[ Page 10733 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Mine Development Assessment Act (Bill 59). Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 10733

Tabling Documents –– 10733

Oral Questions

Export of fish. Mr. Miller –– 10733

New tanker station in Juan de Fuca Strait. Mr. G. Janssen –– 10734

Nursing shortage. Mr. Peterson –– 10734

Oil spill cleanup expenses. Mr. G. Janssen –– 10734

Premier's invitation to First Nations Congress –– 10734

Pacific National Exhibition. Mr. Williams –– 10735

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 12: minister's office –– 10735

Mr. Guno

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Jones

Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act (Bill 37).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Veitch) –– 10742

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of International Business and Immigration estimates. (Hon. Mr. Veitch)

On vote 41: minister's office –– 10743

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Harcourt

Mrs. McCarthy

Mr. Jones

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the liberty of wishing two of our members a happy birthday today. The second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) and the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker) are both celebrating a birthday, and I'd like the House to join me in wishing them a happy birthday.

MS. MARZARI: Visiting us from Australia today, here at a conference at Dunsmuir Lodge, are Gillian Branagan from Sydney, Australia, and Joan Rae and Marj Home from Melbourne. They are accompanied in the gallery by a young seven-year-old fresh from a brilliant piano recital at the Unitarian Church in Vancouver not so long ago, my seven-year-old son, Daniel Straker. Would the House please welcome them.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, visiting the House today is the newly-named chairperson of the government's Day Care Task Force. Would the House please welcome Nicole Parton.

MR. CLARK: I have the privilege today of introducing from Kamloops Rod McDermid, who is the president of one of the Kamloops ridings, and his wife Ruth and children Andrew and Sarah. Accompanying them today is a Rotary Club exchange student from Mexico, Santiago Huerta. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Would the House please join me in welcoming my sister-in-law, Yvonne Zirnhelt, from that great B.C. constituency of Toronto.

Introduction of Bills

MINE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT ACT

On behalf of Hon. Mr. Davis, Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mine Development Assessment Act.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to formalize the province's mine development review process in legislation. The process and its antecedents date back to 1976. During its 14 years of operations, almost 150 coal and mineral mining projects have entered the review process. About 80 have received the approval in principle and close to 60 have begun construction, with most now either in full production or closed due to the exhausting of reserves.

The goal of the process is to facilitate and expedite sound, publicly acceptable mining ventures in British Columbia. The review process sponsors and implements a comprehensive procedure for project review and approval based on integrating environment and economy. Legislation of the process is deemed necessary at this time to clearly demonstrate our commitment to formally review proposed mine development and to increase public confidence in the review process by establishing public consultation provisions in law, including, in particular, provision for public hearings conducted by independent assessment panels, where necessary.

Bill 59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mrs. Gran tabled the annual report for the B.C. Systems Corporation.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the report of the Crown Proceeding Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989, in accordance with section 15 (2) of that act.

Oral Questions

EXPORT OF FISH

MR. MILLER: A question to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries with regard to the free trade ruling and the loss of export restrictions on fish. As the minister is aware, the salmon season has started, and various proposals have been considered by a task force, including but not restricting a Crown corporation and a landing tax. Given that we are into the season, could the minister advise why that task force has not met? I understand there was a belated attempt to set one up today. Some recommendations have been brought forward to halt the erosion of jobs from British Columbia to Washington.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To the member, my staff have been meeting about recommendations that could be made concerning the implementation of a tax. As I understand it, the structure is in place; it could be implemented. We do not see at this stage a mass exodus of salmon for export position, as some may claim. We have not seen the figures to document a mass exodus of the commodity to any great increase. As you are well aware, there is a limitation of 20 percent as the maximum that could ever be exported under the agreement at this stage.

MR. MILLER: A supplemental. The minister is wrong. One hundred percent can be exported, and he should know that. Twenty percent can be exported over the side, and the feds have granted 15 Y licences for that.

The UFAWU — the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union — has launched a Canada fleet campaign to encourage people to sell to B.C. processors. They have requested financial assistance from the minister. Is the minister prepared now to assist these working people in the fight to save B.C. jobs? They have already spent about $60,000 of their own money. Are you prepared to give a few bucks to help them save their jobs?

[ Page 10734 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I obviously am as concerned as the member opposite and as concerned as the union is about the exporting of product or the loss of jobs. Let me assure you that statement has been made very clear on many occasions.

The fact of the matter is that we do not have a vote within budget, per se, which allows that to take place. Furthermore, there is no documentation at this stage that there is a mass loss of jobs. I think you are presuming something that has not happened.

MR. MILLER: The minister sounds perilously like he wants to close the barn door after the horse has bolted, and I hope that's not the case.

The minister is well aware, or should be, that 100 percent of our fish can be trans-shipped through processing plants which you license. I have seen letters the minister has written on that.

Recently B.C. Packers moved a canning line to Anacortes, Washington. Has the minister advised B.C. processors in the strongest possible terms that we object to the shift of processing capacity and jobs from British Columbia down to Washington State?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes, I have had the opportunity to meet with the Fisheries Council of British Columbia on a number of occasions, and we have discussed during those meetings the importance of the fish-processing industry to the economy of this province.

Whether or not you are assuming again — as I understand your statement, hon. member — that we are going to have the processing industry entirely established in the U.S., I do not believe that for one minute, because they are corporate citizens who believe very strongly in operating in Canada and particularly in British Columbia.

NEW TANKER STATION IN
JUAN DE FUCA STRAIT

MR. G. JANSSEN: Last year an oil spill on the west coast of Vancouver Island polluted beaches up and down the coast. The risk of an oil spill on southwest Vancouver Island will increase if a tanker station is established in the strait of Juan de Fuca.

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) brags about the state-of-the-art spill equipment located in Vancouver. He also likes to brag about the tugs there. The recent task force reports show that the province doesn't even have an inventory of spill-response resources. Will the minister now admit that this government has learned no lesson and that no concrete action has been taken in the year and a half since the Grays Harbour spill?

NURSING SHORTAGE

MR. PETERSON: My question is to the Minister of Health. In view of the difficulties being experienced in staffing cardiac-operating-room and intensive-care nursing positions in the province, will the minister consider implementing a bonus-pay plan for areas of nursing shortages similar to that just announced by Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children?

