CLARK: It seems to me that the Chairman has made a suggestion, and we will attempt to follow that suggestion; but he has not yet made a ruling. There are, it seems to me, issues arising from the minister's previous statement on the government's position on the Komagata Maru that are quite appropriate for us to continue to pursue. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I might say that what we've seen exhibited on the government side demonstrates the very point we've been trying to make: the government's commitment to multiculturalism and issues like the Komagata Maru is shallow and has no substance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair suggested that we move on to something else, rather than making a ruling, under the impression that all hon. members are honourable, would see the problems involved and would abide by that suggestion. If you're not prepared to abide by that suggestion, then the Chair will have to make a ruling.

I believe that the subject has been very well canvassed. It's just going to keep on. If the Chair recognizes someone on this side of the House, they will speak, and then naturally someone from the other side of the House will want to speak. I know I'm being repetitive, but I've listened to this debate very carefully and have heard everything I believe there is to be said. So I will now rule that we will move on to another subject.

MR. CLARK: On a clarification of the ruling, I wonder if the Chairman is saying.... First of all, I'd like to know on what basis you have decided and what rule you cite in respect to this issue; but more importantly, whether your ruling is restricted to the question of the Komagata Maru or deals with the whole question of multiculturalism.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member would check the standing orders of this House, he would realize that the ruling of a Chairman or the Speaker is not contestable except by substantive motion. I would ask that you would so inform the member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair hasn't ruled out the discussion of multiculturalism; that's part of the responsibilities of the minister. It's the particular subject we've been dealing with that has been well dealt with. I think we should move on, and I so rule. Under the orders of this House, the ruling of the Chair is not questioned. That's the way it's got to be.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I take it that the subject of the Komagata Maru is now foreclosed upon, as I understand your decision. I am seeking clarification. If I'm correct, I'll move to a different topic. I want to make it very clear from the beginning that

[ Page 7462 ]

my comments will deal with tolerance and understanding in a multicultural society.

I'll go back to the comments that the Premier just made about tolerance and understanding.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister groans. I intend to talk about this issue. I regret that this government has not shown any tolerance and understanding. The Premier's comments simply serve to reinforce that fact.

MR. R. FRASER: You're absolutely wrong.

MR. SIHOTA: We on this side of the House used an example; there are others. The member for Vancouver South made ill-timed and unfortunate comments that had an effect on the Chinese community in this province, dealing with his desire to....

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, it's the estimates for the Provincial Secretary and the Minister of Tourism that are being debated here today. Character assassination is never in order in this House, and I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to tell the hon. member which estimates we are debating. It's not the estimates of the first member for Vancouver South.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. member, before he proceeds, that we also have a very important rule in this House about personal allusions, and we might take that into consideration.

Let me just tell you one other thing about the rules by which this House operates. The House imposed the rules upon itself, and they have been developed over countless years through the joint efforts of members of both sides. The rules are not imposed by the Chair; all the Chair endeavours to do is to see that the rules imposed upon the House by itself are obeyed. That's all the Chair is trying to do now.

[3:45]

If the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew would like to continue, we are dealing with vote 70, the Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary, multiculturalism.

MR. SIHOTA: A tolerant and understanding government as it relates to multicultural issues would favour the establishment in the province of a strong and meaningful human rights commission. We don't have that in British Columbia. We haven't seen this government take any steps to strengthen the human rights commission in British Columbia. I didn't hear a peep from the minister on it.

In light of what's happening in the streets of B.C. today, a tolerant and understanding government would have an effective race relations program. That's lacking in British Columbia. A tolerant and understanding minister of multiculturalism would be quick to censure the type of comments that the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) made with respect to the Chinese community.

A tolerant and understanding government would go out of its way to provide ethnic communities in this province with some comfort on the things that have happened in the past, be it the Chinese head tax, the Japanese internment or the Komagata Maru incident — any one of those. A tolerant and undertanding government would pay attention to those needs. A tolerant and understanding Premier would understand the significance in a multicultural society of events like the Japanese internment, the Komagata Maru and the Chinese head tax. A tolerant and understanding Premier would be supportive....

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you suggested, you ruled, and you explained your ruling. This member is continually abusing the rules of this House, and by so doing he offends all members. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that you enforce your ruling.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has accepted your ruling. He is now speaking about the broad issue of what a government that was committed to the concept of multiculturalism would do. He has accepted your position that we have canvassed the issue that you ruled on. We are now looking at the broader issues, not that of the Komagata Maru but of what a proper multicultural policy would be in this province. It is clear from his remarks that he is referring to a number of other instances in the past in this province that we should remember.

MR. G. HANSON: I am very distressed at what is occurring here today. The tradition in this house when we're discussing a minister's own office estimates is that there is latitude in those discussions. Even philosophical discussions can occur under this particular vote. That has been the tradition of this House. What these new political ministers on that side of the House appear to be doing is shifting it to almost committee stage of legislation.

I haven't heard that member from Esquimalt say anything that was out of order. He's perfectly within his rights to discuss race relations under this particular minister's vote. That minister has a responsibility for policy with respect to the various races that exist within this province. It is entirely appropriate that members on this side of the House can comment on the effectiveness or lack thereof of his performance. We should not be subjected to political interference by the political ministers. Let the line minister, who has the responsibility for these things, look after it.

[ Page 7463 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if there's one thing that has been allowed during the debate on vote 70, it has been latitude — probably more than enough latitude. Everyone seems to be well aware of the ruling I made. The point is being missed with respect to the debate from the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew: there is no question that the vote under discussion includes multiculturalism, and therefore that subject is open to debate in the conduct of these estimates.

However, I just repeat once again that allusions to other members of the House is not permitted and is not germane to the discussion, because it's against the rules.

I would like to read one thing that I've read to the House before. It is from Sir Erskine May on page 429 of his nineteenth edition and refers to allegations against members. You've all heard this; you probably know it almost by heart; I know I do. It says: "Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate."

Having said that, we'll continue.

HON. MR. REID: I want to make it abundantly clear that this government has put in place a committee of 24 well-respected, cross-ethnic, cross-cultural representatives. They report back to me, my ministry, my staff, with the representatives and with the cabinet committee in relation to the issues which you continue to canvass. I want to make it abundantly clear to that member, because he doesn't seem to hear it, that this government is an open government and we deal with the concerns and the recommendations and the issues that come from this well-respected committee we have put in place,

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

If the member would like, I will read the names of the members and their total responsibility to the community and what they represent. I think it's appropriate at this time to continue to remind those members on the opposite side of the House that this government does care and has put in place an advisory committee representing the whole spectrum of the multicultural component of the province and every region throughout the province, on a fair and equitable basis, as best possible, across cultural and ethnic bounds.

That's the process of which my ministry bases its estimates and its funding towards the estimates, and it is towards advice and consideration of questions raised by the Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage.

MR. SIHOTA: In terms of the comments that the Chairman before you made, I haven't raised my voice once in this thing. I have been trying to be fairly temperate in my comments. I think it's important to recognize that in terms of multicultural policy this government has been a failure. Its multicultural policy is not a policy that exemplifies or in any way meets the essence of tolerance and understanding.

The debate today exposes the extent to which this government simply does not understand the needs of ethnic communities. It doesn't understand that there are events in history which would affront ethnic communities in this province — as you, Mr. Chairman, properly noted in your introduction on May 23, 1989, in this House, and I give you credit for that. The rest of this government does not seem to understand that there are times in the history of ethnic communities in this province, days which we remember, tragic days in this country, that ought to be recognized and vowed never to be repeated. An understanding government would go out of its way to show that things have changed.

Earlier on today I read into the record part of Mr. Palmer's column, which I think again exposes what the multicultural policy of this government is all about. A report, which we paid $18,000 for, talks about the ethnic vote and how it can affect 16 swing seats in Vancouver. You're concerned about that kind of stuff, but when it comes down to the concerns that grip multicultural communities in this province, there's nothing there.