HON. J. JANSEN: First of all, the Toronto sick children's hospital is a non-union hospital, and it has more flexibility in hiring nurses. We have put forward, as the members opposite know, a proposal to provide an incentive to attract nurses into specialty areas. This has met with resistance from the nursing union to this point in time. We hope that through the next negotiations they will recognize that.

The member should be aware that already today in British Columbia our starting rate for the nursing profession is some $1.42 an hour higher than in Ontario. We do have attractive rates here. We have recognized the concerns regarding critical care nursing. We are addressing them.

OIL SPILL CLEANUP EXPENSES

MR. G. JANSSEN: I have a question for the Solicitor-General. Volunteers who helped clean up the oil spill on the west coast of Vancouver Island are now in court in the United States seeking to recoup some of their expenses. Can the Solicitor-General inform us what legal aid has been made available for British Columbia residents affected by the Grays Harbour spill? Or will ordinary British Columbians be left to assume the government's responsibility?

[2:15]

HON. MR. FRASER: He's asked the wrong minister.

PREMIER'S INVITATION TO
FIRST NATIONS CONGRESS

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question for the Premier. The First Nations Congress has invited the Premier to attend next week's special assembly on aboriginal title and constitutional questions. I and a number of members of my caucus have accepted that invitation, and we're looking forward to discussing these issues with the aboriginal leadership of British Columbia, and also Elijah Harper. Can the Premier tell us today if he has decided to attend this important gathering of B.C.'s aboriginal leaders?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I have not received a formal invitation. I did read about it in the newspaper. There may be an invitation in the mail that I haven't seen as yet; I'll certainly inquire about that. However, I understand the Leader of the Opposition is attending. I don't know exactly what the date is. Perhaps he could tell me about that. I understand it's on the Queen Charlotte Islands, but I don't know all the details.

MR. SPEAKER: This is question period. The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, it's next week, July 10 to 12. If the Premier finds that the government jets

[ Page 10735 ]

are occupied — as they should be — there is still space aboard the commercially scheduled flight that we'll be taking. In fact, I have a reservation waiting in the Premier's name. If he'd be willing to save the taxpayers some money, I'm sure that reservation would be there. Mr. Premier, if you'd like to attend that conference, there is a space waiting for you on that plane.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I suppose if any of us really wanted to save the taxpayers' money, we'd pay for it ourselves. I understood the Leader of the Opposition to say that he is attending and a number from his caucus are attending. I've just checked the dates that you've given me, and I find that it's Tuesday and Wednesday. A number of us have House business to attend to; we must be in the Legislature at least some of the time.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question. I would think the Premier's answer shows the importance he places in resolving this very serious issue in this province. He has other business and so does his Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber). He talks about us travelling on our own money. I regard this to be the public's business.

I also regard what we are expending their tax money on to be the public's business. I made public my travel logs for 1989-90, and I'm still waiting for the Premier and the cabinet ministers to do the same. Will you do the same, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'll try to take the questions out of those comments made from across the floor. First of all, it's good to have it confirmed that in fact you're travelling at the taxpayers' expense, as has been the custom for the Leader of the Opposition and others. Much of it is politicking. I would suggest that a good part of what you do on the Queen Charlottes may be politicking as well.

I would like to see an agenda for what is proposed for discussion, because I've just been advised by the Minister of Native Affairs that he did not receive an invitation either. Frankly, I would be very interested. If this is something other than a political event, I would like to know about it. If it's a political event and you're travelling there, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, I would suggest you pay for it. That's only fair.

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the minister responsible for the PNE. Two days ago you said you wouldn't interfere in the PNE dispute, yet on the same day you did just that. As you said: "I seen my duty and I done it." Good on you. Why didn't the president of the PNE "see his duty and do it"?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, indeed the minister did not get involved in the collective bargaining process, which I committed myself not to do. We did get involved in bridging a particular problem that involved a 60-day extension of the current agreement to make sure that all areas were covered, not only in the preparation but in the running of the fair, the trade shows and all the ancillary happenings that take place on those PNE grounds.

I can say, Mr. Speaker, that I'm very happy that the matter is settled. I know that the part-time workers at the fair are happy. I know that the casual workers at the fair are pleased. I know that the full-time workers are pleased. I know that the CUPE union is pleased. I know that the B.C. Federation of Labour is pleased. I know that all of the private-sector employers on the fair grounds are very happy. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the fair-goers and the public in general are happy. I'm just sad that the member opposite is not 100 percent pleased as well.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 12: minister's office, $267, 471 (continued).

MR. GUNO: My learned colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) has in his fashion thoroughly canvassed, I thought, all the issues relating to the estimates of this ministry, so I'll be brief.

I want to revisit an issue that I don't think has been dealt with in this debate in this particular estimate, and that is the matter relating to the tragic conflict between the justice system and the aboriginal people. I say tragic for a number of reasons. One, it results in so many wasted lives. We see many young aboriginal men and women getting their start in adult life behind bars. It is tragic because it is often the only way that this society responds to what is largely a socio-economic matter. It is tragic because it stems from misunderstanding and fear. Most of all — to the Attorney-General — it is tragic because it is avoidable. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this government has so far demonstrated indifference to the plight of the aboriginal people.

I want to cite the statistics again: over 16 percent of the inmates in our provincial correctional centres are aboriginal people, while they comprise only 3 percent of our population. As I have said, I have cited these statistics every opportunity I can in this House, and yet I only receive a collective yawn from the government side.

The Attorney-General talked this morning rather self-righteously about judging people on the basis of their performance. If we were to apply those questionable ethics in judging this government's performance with regard to this problem, I would say that the judgment would be harsh indeed. I raise this matter not only because I am an aboriginal person and because it affects aboriginal people; I think it goes further than that. The matter goes to the heart of the integrity of our justice system. I would submit that as long as we fail to make some real effort to

[ Page 10736 ]

change the situation, there is a serious blight in our justice system.

There is another ethical standard that the Attorney-General may consider by which a government or a society should be judged, and that is how well it cares for the least protected in our society. Is there a double standard in our justice system — one for the rich and privileged and another for the disadvantaged, the poor, the native people? The Attorney-General promised to deal with this particular problem last year, but I've yet to see any tangible result of that particular undertaking, or any evidence that this government is serious about dealing with this situation, and I think it's serious. I think it's serious when you have a disproportionate number of our population in our jails.

Perhaps if the Attorney-General would advise his Premier to quit spending millions of dollars fighting the aboriginal people in courts and reallocate that sum to deal with the conditions of life on the reserve and urban centres that give rise to these conflicts, we could start to truly call our society tolerant and just.

I think it's appropriate at this time to pay tribute to Elijah Harper, who had his own tragic run-in with the justice system in Manitoba, and who stood up for the aboriginal people in Canada. I would like to repeat his words. He said that for so long the aboriginal people have been the most patient, the most accommodating and have endured over a century of oppression. Implicit in that, I would suggest to the Attorney-General, is that perhaps the aboriginal people will no longer be so accommodating, that the aboriginal people will fight to take their rightful place in Canada as a distinct people. I would submit that Elijah Harper personifies that determination.

I think there are solutions, many of which have been offered by the various tribal councils and other Indian organizations, and they ask simply that they be given the opportunity to develop and administer their own justice system. The other solution that has been offered is that this government has to take the lead, along with the aboriginal people, to create a public awareness about the conditions that lead aboriginal people to end up in our jails in such disproportionate numbers, where the conditions are often those of poverty and despair.

The other solution that has been often offered is that a sort of cultural awareness program should be initiated to provide the judges and court personnel a sense of what they're dealing with when aboriginal people come before the courts. Certain initiatives have been tried by a particular judge in Kamloops, who has developed a booklet that has in it ways of dealing with aboriginal people, to be aware of some of the cultural differences that sometimes are misunderstood and lead to unnecessary incarceration.

[2:30]

Finally, I would like to see, Mr. Attorney-General, a comprehensive inquiry launched into the aboriginal and justice system conflict. This has been done in Nova Scotia, Manitoba and just recently in Alberta. The Attorney-General had undertaken to contemplate a similar inquiry last year, and I think the only thing that happened was a day trip into the Chilcotin country and talking to the tribal groups in a very superficial way.

I have some specific questions. First, are there any plans to launch such an inquiry? Second, last year the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en presented a proposal that would blend the values of the western and aboriginal values with the delivery of justice in that particular area. I would like to know if the Attorney-General has responded in any way. I understand that there has really been no response to that rather creative solution provided by these people.

HON. MR. SMITH: May I begin by asking leave of the House to make a brief introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm appreciative of the leave to make an introduction. I'd like to welcome to the House and the precincts Deanna Rumsey and her friend from Paris, Helene Auxenfants. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Mr. Chairman, in response to the issues raised by the member, I want to deal with a couple of the specific questions he asked. The general question concerned an inquiry. I said in the House last year that I felt there were other ways of dealing with that model. I said that as a result of my meetings with the peoples of the Chilcotin, with whom I have met several times, not in any way superficially, as the member suggested. I'll show him why in a moment. I said that at the time because of the concerns expressed to me by the chiefs and elders from the bands in that area who were concerned about what that process might lead to and the things that would be reviewed and reported about the places we might make some progress. So we agreed, because the request for the inquiry had been spawned in no small part by reports from the Chilcotin of some very real and serious problems. They are real and serious, and they deserve to be addressed.

When we met there last summer and fall and again in the winter and spring, I made a commitment that together we would develop a justice council with a cross-cultural component, appointed or approved for appointment by the native communities, and that we would fund it. In fact, that has happened. At a meeting about three weeks or a month ago at Riske Creek, we finalized some agreements that will see the development of an organization and the hiring of counsel — a person who has worked as a lawyer with the chiefs for the last several years — who will be attached to the council and will provide a whole range of services not only in areas that would otherwise be done by legal aid, but in education and a number of other areas to be determined by that council.

As well, we have made a commitment to fund and resource that, and we have entered into — and will continue to enter into — agreements to assist communities in the Chilcotin in the way they want to be

[ Page 10737 ]

assisted. So it has been far more than what the member suggested was the case.

In terms of the proposals that have come from the Gitksan peoples for their program for unlocking aboriginal justice, there is ongoing work among this ministry, the Ministry of Native Affairs and other ministries. Last year I spent time at Kispiox, Hazelton and Kitwanga with the community leaders to discuss the ways in which we could go further with this program, as well as some of the other related programs, particularly in the area of health care and social services. There is an ongoing relationship among the peoples in the Kispiox, the Hazeltons, our ministry and other ministries.

You asked a question relating to how we deal with native issues in the criminal law area and the case of a disproportionate number of offenders of native origin who are in jails. I agree with you that it is the case. How are we dealing with that issue? Well, in a number of ways.

First of all, we have established within the ministry a division that will deal with those prosecutions. Secondly, by way of policy change, we have reduced — I believe now to zero — the number of charges that previously had gone out in the area of wildlife transgressions for hunting. Other than for things like pit-lamping, they simply do not go forward.

I have invited the president of the United Native Nations to meet with our Crown counsel to develop new diversion programs. That is going on, and he and others who he will designate are making an important contribution to that. Also we have initiated a number of cross-cultural meetings and weekend long conferences involving the Crown, people in the court services and judges. I believe the most recent one, if I am not mistaken, was in Prince George, and by all reports that was extremely successful.

So I don't dispute for a moment that there is much more that should properly be done to make the justice system accommodate the needs of the native community. I don't have any quarrel whatsoever with your position in that respect.

It is the case, though, that there are a number of initiatives taking place which I don't think you are aware of, and that is but a start. It is a fact that the Attorneys-General of Canada, including the Justice minister for Canada, at our recent meetings agreed that in this country there should not be a separate justice system rooted in one's national or racial origin. It is something we should try to avoid, and I subscribe to that position.

The flip side of that coin is that the justice system we have must therefore take on what is an even greater challenge than it now has to make certain it has programs and develops itself and the laws that it deals with in a way that deals with native issues appropriately and sensitively. There is a huge learning exercise.

It is not a partisan issue by any stretch of the imagination, and it is one where the justice system has not served the native community well over the years. The justice system is well aware of that, and it has a big responsibility to rectify that. There are a number of ways we are initiating that and doing it. We will continue to press that. Most importantly, we will involve members of the native community extensively in what we're doing, what we're proposing to do and what they want us to do. That is the process and the program that I have going in the way I have discussed with you just now.