There's nothing in terms of second language. Take a look at what Ontario is offering in terms of second language. There's nothing in terms of human rights or meaningful legislation. Take a look at what Manitoba, Ontario and the federal government have offered in that regard. There's nothing in terms of race relation programs. Take a look at what's happening in Vancouver, and consider that the Civil Rights Protection Act in British Columbia, which is designed in part to deal with race relations, still has never been employed despite what my colleague from Vancouver East raised with respect to the Aryan Nations issue. It has never been employed. A tolerant and understanding government would do that.

A tolerant and understanding government — if I may say as an aside — would remove an Attorney-General who says that he would not have supported a Charter of Rights that gives people basic equality rights. A tolerant and understanding policy on multiculturalism would recognize....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier says he's bored by this debate.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: He says I'm getting boring.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Let's get to the point.

MR. SIHOTA: The point is that you do not have a tolerant and understanding multicultural policy here in British Columbia. A tolerant and understanding government would be prepared to bring in all of those ancillary programs that ethnic communities in

[ Page 7464 ]

this province literally for years have cried out about. I don't want to go over the record and enumerate each one of them, as my colleague from Vancouver Centre did.

I see the Premier now telling all of his colleagues: "Let's go. Let's get out of here." He doesn't want to listen to all of this. He says that it's a waste listening to me. Let Hansard record that. The Premier feels a sting that this stuff will be mailed out. I want to give the Premier assurance before he leaves that I'll mail out verbatim his comments as well as mine and all of the debate that's gone on today. You'll hear about it, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What are you trying to stir up?

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not trying to stir up anything. I'm letting people read the record and come to their own conclusions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hansard is trying to record it. You're making my job difficult and making their job more difficult. Just the member who is identified to speak at this time, please.

MR. SIHOTA: If the Premier wants to respond, he has a chance to respond. Let Hansard record what's been said today, and let ethnic communities across the province and in particular the Indo-Canadian community make its own judgment, because I have enough faith that they will make the appropriate judgment on what's been said today by the Premier and by his colleagues in cabinet.

[4:00]

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, it's probably timely that I read into the record the statement of principles and objectives of the Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage, so that the record, when it's circulated by members of all sides of this House, circulating it to all the communities of the province of British Columbia.... This is the advisory committee — a very selective group of hard-working, cross-cultural community representatives.

"The people of British Columbia have a rich and diverse cultural heritage. Pride in this heritage, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and harmony, strengthens our province and enriches all of us. Through a better understanding and a greater awareness of our origins and our identities, we can better understand what it means to be a Canadian and a British Columbian.

"The objectives of the Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage are to encourage groups and individuals of all backgrounds to fully participate in the mainstream of Canadian and British Columbia society; encourage all groups and individuals to preserve and share their traditions, to express their cultural heritage; foster a spirit of acceptance, tolerance and understanding of cross-cultural differences; promote cross-cultural harmony while working towards elimination of racism, discrimination and prejudice in our province; support the principles of equitable access to public services and opportunities by all British Columbians; recognize and encourage volunteers and voluntary community organizations working to preserve and develop our cultural heritage; to promote the enhancement of artistic, historical and language resources by multicultural groups in British Columbia; and encourage the Cabinet Committee on Cultural Heritage to formulate a multicultural policy for the province."

The mandate of this organization:

"The province of British Columbia has recognized the importance of cultural heritage issues through the establishment of a cabinet committee. The Cabinet Committee on Cultural Heritage brings together a broad spectrum of key ministers and is a means of providing leadership and policy direction to government on ethno cultural issues. The cabinet committee has established the Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage to provide a broadly based forum to receive input from the cultural communities, to develop advice to the cabinet committee based on a regular review of issues of significance to the ethno cultural communities" — would the record please show that the member who raised this issue consistently is not paying attention while the mandate and the objectives of the committee are being reviewed — "and report to the cabinet committee advising government on its policies and programs which affect the ethno cultural communities and recommends initiatives that should be undertaken.

"The advisory committee on cultural heritage is made up of knowledgeable individuals broadly reflecting the province's regions and cultural composition. Its overall goal is to enhance and improve multiculturalism in British Columbia."

MRS. BOONE: Given the mandate that he just read out, I'd like to ask the minister a straightforward question on this. Has his ministry or anybody from your committee made any representation to the Ministry of Health's senior advisory group that is currently traveling around the province? There has been a significant amount of information raised in my region regarding multicultural seniors who come from different backgrounds and have tremendous problems, in terms of their cultural differences and how they relate to various services for seniors — be it in health issues or in terms of getting pensions. They often have language difficulties as well. There has been a good paper put out by the federal government which addresses many of these issues.

My concern is that the Ministry of Health has not — from the information from my region — had any contact with anybody from the multicultural community on that issue. This is really of great importance, because if we're going to be formulating policies around seniors, we ought to be formulating policies that also take into account the concerns of seniors who are having a lot of difficult problems. They are unique problems. When a senior has to talk about an illness and is unable to do so, or when they are perhaps culturally different and don't feel proper talking to a male doctor — for example, if they're female from a multicultural society.

Some of the things recommended have been in terms of providing some translators, making some moves to hire people at local levels to assist them and

[ Page 7465 ]

trying to deal with this whole issue on a provincewide basis. Can the minister tell me what his ministry has done to make the concerns of the multicultural community known to the Ministry of Health on that issue?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, first of all, we do not — as a government or as a ministry — dictate to the cabinet committee on its activities. But I have been advised by the committee that they have established a subcommittee to deal with the questions of the family, the youth and the women of the multicultural community.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I hadn't planned to enter the debate on this minister's estimates, but I feel that I have to set the record straight in regard to some remarks made by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) yesterday in this minister's estimates. I couldn't let this opportunity go by. I'm pleased to see that the member is now in the House, because that member has a habit of making outrageous statements in the House that are picked up by the press and believed by a lot of people. Then when we find out the facts, there is very little substance to them. So when the member started talking about the lottery building yesterday, I was quite certain in my own mind that he was incorrect, and I said so. Rather than getting it in the record and not being absolutely sure, as he would have done, I decided to do a little bit of checking and found out that the innuendo and the fact — according to him — that the people who owned the building were members of the Social Credit executive in Kamloops were absolutely untrue, absolutely without foundation.

MR. WILLIAMS: Were.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, they have never been at any time, and you can check the record, Mr. Member. You were wrong again, but it doesn't bother you that you are wrong and that you virtually slandered people from the sanctity of this House, which you do all the time. You do it with regularity. You get up and make statements about people that are untrue but it doesn't bother you.

I just want to set the record straight. The building was owned by Trelco Enterprises, which has three shareholders who happen to be brothers. They are Gary, Wayne and Ron Cooper, who are not now, nor have they ever been, on the Social Credit executive in Kamloops. I think it is only fair to them to clear up the record and once again point out that the first member for Vancouver East will say things within the sanctity of this House that he wouldn't repeat outside. But he gets his headline. Oh yes, you get your headline, but you don't have the decency to stand up and apologize when you're wrong. Never once have I heard you stand up and apologize when you've been proven wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's only fair to those people and to others that when that member makes those kinds of outrageous statements, we have a chance to get up and prove that he's wrong, as he has been so many times. I ask him, in the name of all decency, to stand up and admit that he was wrong. Go and check it out. Stand up in all decency.... You made allegations that were untrue that somehow we were benefiting friends of ours — the executive of our party — and you're totally wrong. Stand up and admit that you were wrong. I'll sit down so you can stand up and say: "I was wrong, and I apologize to the three Cooper brothers."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps before I hear from the member I would explain to the government House Leader that what we have been trying to do with the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), with some difficulty.... Nonetheless, what the Chair has been trying to do has obviously been lost on the government benches. The Chair is the servant of this House, but the rules are here for us all to obey. When you question the motives of other members, there are other ways of doing what you wish to accomplish.

I think that will have said it, but I am sure that the member for Vancouver East, who will have the ability to respond to this and who has some sense of humour, may handle it in a diplomatic way.

MR. WILLIAMS: Indeed I....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's hard to say, isn't it.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, not at all. I think it's intriguing that the government House Leader has trouble understanding the rules of the House, but then it's a fairly amateurish group over there in terms of running the government. One would expect it in terms of handling the House itself; we have certainly seen that throughout this session.