MR. GUNO: The Attorney-General mentions a number of initiatives launched in the Chilcotin area, and I must apologize for describing them as "superficial." I think they are admirable starts, but that's exactly what they are, and rather late. I think that's the problem. It's contained in one area.

The problem is provincewide. There's conflict on Vancouver Island, in the north and in the interior. It's happening all over the province. The evidence is clear. How can we in this society tolerate 16 percent of the native people, who only comprise 3 percent? I think it's intolerable and a serious failure in our justice system. I don't think the efforts or initiatives that have been described by the Attorney-General are nearly enough. Consultation with the aboriginal community is really just scratching the surface.

I'm not impressed with some of the things he has described. I still think that the only way we can deal with this problem is to launch a full, independent inquiry to really try to come to grips with some of the problems here. It's not just the justice system. It's a failure of our society. It has to do with the extreme poverty that exists in the native communities. It's also as a result of this government's indifference to the call by the native aboriginal community to deal with the very fundamental problems of land and aboriginal title.

As long as this government is, on the one hand, spending millions of dollars fighting that particular issue and, on the other hand, handing out nickels and dimes and saying, "Hey, we're doing a great job," then no thanks. I don't think that's adequate at all.

There's one specific question I want to ask. I know that the native law centre in Terrace has been calling for a second lawyer to be employed there. Their call is justified. The Terrace native law centre covers a very wide area involving all of my riding: Stewart, Dease Lake, Telegraph Creek and Atlin. That's an incredible area to cover with the resources they have. I'm wondering if the Attorney-General is aware of this particular problem and how he plans to respond.

HON. MR. SMITH: I am aware of the request for an additional person at the centre in Terrace. I'm aware of it from the member and, as well, from the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker). Several months ago he brought me the request, and I have discussed it with the Legal Services Society, which allocates those kinds of resources. We can and are looking at doing more so that we can have a line-by-line accountability of some of these expenditures. I am aware of it, and I am hopeful that in this budget year we will be able to address it.

[2:45]

[ Page 10738 ]

The member said that we can't tolerate — or at least that it's intolerable — the number of people who are incarcerated from the native community. He wondered why any society should tolerate it. I say to you that we can't and shouldn't tolerate it. In my view, it is a serious failure of the system. I don't quarrel with that. I also know, whatever resources we are committing now because of the extent of the problem and the way in which it crosses a whole host of social issues and agencies, that it is not one the justice system alone can repair. But the justice system can make a significant start in improving what we do. We should and will continue to do that.

You made a comment about some of the land claim issues that are out there. You also said that some of the other problems aren't just a problem in isolated areas of the province; I agree with you. If you got that impression by my reference to the Chilcotin and to unlocking the aboriginal justice issue in the northwest part of the province, I apologize, because that wasn't the intention. I used those as examples. There are similar programs underway in, obviously, downtown Vancouver, on Vancouver Island and in the southern interior. There are a whole range of these programs going on.

You also talked about the millions and millions of dollars that are spent litigating land claims. I want to put this on the record again, because one of your colleagues was quoted — he may well have been quoted wrongly — as saying we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on land claims. That is false, except for the Gitksan case, which now is completed in terms of the trial level. The expenditure on that kind of litigation in the last fiscal year was $350,000. It is not as it is made out to be, although, you know, if I had my way, there wouldn't be litigation about anything. But that's a solicitor speaking.

I can tell you that we have made an offer to Canada to settle the McLeod Lake treaty case. When I met with the chiefs at the longhouse in Musqueam, I told them that the close of argument in the Delgam Uukw case would provide us with an opportunity to move on the larger issues. You are going to see that that in fact will take place. That's the extent to which I can report on that.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I've sent over to the Attorney-General a chapter entitled "Waste Management Act: Recommendations to Improve Enforcement" that is contained in the booklet, Law Reform for Sustainable Development in British Columbia. It's by the sustainable development committee of the Canadian Bar Association, British Columbia branch. It's dated May 11, 1990.

I'll say at the outset that I'm not going to ask the Attorney-General an exhaustive list of questions. I just have a couple of questions I'm going to ask based on this chapter. The first is in the context of some discussion that took place this morning with regard to the subject of deals, when it comes to prosecutions under the Waste Management Act, and the way in which the argument of due diligence often impacts, in the sense of setting aside the legal process.

I listened with interest to the comments this morning. You know, we've pointed out in the past that on the average, for three years, the fines under the Waste Management Act were less than $35,000 total a year. The Attorney-General pointed out this morning that there has been quite an improvement to that. It is true; there has been an improvement in the amount of the fines and in the number of prosecutions. But the record has been so horrible that it would have to be a few thousand percent increase to really be the type of improvement that would make any difference at all. The fact is that even a 300 percent increase on $35,000 is still not enough money to send out a signal to the polluters that their activities of polluting the environment have to stop. But that's another issue to be dealt with another day, and we canvassed some of that in the Environment estimates.

I want to deal with the issue about deals. Perhaps the best example of a deal was one that was used in the court process in, I believe, 1988. It had to do with charges that were under the federal Fisheries Act relating to the Woodfibre pulp mill. In that case the charges were thrown out of court because a 1971 letter was cited. This letter was in correspondence between this House's present Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis), who at that time was the federal Fisheries minister, and a minister of the provincial government at that time, the Hon. Ray Williston.

Basically what was stated in that correspondence was that as long as the Woodfibre pulp mill was addressing the issue of air emissions, the issue of effluent being emitted into the water would not be dealt with. In effect, permission was given to allow that mill to work only on air emissions and to solve that problem first, and that permission was given in 1971. On the basis of that really inappropriate argument, that was thrown out of court, and they were not able to proceed with the charges that had to do with effluent discharge at that time.

That's just by way of example, Mr. Chairman. I'm not stating that to get into.... I notice the Attorney-General consulting with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds). I'm not really proposing that we get into a long historic debate about that particular instance, but I give it as an example that leads to the kind of recommendation that is....

MR. SERWA: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I'm having difficulty finding the relevancy of deals in 1970 or '71, or whatever it was, to the issue before us, which is debate of the Attorney-General's estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the member is trying to make a point about deals as they relate to the fines from the Ministry of Environment.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, that is entirely correct — your explanation that this is relating to a current and active process whereby previous deals

[ Page 10739 ]

are impacting the administration of justice with regard to polluters.

As is pointed out by the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association, what this means is that there's a paper trail that's been used to avoid environmental prosecution. The fact is, though, that in the Waste Management Act, the way it presently exists, mechanisms are in place whereby an amendment may be provided by a manager in the instance where a permit is out of compliance. That's one remedy that already exists, and it's a bureaucratic remedy. There's also a political remedy, where the Minister of Environment may issue a variance order. Those are two methods whereby a polluter who's out of compliance can find relief. It's the position of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association, with which I agree that it should not be possible for deals that involve government ministries, either federal or provincial, to interfere in that process.

I therefore want to affirm recommendations that are being made in this document that I have cited, and I would like to ask the minister if, in reviewing this situation, he would consider measures.... I'm trying to use language that does not get into discussing actual legislation. I'm asking the minister if he would consider measures that would result in all existing written or verbal deals being declared null and void. That's one very specific question: would the minister consider reviewing the situation with a view to rendering null and void all existing deals of the nature that I have described? Secondly, no compensation would be payable as a result of the nullification of such deals. Again, this is in recognition that there are two....

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General was talking to the Premier when I was making this point. It's in recognition that there's an administrative remedy and there's a political remedy already on the books. I've already gone on record as saying I don't agree with the political remedy. But given that that is the case, at the very least, in keeping with the Bar Association, I'm asking the minister if he will carefully review having those deals made null and void.

The second point that I want to raise has to do with a point also made by the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association. A conservation officer, in order to begin an investigation under the Waste Management Act, must present proof of identity before he can begin the investigation. However, in many instances where an investigation needs to get going very quickly, no one can be found to present proof of identity to. That is also a problem.

[3:00]

A related problem is that the Waste Management Act forces conservation officers acting under the act to rely on the Offence Act to obtain warrants. The Offence Act requires that materials gained as evidence under a warrant have to be returned within three months. The Canadian Bar Association is recommending that the warrant provision be written into preferably the Waste Management Act, to provide for warrants there, where there would not be the time-limit that is required under the Offence Act, so that the evidence gleaned by conservation officers in an investigation is evidence that they could hold on to for longer than three months.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I'm trying to bunch all of my questions together because I don't want to prolong this. There's something that I want to ask the minister to do that I'm not asking him to do in the House today. But there is an undertaking that I want to ask of the Attorney-General, and I put it in this context. During discussion in the Ministry of Environment estimates, the Minister of Environment and I agreed that Law Reform for Sustainable Development in B.C. is a very valuable document that's worthy of careful consideration. I certainly don't ask the minister to respond to everything that's in that document, but I do want to ask the minister if he will undertake to have his staff review all of the recommendations, in particular on pages 218 to 229, and respond with his comments and recommendations.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Secondly — and I'm going to send over to the minister a copy of the index from this report — I would ask him if he would also review similarly some other chapters that are in this document on which I believe it would be beneficial to have the perspective of law reform. Those chapters are the following: "Alternative Dispute Resolution" on page 16; "Environmental Appeal Board of British Columbia: Proposals for Reform" on page 67; "The Major Project Review Process" on page 113 — and as an aside, we all know that if we don't have an appropriate review process we could get bogged down in the courts, and therefore it behooves the minister to look at the review process from that perspective — "The Pesticide Regulatory Process"; and, as I have just mentioned, "Waste Management Act: Recommendations to Improve Enforcement."

So those last two questions are just to ask the minister if he will undertake that review, with the hope that the results will be made available to this House and to the public.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll be happy to have the appropriate people in our ministry and in other ministries — because some of the things you've raised are well beyond my responsibility — examine it, and I myself will also take a look at it.

I'm not quite sure what problem this article is concerned with — if indeed it is in there — regarding conservation officers' identities. But I'll have that looked at as well.

You asked me a question about the federal Fisheries Act. I'm not able to deal with it because we don't prosecute federal fisheries issues at all.

You asked me specifically, and I think it was in reference to some arrangements that may have been entered into between Mr. Williston and the current Minister of Energy when he was the Minister of Fisheries of Canada. Mr. Williston hasn't been in this

[ Page 10740 ]

House since August 1972, so it would have been some time ago that he would have entered into...

MR. CASHORE: It might be 1971.

HON. MR. SMITH: ...the '71 arrangement. I must confess, I don't have any recollection of it, and I'm not sure I would be able to dig it out.

In any event, I want to restate what I said today. Those so-called deals have been raised as a defence in a couple of cases now, but the court has not accepted them as a defence. That's the important thing. Inventive counsel will raise whatever they think the court will accept, and sometimes they raise something that they're not sure the court will accept. But they still raise it, and the court does or doesn't accept it. The important matter is that the court did not accept those deals as a defence.

I consulted with the Minister of Environment while you were asking me these questions, and he tells me, as he told you in the House, that those kinds of deals aren't made. So that covers the period of time that we're talking about, administratively. I'm not responsible for administrative arrangements or for political arrangements, as you said. I'm responsible for legal matters, and I can tell you that deals aren't done in terms of the legal issues — if I'm understanding your question correctly.

You asked me finally if I would entertain looking at fetching in a law or an act or a bill or something that would eliminate or bring to an end or deny or rescind any such deals that were made, and further to prevent compensation if any was justifiable as a result of that denial. Before I give you my answer, I would urge you to think through what you're asking, because I really don't think in this day and age in this chamber we would want such a blanket commitment to do something like that. The answer, specifically to you — you, because I do not want to get into a full-throated partisan rant on this issue, which I am sorely tempted to do based on the question — is no, I would not entertain doing that. It would be wrong to do that. I would not entertain bringing in a law that would in some blanket way rescind agreements of whatever kind entered into by private parties, one with the other, and further bring in legislation that, in addition to that, would prohibit them from getting compensation.

I think the opposite is the way we go in this society. That's why we brought in various legislation dealing with expropriation and all that kind of stuff. As I say, I appreciate the sort of sentiment you're getting at in terms of the administration of the law and the like, but what you're asking to be done is extremely unwise and certainly inconsistent with the philosophy that I live by and that this government supports. The specific answer is no, I would not entertain doing that.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify a couple of things. The reason the federal Fisheries Act is referenced is that conservation officers operating under the Waste Management Act often, in carrying out their work of prosecution, use the federal fisheries law. Therefore it's people working under the aegis of the government of British Columbia who often prosecute under a federal act.