I find it especially intriguing that the member for Kamloops finds it outrageous and scandalous to name anybody on the executive of the Social Credit Party in Kamloops. I can understand the concern. If our party had that standing in the polls today, I suppose I might share the concern, but that's something you people will be discussing tomorrow evening. I know, Mr. Chairman, that this isn't a tourism issue.

I think it's incumbent upon the minister to give us the list of the Social Credit executives in Kamloops for the last decade so we can satisfy ourselves in that regard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would also be out of order. Perhaps we will adjourn one day and the Chair will walk everyone through Sir Erskine May from start to finish. Does the government House Leader stand to speak on this issue?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, I ain't eatin' a ham sandwich, I can tell you that. [Laughter.] That's the kind of remark that, with all due respect, some of the remarks I just heard precipitate. I find it a little hard to take when I make a serious statement that the member for Vancouver East, as usual, has tried to tie

[ Page 7466 ]

in party executives with favours done by this government.

It was nothing to do with anybody being ashamed of being on the executive. If you read Hansard from yesterday, you will see that he made some very serious allegations that this government bought a building because certain people were members of the executive of the Social Credit Party. I'm just pointing out that that is wrong, wrong, wrong. Three brothers, three wrongs, and he hasn't the decency to say: "I'm sorry, I was wrong." I'll prove it to him, if that's what it takes.

I also find it a little hard to equate trying to set the record straight with some of the comments made by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. He preaches tolerance, and I think this House has been more than tolerant on many occasions with that member, who goes too far on almost every subject that he speaks on in this House. He is not interested in the facts. When the minister got up to give him the facts on the multicultural commission, he walked out of the House. He wasn't interested at all, as the first member for Vancouver East is not interested in facts. It's innuendo. Let's get a cheap headline; let's go as far as we can to get the headline, and then ignore the facts. We see it day after day. I don't need a lecture from that member on the rules of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the member standing is the second member for Vancouver Centre, even if he wasn't the first member standing.

MR. BARNES: I just wanted to ask the minister if he would respond to the questions that were being asked by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. He was talking about the ethnic media adviser who was terminated for cause, and he had asked the minister what the date of the termination was. I merely want to have that matter concluded. Was it before or after May 16? Just a simple question, yes or no, and then that's all I have to ask. Was Mr. Ahamed terminated before or after May 16?

[4:15]

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, in answer to that member, that's a personnel matter within the personnel department.

MR. BARNES: Well, Mr. Chairman, it may be a personnel matter within the department, but was it not a document that you read from that department with respect to the contractual arrangements with Mr. Ahamed? You read the contract. You told us what the terms were, and the fact that he didn't live up to those terms and that that's why he was terminated. In other words, he let the cat out of the bag, or whatever he did, and he was terminated. What I'm asking is: what was the date of that contract and what was the duration? Then perhaps I can do my own figures. You said he worked for nine months; he was paid $2,000 a month. What was the date he started to work? If he worked for nine months, I guess I could do my own mathematics and draw my own conclusions. What was the date of the contract? When did he start working?

MR. KEMPF: I've been waiting patiently. And what with the wide-ranging debate that has gone on in these estimates this afternoon, I shouldn't have any trouble at all in canvassing the material that I wish to canvass.

I want to go back to the minister's responsibility for tourism. It's unfortunate that we've driven the Premier from the House, because perhaps it would be much easier and much faster to get a response with respect to the question that I'm asking of the minister with the Premier here, because I don't for one minute believe that it was the minister who made the decision to go this route. When the Premier was here, he talked a lot about government involvement and government intervention, and that's specifically what I am talking about when asking the question that I've done several times.

It's not the only question I'm going to ask, because the minister advised me this morning that I should go do some more research, which I did over the dinner hour. And the more I research this whole matter of the Tourism Advisory Council and the ministry's involvement in the same, and all that which has to do not really with the Ministry of Tourism but perhaps with another ministry headed by that minister of everything over there in the corner, I find that it's utter chaos. Utter chaos, Mr. Chairman, this whole matter. I wish in the time that's left this afternoon to get into that chaos, because I've taken the advice of the minister, and I've done some more research, and I find a whole lot of questions that I didn't have prior to the lunch hour that I wish answered.

This whole thing has been going on for quite a long time. There has been quite an argument between the ministry and the advisory council and those associations out there which heretofore.... Oh, the minister shakes his head. Wait until he hears what I have to say, before he shakes his head.

HON. MR. REID: Resign!

MR. KEMPF: You'd like that, wouldn't you? You'd like that. It's the only way you're going to get rid of me — if I do resign. The minister chatters away, but he won't chatter when he hears what I found after doing my research. There's information that dates back to June of last year in which the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council — of which he speaks so highly — spoke of some very real concerns, and I have to ask the minister what he thinks of some of the things they said.

They formed subcommittees, and this subcommittee of the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council wrote on June 5, 1988: "In examining the situation, the PTAC subcommittee identified three options." They're talking about options with respect to the changes in tourism boundaries in British Columbia. One of those options — and it doesn't really sound like an option — is: "Option 1, leave existing tourism

[ Page 7467 ]

boundaries as is. This is, of course, the obvious option that we should all like to see. The feeling of the subcommittee, however, is that we are very unlikely to be successful in proposing this option, and the end result may be that the Premier" — that's what I was talking about this morning — "simply states that the regions be modified to correlate exactly with the economic regions." Is that why he went ahead with changing the boundaries to coincide with the ministry-of-state boundaries in British Columbia, and not because of marketing, as he suggested yesterday, or a whole bunch of other convoluted reasons? Is it because he was directed by someone else to follow this path? And is that why, after a whole year — June 5, 1988, to June 8, 1989 — there is still chaos? No one knows out there.

The minister for everything chatters away, and I've got some questions that will relate to his ministry where it overlaps the Ministry of Tourism as well I hope he stays in the House.

The question arises: who then...? Certainly it wasn't the ministry — I have information here — that wanted to see the boundaries changed, and it wasn't the Tourism Advisory Council, of which the minister speaks so highly. Then the question begs answering: who made the decision? Where did that edict come from? I could tell by the look on the minister's face over the last couple of days that he didn't make the decision. Oh, no, Mr. Minister, not so; you didn't make it all. But I want to find out so that I can tell the people in the northern half of British Columbia who made the decision and who is going to force — again I say that we've heard about open government and less government intervention — or stuff this policy down the throats of the people who occupy more than half of the land base of this province. Who made that decision? Is it the same person...?

Let's get into some other questions. As the member for everything said earlier, the member should have a list of questions so that when he gets up he can answer them all. Well, let's have some more.

Was it DPA Consulting that made the decision? Did they recommend to the minister that this kind of boundary change be made? And while we're on the question of DPA Consulting, let's have the minister tell the members of this House how much it cost to have that work done by DPA Consulting. I'll even tell the minister what they came up with. Of course, being consultants, they suggested.... Now we've got some discussion going on; I don't want to interrupt this very interesting discussion over there, Mr. Chairman. DPA consultants suggested that we hire some more consultants, and while the minister is telling me how much it cost for the DPA study, I want him to tell me how much it's going to cost for the eight more studies that DPA has suggested, one for each of the eight projected areas.

The minister is conferring. I don't want to mix him up, so I'll go on to the second option put forward by the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council way back in June — June 5, 1988, to be exact — which was to modify tourism boundaries to correlate exactly with the development boundaries. Under that heading they say: "This, of course, would make absolutely no sense from a tourism marketing standpoint." We talked a lot yesterday and this morning about tourism marketing and the changes we need for marketing our tourism in British Columbia. I again quote your Provincial Tourism Advisory Council: "Option 2. To modify the tourism boundaries to correlate exactly with the development boundaries. This, of course, would make absolutely no sense from a tourism marketing standpoint." After so many years of developing a regional image, this option would have disastrous results, yet we forge on.

I wasn't sure from earlier debate whether the minister made that decision and they're going ahead, or whether they're seeking input, through the advisory council, from the people of British Columbia. But if the decision has been made.... From the look of the minister's head, which is bobbing up and down, I guess the answer is yes. Oh, it's going the other way now. Oh, well. I guess the question to be answered is: who made the decision? Did you make it against the will of this advisory council? If so, another question arises. I hope you're making a list of all these questions, Mr. Minister.

You know, we talk a lot about advisory councils. We are advising our province to death with advisory councils. Why, if your advisory council said no, that "it would be disastrous," are we one year later still following that route? That's all I want to know on behalf of the people of British Columbia. Why, when that advisory council made up of political appointees said it would be disastrous to go that route, are we still doing it?

I had hoped that during the lunch hour and the caucus meeting that ensued over in the northeast corner of the building, those ministers from the north that I mentioned on the record this morning would perhaps have talked to the Premier and the minister and would have changed the direction. I've given the minister several questions, and I expect some answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would like to draw the attention of the second member for Delta to Sir Erskine May, page 440 of the twentieth edition, about the reading of newspapers in the House. I shall send the member a copy of the citation.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairman, this is the Vancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun, and I'm sure they don't qualify.

[4:30]

HON. MR. REID: First of all, in answer to a couple of questions by the member opposite, I want to make it abundantly clear that North-By-Northwest may represent half of B.C.'s land mass, but it only represents 4.7 percent of our total provincial tourism volume and 6.6 percent of the total provincial tourism revenue. Because it represents a large mass, it does not represent the democracy we require within the organizations who dictate how this government should deal with the questions of tourism regions. I

[ Page 7468 ]

want to read into the record a letter dated June 13 from the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia:

The Honourable William Reid,
Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary,
Parliament Buildings,
Victoria, B.C.

Dear Mr. Reid:

As you know, I am the chairman of the Council of Regional Tourism Associations of British Columbia. The regional tourism associations met in Vancouver on May 30, 1989, to discuss the matter of reducing the number of tourism regions to eight from nine, and the related subject of realignment of boundaries. I am pleased to advise you that after deliberation the council has agreed to a proposal to achieve those ends. I will have the proposal in your hands within one week.

Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia,
Jean Anderson, Chairman

MR. CHAIRMAN: Members of the committee, you're advised that this subject is offending the three rules of becoming tedious, repetitious and boring, and I would ask that the members introduce new material or move on to another subject.

MR. KEMPF: I take that as an offence, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a ruling from the Chair. The subject has been canvassed extensively and the Chair's ruling cannot be challenged.

MR. KEMPF: No, I asked several new questions. I knew that the minister, not having written them down, would forget to answer them when he got on his feet, so perhaps we're going to have to ask them all again.

There's one question that begs answering after the minister's last response. If that's so, if in fact what you just said by reading that letter into the record is so, why was there a refusal at the recent meeting — that of May 30 here in Victoria — to discuss those proposed boundaries? Members of that committee, which you say were democratically there, wanted to discuss that matter, wanted to put their feelings forward with respect to proposed boundary changes. That was refused on a number of occasions. If everybody was in agreement with the minister's direction respecting the change of tourism boundaries, why was that subject not allowed to be discussed at that meeting?

HON. MR. REID: If you want him on your side, you can have him.

MR. KEMPF: It's not up to you; it's not up them; it's not up to anyone except the people of Omineca as to where I am in this House.

HON. MR. REID: You don't know where Omineca is; you haven't been there for so long.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Personal attacks are not in order. I know we've gone through this already today with my predecessor in the chair, but I would remind the minister about the business of good order and decorum and would expect that the members of the executive council would set an example that others may wish to follow.

Would the member for Omineca try to be relevant and in order.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to be relevant, and I'm a very patient individual. I too wish that the members of the executive council would set an example for the people of British Columbia. I too wish that from the bottom of my heart. Unfortunately, they don't, Mr. Chairman, in many respects.

Don't tell me that I don't know where my own constituency is, Mr. Minister of Tourism, or we will get into a shouting match. We'll find out whether it's your friends on the Social Credit executive in Omineca that have their way or whether its the people of Omineca that have their way in the next election. Where Omineca is represented in the next election is not up to you; it is up to no one but them, and I'm sure they'll make the right decision.

HON. MR. REID: We hope so.

MR. KEMPF: If you had your way, if your leader had your way, you wouldn't even have this place anymore.

HON. MR. REID: You'd be gone.

MR. KEMPF: Let's talk about democracy. I wrote the minister some time ago with respect to the travel industry development subsidiary agreement. I want to know what he thinks of a program that is there supposedly to assist those in the tourism industry in British Columbia and what he thinks of the administration of that which surely he should be administering being under another minister. Because he writes me on March 8, 1989, and I quote from the letter...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member is aware of the requirements for debate in committee, and one of the items not suitable for debate in committee is to discuss from which department a minister's responsibilities should be derived. I'll read you that section; it's in the little green book in your desk if you'd like to review it.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you very much for that direction, Mr. Chairman. This is called the travel

[ Page 7469 ]

industry development subsidiary agreement. Does that not have something to do with tourism? Does that not affect the tourist industry in British Columbia? What was the agreement set up to do if it wasn't to assist? Shall I tell my constituents — surely not, Mr. Chairman — that this has nothing to do with the tourist industry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I will send you a copy of Sir Erskine May's specific wording on this issue. While TIDSA may have something to do with the tourism industry, when you discuss — as you were in your line of questioning — whether or not that is the responsibility of a particular ministry, the standing orders prohibit us from discussing that at this time. They prohibit us from discussing under which member of the executive council's estimates a particular expenditure should take place. I'll find the member the particular wording.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for that direction. I'll go back to my original question then, because that relates to tourism. The minister hasn't answered it. Has the decision been made? I can tell the people who inhabit the northern half of British Columbia — although they make up a very small percentage of the overall tourism dollar in British Columbia — that because they make up a very small percentage of that, they should have no say at all in what the government does with respect to tourism boundaries and how those boundaries should be located and that they don't know what is better for their own area as far as tourism is concerned.

I want to ask the minister once again: has the decision been made to change the tourism boundaries in British Columbia to coincide with the boundaries of the ministries of state? Has that decision been made or not? I've gone back and forth on it with the minister. He said several different times that it has or it hasn't. Has that decision been made? Who made it? Did the minister make it, or did the Premier make it? Who made that decision?

Fine. If the minister is going to stonewall on that, as he has for two days, we'll ask some more questions. Is the minister aware that the regional boards such as North-By-Northwest were elected by the private sector? Is that the problem the government is having with those particular organizations? Is the government having a problem with them because they have no control over them? It would seem that this administration has to have control over everything that moves. Is that why the decision is being crammed down the throats of northern British Columbians? "My way or the highway; you change the boundaries to my liking, or you get cut off of funding."

It isn't a politically appointed group; these people were elected by the private sector. Is that the problem you're facing, Mr. Minister, with respect to the changes in boundaries for tourism in British Columbia?

I might remind you that these regional tourism associations are registered and accountable as societies. They're not a rag-tag bunch out there running around not knowing what they're doing. They've been there for 15 years, and they know what they're doing, Mr. Minister. They know what they're telling you when they say they don't want any part of boundary changes that would coincide with the ministries of state in British Columbia.

After all this, my question is: does the minister still intend to go ahead with changing the boundaries to coincide with the boundaries of the ministries of state? I've read into the record letters from across northern British Columbia, from municipal councils, regional districts, chambers of commerce and interested business people. They do not want it.

Is it this government's intention — this government that doesn't believe in government intervention — to proceed? The people of northern British Columbia have a right to know, not after the fact but before it happens. Does this government intend, through that minister and that ministry, to go ahead with this boundary change against the collective will of the people of northern British Columbia — over half the land mass of this province, from whence, I might remind you, comes the wealth of this province?

[4:45]

Is that what the government is saying — they're going to proceed? They want to take over the world — is that the sign that the minister is making? Yes, I can believe that. From what I've heard in these estimates, I can believe it. But I want the minister to say it. Have guts enough to say it: "Yes, we are going to make those changes against the will of the duly elected representatives of the northern half of this province."

MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't have the impression the minister was going to continue. Maybe the member for Omineca can ask his question again.

Now for something completely different. I take it that as Provincial Secretary the minister contributes to musical groups of different kinds around the province, maybe for traveling and that sort of thing. Is that the case? Some grants within the grant system of the Provincial Secretary's office?

HON. MR. REID: More indirectly than directly, because the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) distributes that portion of lottery funds allocated to her ministry, which is $25.2 million. In that is the cultural component called arts and culture.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister will clarify it, and he'll shut me up right away. I'd really like to talk a little bit about rock and roll. I don't think you people do much in that area.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, just rock and roll. It's a significant, growing area of expertise and, I think,

[ Page 7470 ]

talent in this province. I'm using the broad term rock and roll. I'm talking about young musicians in the province.

HON. MR. VEITCH: He's a regular Bill Haley.

MR. WILLIAMS: Bill Haley is a little dated now, but that's okay.

I think we've generated a great deal of talent in this area, and we basically aren't doing any funding of new musical groups, unlike Alberta, Quebec and some of the other provinces. I don't mean symphonies and that sort of thing, but the stuff that young people enjoy and which is part of the North American music scene.

Vancouver is very much a significant new player in North American music. We have k.d. lang, who is probably destined to become one of Canada's greatest artists; she now lives in Vancouver. Her work in "Shadowland" with Owen Bradley from Nashville and so on is of world-scale calibre.

I think we've got all kinds of other musicians operating in warehouses around False Creek, where they actually live, where they have video studios and sound studios jointly. The Provincial Secretary and the Lottery Fund, it seems to me, could play a significant role there. We've now developed sound studios in Vancouver that are the equal of anything on the continent. They're very significant.

The music industry, the recording industry and so on, is a major industry. I don't think we have developed a strategy. The Albertans take this seriously — k.d. lang came from Alberta. She chose British Columbia, but along the way she got a lot of help from the province of Alberta, because they recognized the need to help young talent. We should be funding their touring across the country and to Quebec. The Quebeckers do that. They have been concerned about building these kinds of talents on their home turf.

There are other groups here that are extraordinary. Spirit of the West is a Celtic rock group from the North Shore of greater Vancouver that sings songs of social conscience about British Columbia. They are currently touring Finland, and they were invited to the Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia and so on. That's extraordinary.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: The second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) says k.d. lang is okay, and I don't think there's much doubt about that.

MR. CLARK: He doesn't like Spirit of the West because they're political.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, Spirit is political. We'll see who shows up at benefits in the next election, won't we? But that's another matter.

There are groups that have moved up the ladder. Currently 54-40 and Grapes of Wrath are extraordinary. Grapes of Wrath actually came from Kelowna to the....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, 54-40 from the east side. They've really had a hard time in their initial years. It's extraordinarily hard work that has kept them going and got them to that threshold. But there are other groups that have slipped and not made it.

I wonder if the minister might consider establishing some kind of committee that might advise them, say, relative to the lottery fund in this particular area. This is an area that I, believe it or not, know a little bit about, although my kids know a lot more than I do. There are groups like Nyetz that are very interesting talents. There are the Hard Rock Miners, the Jazzmanian Devils and the Scramblers, and there are ethnic groups and other Celtic groups like Stephen Fearing's.

It's very significant. I think we're talking about modest seed capital to help them out. It would be exciting stuff for everybody involved. There are producers around. We have probably one of the best record producers in North America based in Vancouver: Bruce Fairbairn, who did the Bon Jovi record — the last one that sold $30 million to $40 million worth or something like that. This is extraordinary talent, and we might tap some of it and think about a conscious policy around the question of new music and rock and roll and some of our groups that are developing significant music of conscience that is indigenous to....

MR. MOWAT: Don't forget country and western.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, we've got some good.... Teri-Lyn Ryan is one of them.

These are all very talented people. We're not keeping up with Alberta, and we are certainly not keeping up with Quebec. It's a real opportunity.

There is a problem in the music industry in Canada, because Toronto is the centre in so many ways in terms of our media and other things, and yet if you look at the music scene, the real centre is Vancouver. Toronto is fed in a healthy way by the province of Ontario and by the federal government through some of their policies. So our young musicians really struggle; they don't make a very good living. In a sense they're symbols of what we're all about. They needn't suffer as much as they do. They live a pretty hand-to-mouth existence.

If you think about what our society is all about, people in the arts are, in the end, the product of all of this activity in our system, and we should be proud of them like other cultures. The young kids around greater Vancouver and elsewhere in the province really deserve some help from the Lottery Fund.

I would hope the minister would seriously consider a committee that is bipartisan and also truly representative of this kind of subgroup that we don't regard as a major surface group. They are the makings of the future great talent of this province. I

[ Page 7471 ]

would hope that the minister would seriously consider it. It is a nice change of pace from some of the other matters we have been discussing this afternoon.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's compassion in respect to that subject, and I will agree to give some serious consideration to his request.

As you know, last year I also approved for another industry which was having similar problems.... That's the film industry in its indigenous manner in the province of British Columbia. It has been truly successful. I think there is a void, and I thank him for the suggestion and point out to the member that just last week — I'd like to elaborate one step further in relation to the need in the whole musical field — I attended at a Kitsilano community centre and heard a couple of paraplegics playing music within their own band, which, if you heard it, was a tribute. So not to look at some other avenues, but say to you that there are other begging issues about musicians and their wanting to convey a message.... But there's certainly no doubt in my mind, and I think you've advanced an issue which I'd be happy to consider and look at more seriously.

MS. MARZARI: Last but not least on this particular estimate, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that in the last day it has been decided by government that the Lottery Fund is now going to be able to accept day care spaces for children as eligible. I find this an interesting twist and turn of events, and it's worth a few minutes of our time perhaps.

How does the minister see the child care situation fitting into his particular mandate around lotteries? Has the minister looked at criteria for how one funds child care spaces in this province? Is the minister going to do an inventory of child care needs in each of the regions that will be approaching you for lottery funds? Has the ministry assessed in some kind of a priority way what comes first, a banquet hall, an ice rink or a child care facility? Has the minister been briefed, as he makes these decisions with his colleagues, as to how one would go about actually cost-sharing or delivering services to communities in child care? Now that this is a brand-new fish which has been put on your plate, Mr. Minister, I'd ask you to comment on how you intend to use bingo for day care.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I don't have anything to do with bingo. Bingo does not come under my ministry's mandate. But the Lottery Fund does, and in discussion with the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) towards the begging need of the non-profit organizations who have a capital requirement, it's my ministry's — the Lottery Fund — allocation which will be apportioned out across the community needs in relation to capital costs, by virtue of a submission, the same as we deal with every other request from every other component of the community.

The guidelines are designed to be flexible, so when the need is identified and the non-profit group comes forward with a strong application for assistance for capital, we respond. We have in the past, in all aspects across the province of British Columbia, and I'm happy to say that as a result of the strong position of lotteries in British Columbia this year, we are in a position of having additional funds to make available for this purpose. We're happy at the announcement today. But my ministry will only be responding to the programs as they're advanced, as it deals with capital requests and capital requirements.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, the first member for Vancouver Point Grey has just opened an area that I don't want to belabour, but I wonder if.... There was some discussion, Mr. Chairman, of lottery funds and how they pay for day care centres. I read in the paper that the Speaker had successfully convinced the lotteries branch to bend the rules or something, or change the rules with respect to funding for a particular day care centre in his constituency. I'm not imputing by that any criticism whatsoever. I just would like to know whether that's a new policy issue of the government, so that if any day cares in my constituency are faced with a similar situation, we can access that fund.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Earlier today I promised the members that I would find this particular citation. Unfortunately the Chair has had its seventeenth edition replaced by the eighteenth, and subsequently the nineteenth, and recently the twentieth, which is in modern language. But for the benefit of the committee, I'm going to refer to the seventeenth, which is the general restrictions on debate of Committee of Supply. And rather than read this long citation, I'm going to have it circularized to all members, and then I can refer to that specific section which I used earlier today.