With regard to the deal that I use as an example, I think the point we have to make there is that people at an administrative level in the federal Ministry of Environment wrote to the company after the court. The minister is not entirely correct to say these deals have not influenced the court. The fact is that the court used that deal to throw out a prosecution against the Woodfibre pulp mill in either 1987 or 1988 — I think it was 1988. That deal has been used in that way, so it's incorrect to say that these deals have never been used.

If the minister is saying that they are not being used anymore, that's commendable, but no less a body than the lawyers who support the Canadian Bar Association are making this recommendation, so if the minister talks about going on a partisan rant, I'm sure he would agree that the lawyers of the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, certainly represent a spectrum, and they could never be accused of being partisan. They are simply making a practical suggestion, and that is that all deals are off. The government has the power to do that.

The bureaucrats, in the case of that federal fisheries dispute, had to write to the company and say that in their opinion the deal was off, but they did not have the power to nullify the deal in the sense that the court would see it that way. It's something that I think the Attorney-General should look at very carefully, given the extensive research that's gone into these recommendations. It's going to be very interesting to send the Attorney-General's comments to the Canadian Bar Association and to receive their responses based on what the minister said in the House today. I would encourage him to again answer in the affirmative my request that his ministry would indeed review all of these recommendations made by the Canadian Bar Association with a view to something that the Minister of Environment and I have agreed on in this House, and that is the importance of consistent, incremental and appropriate law reform for environmental protection.

HON. MR. SMITH: There have been defences raised on the issue you're talking about, and in one instance at the lower court level it was looked upon with some favour. Also, at the trial level — in part an appeal, in part de novo — it was rejected. I send stuff — new legislation and proposals for change in this ministry — frequently to the Canadian Bar Association and others for consultation, and all sorts of different views come back from the Canadian bar. I tell you, Mr. Member, that to bring in legislation, to unilaterally rescind deals entered into between private parties and representatives of the Crown and to at the same time deny by legislation compensation where it otherwise would be granted, yes, that is something the Legislature has the power to do, but I can tell you, as the Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia, that so long as I serve there isn't

[ Page 10741 ]

a snowball's chance in Hades it will be done. It is the antithesis of everything that I have ever understood and believed in in my life.

I would not countenance the Legislature to be used for the purpose of bringing in a bill to simply unilaterally cancel or rescind arrangements that have been entered into. It's not the right thing to do, and I wouldn't do it.

You may do it; that's fine. I wouldn't. I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed, the necessity for legislation is certainly not a matter for vote 12.

MR. JONES: I appreciate that the House is anxious to move on to other business, but there is one question I would like to ask the Attorney-General before we do that.

I recall the Attorney-General, when he sat in this corner of the House, being quite a champion of freedom of information. He was quite an advocate and enthusiast of that particular kind of legislation.

On May 5 last year I reminded the minister of his particular interest in that, and he took the opportunity to demonstrate that he did understand freedom of information legislation and the various aspects and the importance of that legislation. He even indicated that one of the first things he did upon assuming his cabinet position was to assign one of his staff members to investigate such legislation.

His excuses on May 5 of last year for not proceeding with that important piece of legislation were that he had only been in the office ten months and that he had other priorities — the Law Reform Commission and other important matters — to take care of, and so, although freedom of information legislation was very important, there wasn't enough time because of all these other issues on the plate.

I read with some disappointment the Attorney-General's response to my colleague's question yesterday with respect to this issue. It was a very feeble response, given the kind of remarks the Attorney General had made earlier.

[3:15]

My question to the Attorney-General is: what happened to that champion? What happened to that advocate, that enthusiast of open government and freedom of information? What happened to that person who wanted the Board of Internal Economy to open up its books and its meetings? What happened to that very strong champion of freedom of information? What caused the conversion on the road to Damascus?

Has the Attorney-General now bought the government line; not that people have a right to know, but that "the less they know, the less they know what we're doing wrong"? That seems to be the line of government. What happened to that former champion of freedom of information?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, he's not a former champion at all. He's still very much an enthusiast of it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, it's not just a matter of being slow. There are several models of the way the matter can be handled. In fact, when you get into the issue, you will find a couple of very important things which go in tandem. One is access to information, and the other is protection of privacy.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: You say I didn't do this song and dance last year. No, I didn't do this song and dance last year, for the reasons you said. I had been dealing with the implementation of justice reform. I know what I said last year, and I meant it. This year since then I have been dealing with, among other things, this whole issue.

When you get to it — if you get to it in some meaningful way — you will find that there is, running parallel, a need for access to information by citizens. There is also an increasing need for the right of citizens to know that information kept by central agencies is done so with some assurance of privacy.

It is a difficult balancing act to get those things....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: You say: "Not for six other provinces." My friend, you would find, if you actually looked at it, that indeed it is. The one that had the greatest difficulty was the province of Manitoba with the NDP, who brought it in and then spent two and a half years — after they made a big falderal about bringing the legislation in — putting in place the regulations, because they had extreme difficulty with it and still do.

What also happens when you bring it in that way, as we have found with some of the federal legislation, is that not only does it work as a sword; it works as a shield. We found that when we set up certain structures, they exacerbated the problem of freedom of information and access to information.

It is a very important issue. It has to be dealt with properly, and it has to be dealt with in tandem. The privacy side, I would suggest, is one that we should all be alert to, given the extent to which computerization and so on is taking place. It is phenomenal.

There are other areas that we are examining with regard to openness and access to information. For instance, many times we find — and you will probably find as well — what I call "the Meech Lake syndrome." This is where you have a small number of people, because of a law Mr. Trudeau's government brought in and the constitutional changes that were wrought in 1982....

The House Leader for the NDP says he voted for it — and that's fair enough — and, I think, probably in good faith. But it hasn't worked. One of the issues we are examining.... I call it the Meech Lake syndrome, where you get a small number of well-intentioned people working hard and trying to do the best they can and, in fact, doing it. But because it is in

[ Page 10742 ]

confidence, the public isn't brought along in a useful way.

Another area where that happens, believe it or not, Mr. Member, is the public sector labour negotiations. Very frequently what happens is that you have a very large membership of people and a small number of negotiators, both from the government side and the union side. One thing we have to make certain of is that there is considerable knowledge of the negotiating process and of the possibilities of doing those negotiations in a public forum. That is another form of access to information, and an extremely important one. We're looking at that, and I would be interested to know — because it's not in your bill — whether you yourself are of the view that we should include that in the process you're talking about, because it is important.