[5:00]

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, in response to that member's question, there has not been a change in policy. What happens is that that particular organization, the day care operation in West Vancouver.... And I have an identical case in Surrey which we were not able ultimately to fund, because what the lotteries branch approved was assistance to relocate from one piece of property to another.

What happens with non-profit groups is that they take whatever property they can obviously be offered, put on whatever facility they want to utilize for the day care facility, and then exist as best they can over a period of time. And then when they're required to move, for whatever reason, they appeal to whatever sources of funding there are to relocate. The ministry does not fund operation costs, but we do where there's a demonstrated need established to help them continue to operate — not the operating costs themselves, but to relocate the facility. We have agreed on two occasions. One of them was in Surrey. They haven't taken up that offer, because the offer

[ Page 7472 ]

became further expanded. I don't know if that's the one you're referring to. The second one, which became a parallel to a similar need, was the one in West Vancouver. An organization or a contractor generously offered them the facilities; but it was a non-profit organization with limited funds and they could not afford to pay, so they asked us for help. That's how that one came about.

Vote 70 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Brummet Dueck Parker
Weisgerber L. Hanson Huberts
Dirks R. Fraser Messmer
Chalmers Veitch Reid
Richmond Vander Zalm S.D. Smith
Ree Davis Johnston
Pelton Loenen Mowat
Bruce Serwa Rabbitt
Long Jacobsen Davidson

NAYS — 18

G. Hanson Barnes Marzari
Rose Gabelmann Boone
Clark Blencoe Barlee
Smallwood Lovick Williams
Pullinger Miller A. Hagen
Perry Jones G. Janssen

Vote 71: ministry operations, $38,971,271 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 16: minister's office, $224,490 (continued).

MS. A. HAGEN: I thank you for your alacrity in recognizing me, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, everyone in this House is for education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the member will contain her remarks until the members of committee who don't normally attend leave to attend to their other businesses.

If the Minister of Tourism could absent himself from the chamber, the Chair would be most pleased.

MS. A. HAGEN: I might begin by asking whether the minister wishes to make any statement this afternoon. We did enter into these estimates on Friday, when we had about an hour and a half. I know that the minister and I waited rather patiently during the debates on the estimates of the Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary. I'm ready to proceed, but if the minister has any other comment that he wants to proceed with, given that it's almost like a new beginning, I'm certainly prepared to defer.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I did make my statement and my opening comments when the estimates began. I guess the only statement I have to make now — with all of the positive and wonderful things that are happening in education — is that I am astounded that the opposition is still continuing this debate.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MS. A. HAGEN: I am sure that the members on this side of the House are prepared to proceed in a timely way, and we will get as much done as we can in the rest of this afternoon. I understand, now that we have the floor, that we will be able to proceed to the end of these estimates without any further interruptions. I am sure that that's going to make for a good discussion on education and a number of issues that we on this side of the House want to canvass with the minister.

There is no doubt at all that the minister's and the Ministry of Education's main focus this year has been the Royal Commission on Education and the "A Legacy for Learners" it has provided, as we noted on Friday. It's a very strong focal point for many decisions and activities that have been taking place, both at the ministry level and throughout the districts of the province.

I want to begin this afternoon by asking the minister a few questions on the resources available for the implementation of the royal commission report and recommendations in this fiscal year. I have as a reference point a document from the ministry called "Royal Commission Funding Implementation Plan," which outlines the operating budget's '89-90 resource allocation. It also deals with the capital program for this year and gives a projection with a note that it is, indeed, just a projection of the plans for spending for the next ten years. I am going to come back to this from time to time in the course of our debates on the minister's estimates, but I want to just get a couple of questions asked right now before we begin to look at some of the spending that the ministry is proposing in the coming year.

[5:15]

In the budget debate, in the minister's comments on Friday and in much of the publicity around the implementation plan, there is a reference to the fact that $1.4 billion will be available over ten years for the implementation of the royal commission. However, as I look at the plan that the ministry has tabled — a plan beginning '89-90 and going to '98-99 — I find that, although there is a total of $1.4 billion within the various subsets of that budget plan, there is a deduction each year — this year of $25 million, then for four years of $20 million, and then for five years of $30 million or $35 million, which is money targeted from current programs. The impression the minister has given in announcing $1.4 billion towards the implementation of the royal commission is that it is new money, over and above operating costs. Yet by my calculations, there is money coming out of current programs for the implementation and, indeed, if we look at what is left, it's about $1.1 billion — about 78 percent of the $1.4 billion supposedly coming out of new money.

[ Page 7473 ]

I wonder if the minister could clarify for us what new money is available. Is it $1.4 billion, as he as said, or $1.1 billion, as his own documentation would seem to indicate, with nearly $300 million coming out of current operating budgets and current programs? It seems to me that there's some question of honesty in reporting here, and I'd like to get the minister to clarify on the record how much money is available in the global sense for this important initiative.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It is new money except for the — I don't know the exact figure — approximately $20 million reallocated from the ministry budget. That is because some of the programs.... If you're talking about in-servicing of teachers for programs, you don't in-service for the old program and then in-service for the new program. We're putting that all together. There was money in the budget, for instance, for teacher in-servicing, so that money has been reallocated to the new programs.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could I ask the minister, then, if that is indeed the allocation from current programs over the whole ten years — if in each case those sums, which range, as I say, from $20 million to $35 million, are a reallocation of teacher in-service funds from the present operating budget and are now being earmarked for the implementation of the royal commission?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I've just been trying to add it up, because in each year it varies somewhat. I guess about $265 million of that will be what we would classify as reallocated money; the rest of it is brand-new money.

MS. A. HAGEN: So the minister is confirming that instead of there being $1.4 billion in new money for the implementation of the royal commission, there is $1,136,800,000. That's how I have it added up. If we're going to do it exactly, I'm sure the minister's wizards with figures can do those kinds of calculations.

Could I ask why the minister has chosen to do what I consider to be something of a sleight of hand, something of a less than completely accurate reporting of money? It's been very clearly stated over and over again that there's $1.4 billion in new money going towards the royal commission implementation. It seems to me that it would have been logical to have said from the beginning that there's $1.13 billion in new money, and we are going to reallocate some money from operating that will be clearly directed.

I want to understand why the minister would have chosen not to make that differentiation clear at the beginning, leaving people thinking that there was in fact that additional amount. Only 78 percent of the amount he said was available is in the calculations we both agree are accurate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that it is accurate and correct that $1.4 billion has been committed for the implementation of the Sullivan report recommendations. As we got into the in-service training, the testing programs and all of those sort of things that would have required additional funding in the regular budgeting process, it seemed unnecessary to keep that money in the budget for something that was not going to be happening. So if there's a misimpression left, I apologize for that. There is $1.4 billion for the implementation of the Sullivan report, and the reallocated money is the type that.... Under the process of evaluation, teacher in-servicing and all of those programs that would normally carry on.... Since they're not going to be duplicated, they have been reallocated from the standard budget.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would just note, for the information of those people who may read Hansard on this matter of the royal commission implementation money, that this year, as the minister has indeed previously announced and as his budget estimates indicate, about $43.5 million of the $1.4 billion is coming out of new money, plus an additional $25 million that is reallocated. So again we have a very significant portion of the total amount this year coming out of regular operating accounts. I think I noted earlier in this House that the amount of new money available for the implementation of the royal commission report is very small. It's a little over 3 percent of the total amount the minister promised. It's a very small amount indeed in relation to the whole.

I want to use the time we have left to look at one particular aspect of the implementation plan the minister has brought forward. I feel somewhat constrained today because we are late starting, but I would like to begin to move on to this issue. I suspect that we may want to continue our canvassing of it for a little while tomorrow afternoon as well.

In the various items that are costed in the implementation for 1989 and '90, these are the four that take the largest amounts of money. The first one is assessment and accountability. Depending on whether you're looking at new money or a combination of new money and reallocated money, it is in the order of 25 percent of the total amount for implementation. It's the largest individual amount by a very long shot. It's a very significant amount of the total available for implementation this year.

Just to note what the other amounts are and put them on the record, the next two are pretty well equal in amount. There's an amount for independent schools and home schooling, which is the second amount. Just to put it on the record, it is $6,500,000 plus monitoring of $300,000. That's the second amount. It may be more than that, again because we have this money from somewhere else as well, and it's pretty difficult to know just exactly where it's coming from.

For the sake of keeping this consistent, let's just look at the amounts in the $43 million. Assessment and accountability account for $11 million-plus. Independent schools account for $8.4 million. The program about which we've heard the most, on graded primary and dual entry, accounts for about the same

[ Page 7474 ]

as independent schools — somewhere around $8.6 million. That's second, and independent schools are third by a smidgen. Curriculum development is fourth at around $6 million.

The greatest proportion of money in this particular year on any single item is being spent on assessment and accountability. There's no question that the Sullivan commission addressed the question of assessment and accountability. It addressed it, in my reading of the report, by placing a great deal of emphasis on what would happen at the local level. I want to just read into the record from page 111 of the royal commission report a kind of principle statement on evaluation as it relates to individual students:

"Teachers should base their evaluations on a multiplicity of evidence, including participation by students in classroom discussions, project work and one-to-one interviews, in addition to written exercises and tests. Evaluation should be continuous and should be used for diagnostic purposes, as well as for determining whether or not achievement goals will have been attained."

It goes on to suggest a role for the Ministry of Education, and again I will quote:

"The Ministry of Education should provide guidance on standards and criteria for teachers to employ in evaluating students' performance. It might also be useful for teachers to have access to sample evaluation instruments or test items to use as models. This will enable teachers to monitor their students' progress in light of provincial expectations. The standards supplied should be sufficiently explicit and detailed to allow for the monitoring of individual progress on each of the criteria set out in curriculum guides."

We are looking here at what needs to happen at the school level, and there is some guideline about what needs to happen at the provincial level. The commission goes on to talk about evaluation at the school or system level, and it notes that the learning assessment program could be much more efficiently used by "a well-constructed sample of about 1,000 students at any grade level, which should be sufficiently large to provide highly accurate estimates of provincial performance levels."

Mr. Sullivan's conclusion is: "The assessment instruments are blunt, useful for describing the performance of the system as a whole in a limited way, but not for addressing complex interactions among several variables."

My reason for reading that into the record is to put some focus from the royal commission's perspective on the whole question of assessment. When we look at that kind of direction, we find that when we get into implementation, we have a whole range of endeavours that are very much focused to a centralized perspective and on what I might call blunt instruments that may or may not be useful to us in knowing what is happening to our children within the system.

[5:30]

Just listen to the things that are in the ministry's implementation plan: learning assessment program expansion activities, including development of assessment materials to establish a means of recognizing student achievement for the primary and seven year sequential programs; classroom tests, item banking and a series of items; development of a student progress monitoring system, including systems development for the technical creation of computer programs, data collection forms, and entry and information processing; evaluation and accountability initiatives, including accreditation, district evaluations and research; evaluation follow-up activities in school districts; provincial exam development; non-examination assessment materials; and a range of items that take up 25 percent of this year's assessment budget.

So what does this come down to when we actually begin to look at what is happening? From what we gather at this stage of the game, it comes down to a very centralized system of gathering information in the ministry on just about every aspect of every student in the province.

This particular initiative, as I understand it, has taken place outside of a consultative model. People in the field looking at this are raising a considerable number of questions about the intent, nature and consistency of the system in respect to the goals of our reformed, transformed education system, where we are looking at a creative and problem-solving education for each of our children, proceeding on an individual basis and with individual programs and progress.

Let me just read one comment from a superintendent in greater Vancouver about his general perspective on this system. He says: "It's a bit like Big Brother. There was no discussion with districts. I think all of us in education are concerned about how information collected will be used." He goes on to note that "the system identifies certain groups, emphasizing them, when we're working on integrating them."

The minister's circular notes also that this information is probably unprecedented in the extent of what is going to be gathered. Nowhere is that better reflected than in the minister's comment, where he states that: "Access to this information on individual student records will be limited to a minimum number of Ministry of Education employees. It is the ministry's intention that these staff will be required, through legislation, to swear an oath of secrecy and that penalties for contravening the oath will be included." I quote that from the information circular of April 14 of this year from the Ministry of Education.

The initiative around assessment and accountability is moving in a very unprecedented way to be concentrated and consolidated in the ministry through the use of a computer process.

After my colleague for Vancouver Centre has an opportunity to make an introduction, I will wait for the minister's response or comment, and then we'll continue with this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The second member for Vancouver Centre requests leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 7475 ]

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I want to thank the member for New Westminster for giving me an opportunity to extend a warm welcome to a group of young boys and girls from Queen Alexandra Elementary School in the constituency of Vancouver Centre. On behalf of myself and the Leader of the Opposition, I would like the House to make them welcome. Their teacher is Mrs. J. Vesterback. She has, along with 22 grades 5, 6 and 7 students, four assistants. Some of them, I believe, are volunteers.

It is a special occasion that they are here for today, inasmuch as many of them are in families where English is a second language. I was explaining to them that this was a big day for multiculturalism, and certainly a day that they will remember, because I'm going to ensure that they get copies of Hansard. It will make great reading in their studies. As well, of course, we're debating education. It's a special day, and I want to wish them a welcome.

They've been up since 5 o'clock this morning, I believe. They've had a long day. I spoke to them for five minutes, so I'm sure they're very exhausted by now. Welcome, students.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am somewhat surprised and astounded by how that member has taken some information that is clearly spelled out in the document that she has and has translated it into saying that this is central control, central assessment, central testing, central monitoring, central evaluation. If the member would look at the items under the headings, then she would find that most of this assessment is for the benefit of the teachers to make their evaluations. As we get into continuous progress, into focus on learning, how do they determine whether a student has made progress and that sort of thing?

To say that there was no consultation is to stretch the imagination, because a lot of this.... What happens when you develop a new curriculum, when you develop a new approach? How do the teachers measure? How do they evaluate? So you have items like expansion of current grade 12 item banks. These are questions that the teachers then have to use — development of assessment materials to establish a means of recognizing student achievement for the primary and the seven-year sequential progress for the use of the teacher. You have technical creation of computer programs so that the teachers can look at: "Okay, these are the skills" — if you're measuring skills.

You're quite correct from the Sullivan commission report: a limited amount of this information is going to be for the purposes of the ministry. But it is for the school, teacher, pupil, school district, to establish whether progress is being made. I can see why people would be saying, "Oh, my goodness," if they believe what that member and perhaps some other people are putting out there, that this is all because it is ministry-funded and because we are going to be putting out this money to develop these assessment techniques, that somehow or other this is all for ministry use.

The member referred to the commitment that ministry personnel will be sworn to secrecy, because since this information is available on the computer, it could be accessible to people who have access to that computer. Naturally we expect that most of this information where it relates to pupils will never even get to us.

But there certainly has to be a monitoring program, and probably the only one is evaluation follow-up activities in school districts. Grants are provided in 1989-90 to school districts, to allow for local activities related to responses to district evaluations. Practically all of this is going to the new testing programs, with a lot of consultation at EPAC and from other teachers. Well, if you're going to put in a new program, how are you going to measure whether progress is being made? You have to set up the skills checklist, and that can be taken out of context. That is one thing.

Speaking of taking out of context, the member has taken one phrase in relation to something somewhere, and tried to tie it to something else over here. For what purpose? To create fear or paranoia where there's no reason for it? Certainly it's easy enough to take one sentence out of a paragraph that was referring to something else altogether, and then try and relate it to an evaluation procedure over here, and say: "Well, the minister over here said, and the minister over there said...." But they were in different contexts altogether. I don't quite know what the purpose is of trying to selectively take a sentence or a phrase from one part and tying it somewhere else.