I would like you to reflect as well on the whole question of privacy, because, my friend, I tell you it is a big problem and growing every day. You can get psychological profiles on people today just like that through the computerized access to information. It is a major problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed with this, I am going to read from "Legislation Not Proper Subject for Committee of Supply": "Only the administrative action of a department is open to debate but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply...." I inform all members that we are in Committee of Supply. In my innocence, I allowed the question and answer of the two preceding speakers to go forward, and the Chair is not prepared to allow any more debate on this issue, which is out of order.

MR. JONES: The question of privacy is clearly important. The minister has indicated that he has read my private member's bill. He knows it's there. Clearly what can be done in six other provinces, the federal government and the American federal government can be done in British Columbia if there were any political will. The minister has had two years to do it. Why doesn't he just say it's not important to me anymore? When I sat on this....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! If the member is going to stay within the rules of this assembly, he can proceed; if not, he shall take his seat. Please proceed.

MR. JONES: I want to raise one other point. I hadn't intended to, but I will, seeing that the Attorney-General raised the question of Meech Lake. When that debate was going on, a group of students from Thetford Mines in Quebec was visiting Burnaby North Secondary School. I think we have had a pretty general understanding in this House — I appreciate that the Premier is listening to this — that we do recognize student groups when they appear in the galleries. However, in one of the Attorney-General's snits on that day, when I had my colleague who speaks French ask leave of this House to introduce that group of Quebec students, at a very critical time in the events leading up to the failure of Meech Lake, leave was not granted, because one member did not allow it to happen. That was the Attorney-General.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

The Attorney-General expressed a lot of concern about Meech Lake, and he attended Meech Lake, but when it came to introducing a group of French students in this Legislature, the minister denied the opportunity. I think it is shameful and that the minister should be ashamed for that as well.

Vote 12 approved.

Vote 13: ministry operations, $228,336,673 — approved.

On vote 14: judiciary, $25,131,098.

HON. MR. SMITH: There is just one matter I want to put on the record. The judiciary deals with this, because it has to deal with all issues of information. I was asked the question: why don't I say that access to information is not important to me anymore? The reason I won't say that is because it is.

Vote 14 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 37.

MINISTRY OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
AND IMMIGRATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 37; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 37, Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call Committee of Supply.

[ Page 10743 ]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
AND IMMIGRATION

On vote 41: minister's office, $331,900.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's my pleasure to present the estimates of the Ministry of International Business and Immigration. Today I want to talk about British Columbia in the context of a changing, dynamic world marketplace. I want to review some of my ministry's accomplishments in 1989, and I want to tell you about some of the initiatives we're planning for the future.

Mr. Chairman, 1989 was a good year for British Columbia exports. The total British Columbia exports reached $17.8 billion, which is a real increase of 2.2 percent over 1988. In fact, if it hadn't been for the profoundly negative effect of the rising Canadian dollar, due very much to damaging federal fiscal and monetary policies, we would have exceeded $18 billion worth of exports by a large margin.

[3:30]

Throughout the year, the Pacific Rim continued to rival the United States of America as British Columbia's major export destination, even exceeding the U.S. at several points during the year. Each of these very important markets now takes about 40 percent of the province's total exports.

Further evidence of our success in diversifying the province's export market lies in the significant increase of last year for exports to the United States of apparel and clothing, electrical machinery, equipment and bottled water, all despite the higher Canadian dollar, and all despite — at some times during the year — a 500-basis-point difference in interest rates.

Within the Pacific Rim, Japan remains British Columbia's most important trading partner. In 1989, B.C. exports to Japan reached almost $5.1 billion, an increase of 8.2 percent over the level of 1988. I might add that in 1989 British Columbia supplied 58 percent of all Canada's exports to Japan. Clearly, when one talks about Canada-Japan trade relations, one is actually speaking about British Columbia–Japan trade relations. Our softwood lumber exports to Japan were up a phenomenal 22 percent over last year, and pulp was up an impressive 19 percent.

Mr. Chairman, 1989 was also a very good year for higher value-added manufactured exports to Japan. Major increases were reported in British Columbia's export of electronics, telecommunications equipment, prefabricated buildings, aluminium wheel rims, bottled water and soft drinks.

Other major markets for British Columbia in the Pacific Rim include Korea — which is now British Columbia's fourth-largest export market after the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom, Australia, Taiwan, the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong.

British Columbia exports to the European community, which accounted for about 15 percent of the total of British Columbia exports last year, showed a very strong increase of 8.7 percent over last year, reaching $2.7 billion in 1989. I might add that on a percentage basis, British Columbia exports more to the European community than any other province of Canada.

With respect to the overall performance of British Columbia's resource commodity exports, 1989 was a particularly good year: softwood lumber exports up $130 million to $4 billion; pulp up $309 million to $3.7 billion; coal up $56 million to $1.5 billion; newsprint up $25 million to $968 million; and copper ores and concentrates up $100 million to $843 million.

Looking generally at our value-added manufactured exports, some of the most significant export successes were: pulp and paper machinery up 46 percent to $48 million; clothing and apparel up 25 percent to $35 million; and processed agrifood products up 4 percent to $238 million.

As far as the markets for these products are concerned, the United States still takes about three quarters of all British Columbia's higher-value-added manufactured exports. This contrasts sharply with the more balanced three-way distribution in our natural resource commodity exports, and it reinforces the importance of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement to the province's aspirations for a more diversified value-added and knowledge-intensive export profile.

Turning to the business immigration front during 1989, 253 immigrant investors to British Columbia invested $87.4 million to create some 3,000 jobs in this province. They also reported additional funds of $446 million. In fact, British Columbia received the largest number of investor immigrants to Canada, 43 percent of the total, with Quebec second and Ontario third. During the same period, 686 entrepreneurial immigrants destined for British Columbia reported a total of $1.3 billion. These entrepreneurs are expected to create nearly 4,000 jobs in the province. British Columbia's share of all Canadian visas issued to entrepreneurs in 1989 was 24 percent, placing us behind Quebec but ahead of Ontario.