It is true, we are going to do some central assessment. But it is not true that we are going to focus on central assessment. The assessment program, the evaluation, the monitoring program, are for the benefit of teachers, so that they can monitor student progress, so that they can monitor evaluations of the programs that they are putting into place. That is very important. People want to know where they're heading, what the objectives are, what the targets are, and they want to have measuring-sticks to decide whether or not they, the program, the district and the individual students are moving along according to those measuring-sticks. A lot of money is being set aside for assessment because, with the new curriculum, there is also a lot of money being set aside for new curriculum development. That's being developed by the teachers, in cooperation with the ministry. Parallel with that must be a different type of assessment program. If we are going to teach creative thinking, then there's no point in saying we'll hang onto the old yes-and-no type of question. You've got to develop a new assessment tool for that.

Yes, money has to be allotted to that. But to even suggest that this money is for central control and central monitoring by the ministry is creating an unnecessary fear and certainly a false impression from the actual facts.

[ Page 7476 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: The estimates are an opportunity for us to canvass in this House the minister’s policies and intent. I would hope that we can address those issues. I'm happy to hear what the minister has to say, and if there are points that he wants to make to clarify his intent, that is the intent of this exercise. I am not engaging in this exercise in a controversial or adversarial way. I hope the minister and I—and others on this side of the House — can have the kind of debate that will enable us to understand the minister's intent.

Therefore I think my next question would be to ask the minister to advise us about the student record system. I understand from his comments on Friday that he has provided funding for that, so student records can be maintained and developed in the school, but also be available to the ministry. That, I think, is one of the reasons why the sentence.... I don't know if this is the sentence the minister was referring to when he said I took it out of context. Perhaps the reason ministry staff is being sworn to secrecy is that they are going to be dealing with student records which have been, up until now, maintained in schools and school district offices.

The circular from the Ministry of Education to administrators and Instructional staff that I spoke about earlier has a very extensive list of what will be included in that system. For all intents and purposes, it's my understanding — and I certainly stand prepared to be advised if my understanding is incorrect — that that information will repose not only in the records of computers in schools and school districts but in the ministry office as well. In the ministry office there will be basic student registration and enrolment data.

[5:45]

It's my further impression — and again, the minister can clarify this if he will; it would be very helpful for the many people who want to know how the system is going to be evaluated and how the children are going to be assessed and how their records are going to be kept — that the minister hopes to use that information to provide the kind of annual report that has information about a whole range of things. You will be able to punch a button, a wonderful array of information can be revealed, and it will come out under the heading of that part of the annual report that is a statistical review and provides us with a whole lot of information. That is more extensive this year and probably will be more extensive next year.

That information, that student record, is first and foremost a very comprehensive record. It is a record that — again from the ministry's circular — provides quite a lot of information about every child who will be on registration in the school and given a unique ID number assigned by the ministry, not by the school. So this is a system-wide approach. In addition to the usual things, such as that child's name, gender, birth date and citizenship, there will be information about the language of that child, about whether that child is a status or non-status Indian, or has a disability, or is a home-educated child, and so on.

Then there will be very specific information about that child which, as the superintendent whom I quoted earlier states, seems to be at odds with the philosophy. This superintendent notes: "The system identifies certain groups, emphasizing them, when we're working on integrating them." Indeed, there is a whole list of labels, if you like, or identifications around broad-based disabilities and then specific disabilities. This child is dependent-handicapped, trainable mentally handicapped, profoundly retarded, visually impaired, autistic, educable mentally retarded, gifted — severe behaviour, rehabilitation, learning assistance, and so on. There is going to be a lot of identification about that particular child.

Then if there are particular programs, like language programs and so on, they'll be noted. I would note that in the information being gathered under those special education program listings, we don't have any such listings for independent schools. Apparently we don't want to know that much about the independent children. They're going to be high-intervention children, medium-intervention children and low-intervention children. It's a rather interesting distinction when you think about it, because really that says something about what these children need rather than about how we might label them.

We have, I think, that kind of information in a central office, or accessible to a central office. Perhaps the minister could give us some idea of where the information is going to repose, if you like, what the ministry's requirement for the information is, and how they're going to use it.

At this stage of the game, we're talking strictly about data, if you like — identification data about Mary Jones, about the member for Vancouver–Point Grey's sons, about the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley's (Ms. Smallwood's) daughters, about the children of the members of this House and about other children. Perhaps the minister could in fact give us some indication of what his intent is around this central record system and what his Intent is about how it will be used. Then we will have some framework for our further questions.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll do the best I can to explain it to the member, because many of the details are still being discussed through a consultative process with the school districts, the EPACs and what we call the stakeholder groups. Again, I'm giving approximations.

We provided the computers to the schools because if you're going to be doing individual monitoring of the progress of pupils at the school level, it seems rather pointless, with the technology available, for teachers to be trying to do that manually. Our estimate is that 90 percent or more of the information that will be in that computer will be student progress records and a lot of other information about the students that is the business of the school. The district may have to add up how many pupils they have in special education and what they have there. To some extent, we now collect this type of information — such as how many students qualify —

[ Page 7477 ]

through a variety of forms. There are funding implications and that sort of thing: how many students qualify for special education?

I know that one thing that has resulted from the EPAC discussions and some of the concerns the member and some others have expressed.... "Well, how much of this information do you need at the ministry about the students?" We've tried to limit that to the type of thing that we need in order to, say, produce an annual report from the ministry: how many students there are, how many males, how many females. Probably the type of thing that will come to the ministry is name, address, sex of the pupil.

One of the intents behind this is.... I guess it's a matter of how, and we hope that through the use of technology we will be able to track declines in enrolment, dropouts and that sort of thing. We don't have that kind of information. At this point we have not been able to unequivocally establish whether, when pupils leave school, they have dropped out of the school system, gone to an independent school, or gone to home schooling, which we've had no record of. In some cases we can track whether they've gone to another province. We need data in order to make adjustments to programs, to improve the education system; that's the type of information we need. We're estimating that 50 percent of the forms we now collect are going to be unnecessary, and those are the forms that come into the ministry. But the monitoring system is primarily for the use of the teacher and the school and in the district.

Some modifications have been made because of the concern about particular information or data on a child. I know one change that has been made is to say at the district level: "You will need to know that, and then you give us the totals for the district rather than us getting it from the computer." I'm not computer literate enough to know all of the things that can and can't be done, but I know that the intent is to go on with the discussions to see how computers can be applied. Part of the program that we've set up, and part of the funding, is to actually develop the software to do all of these things. That is being worked on in conjunction with the teachers, teachers' committees, primary teachers, and other levels. As the curriculum and the assessment and the monitoring programs are being worked out, how do you track this for the individual pupil to inform the parent, or in the school to evaluate the effectiveness or the success of the programs? We need summaries of that.

So I think I can alleviate a lot of the concerns about this being Big Brother trying to connect with every aspect of your life. Where concerns have been put forward we say: "Do you really need this information centrally?" If the answer is no, it doesn't really add anything that we can use for the annual report that we have to account for to this Legislature, and we'll leave it in the schools or in the districts.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, the hour is late. Let me just ask one final question in the time that we have available. Could the minister categorically say at this time that the basic student information that I've outlined — the categorization of students and any other information that is specific to the students — will come to the ministry only in aggregate form from the school districts; that the ministry does not intend at any time to have individual profiles on these students in any place but in the school districts or in the schools of the province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I've tried to say it reasonably grammatically, and I've tried to say it in reasonably simple form. I can tell the member what has been happening through this process all the time, and much of the data always centres.... There's a form sent out, or a set of data as suggested data for input. It's sent out in draft form. The form that the member probably has, has already been revised, and we may get other revisions as to what the categories are. I didn't keep a list of all of the things that you mentioned, so I can't say categorically that one particular item may be included or not. I can say that the intent is clearly to pick up the type of information that we need. The individual pupil information stays within the district, and we will get summaries of that. So I guess that's about as far as I can go on that.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just before we adjourn, I advise the House that we are sitting tomorrow afternoon. Just in case there is any confusion, we shall sit Wednesday afternoons unless otherwise notified.

Having said that, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.