Some of the projects initiated by business immigrants in British Columbia include manufacturing of high-end ladies' fashions, exports to the New York markets, the design and manufacture of specialized electronics for international markets, food and beverage processing and plastic-products manufacturing. Successful entrepreneurs bring their expertise and capital to British Columbia and they help diversify the economy and create new jobs.

The good news about what this ministry accomplished last year isn't simply a matter of stats, impressive as those stats may be. The true picture of what we have done to help British Columbia in all parts of this province can be seen with examples such as the opening of Raychem’s $2.5 million high-tech machining centre in Richmond this March. This centre is a California-based company, and it's their most advanced factory in that particular division.

[ Page 10744 ]

Through the hard work of my ministry and the Ministry of Regional and Economic Development, Raychem brought its technology and its jobs here to British Columbia.

In January of this year the Premier and I led the British Columbia delegation of six business leaders to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. This was a follow-up to our feature presentation in 1989, and I'm pleased to report that we made many more business contacts.

Going back just a bit further, in November last year we assisted the economic development commissions of Kelowna, Penticton and West Kootenays in a three-day promotion in Toronto. The promotion was designed to attract investment into these regions, and the result was that about 150 contacts were followed and about 10 percent of those contacts will be visiting the region in the spring and summer to explore investment possibilities in those areas.

Another example: over 400 British Columbia companies took part in the ministry's free trade advisory seminars and workshops last year, learning how to take advantage of export opportunities and how to meet new competitions from U.S. producers. These seminars and workshops were so successful that they've been copied by two other provinces.

You may also remember the very successful Immigration Week that we organized in cooperation with the government of Canada. Communities throughout the province were involved, and I for one was very proud to help celebrate the positive contribution immigrants have made to British Columbia.

This last year also saw the opening of two B.C. foreign offices in our high priority markets. Singapore officially opened in April of 1989, and Munich was officially opened by the Premier and myself in November.

In addition to our achievements on the investment and immigration fronts, we've been building up an impressive list of success stories with our British Columbia exporters. When I talk of exporters, I'm talking about the hard work of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, which was established only in June of last year. With its solid, focused programs, B.C. Trade has aggressively taken hold of its mandate to promote the export of British Columbia goods and services and to increase the number of British Columbia exporters.

So far, under our new export loan guarantee program, we've helped eight companies obtain pre-shipment finance for exporting their goods and services— financing they would not have been able to get under any other circumstances. We have assisted companies such as Snowcap Waters at Fanny Bay on Vancouver Island; Norsat International, for the export of satellite receivers; North American Gantry and Equipment Servicing Co., for the export of revolutionary new ship-loading equipment. This has helped secure export sales of over $21 million and has established 168 new jobs here in British Columbia, where we need them.

We're actively promoting British Columbia companies and trade activities here, as well as around the world. To quote just three of the many examples, this March we brought together 29 British Columbia companies and 13 government ministries in a major B.C. contingent at the Globe '90 trade show. In November last year B.C. Trade gave support to five companies at the World Fashion Fair in Osaka, Japan. Sample orders worth $100,000 were sold, and the prospects are for up to $5 million sales in the next 12 months. Just one month later, in December, B.C. Trade led a mission of four software companies, plus a representative of Software B.C., to a major electronics and software show in Singapore — Informatics '89. And in addition to the $30,000 of immediate sales the company has reported, sales over the next year are expected to add as much as $2 million in that sector to the B.C. economy.

On other fronts, together with the consulting engineers of British Columbia, we retained the services of a consultant in Manila to help British Columbia companies win contracts with the Asian Development Bank — a good relationship of a Crown corporation working with the private sector.

The B.C. Film Commission has been instrumental in attracting new productions to the province, including feature miniseries and a new 19-episode television series. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that the film industry netted to British Columbia over $200 million last year. When you consider the growth in that industry.... I became involved in it indirectly about 11 years ago. It has grown from a $10 million industry 11 years ago to one of over $200 million here in British Columbia. I have been told by individuals in the guilds and unions, who, by the way, cooperate very well with government, the industries and the film crews, that it could be a billion-dollar industry in British Columbia in five years' time.

In cooperation with a group of 135 B.C. companies, we've established BID B.C., an ambitious new program to win procurement contracts from the Canadian government. I must say that this has been a very successful brainchild of my deputy Mr. Lorne Seitz, who is seated with me here today.

Throughout the province, in companies and chambers of commerce, we have connected to export and procurement information through our expanded British Columbia Business Network. The number of direct BCBN users rose from 200 in January 1989 to almost 1,000 in March this year. We're expanding the network all the time with new international links and databases, such as stats from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and government tender information from all four western provinces.

In our assistance to exporting companies, we're keeping our eyes on the long-term and newly emerging markets. We're starting up new targeted marketing initiatives, multi-year projects aimed at opening up new markets for British Columbia products all over the world — for example, turnkey sawmill packages to eastern Europe and environmental management service to Taiwan. British Columbia Trade was successfully delivering to the B.C. exporter what was promised when we established the corporation last year. Every service, from marketing to training to

[ Page 10745 ]

access to information, is made available to exporters throughout British Columbia by B.C. Trade.

In the coming year we will focus our efforts on attracting increasing equity investments in the province and increasing the number of entrepreneurial immigrants who build a solid foundation — I must underscore those who build a solid foundation — for new trade and investment and who expand exports of our goods and services, with particular emphasis on the promotion of value-added products.

I'd like to tell you about a number of initiatives and trade activities planned by the ministry and B.C. Trade. On the ministry side, we will develop in the international investment community greater awareness of British Columbia as an attractive investment destination, a first-class location in which to do business and to invest. To do this we will organize a series of six out-of-province investment missions to countries in Asia and Europe, as well as to the United States of America, particularly California.

Recognizing the importance of integration to the ministry and to the economic growth of this province, the ministry will ensure that the province's share of business immigrants to Canada is at least maintained or increased, as this province desires.

[3:45]

As the ministry responsible for trade policy in the province, we will develop policies and strategies relating to international trade agreements, negotiations and trade actions that reflect the needs of exporting companies in British Columbia.

We will monitor and promote, at the provincial level, the Vancouver International Airport expansion and the construction of the third runway.

The ministry will continue to provide funding for the Vancouver international financial centre — which, by the way, is way ahead of Montreal; it is now the largest international financial centre in Canada — and the International Commercial Arbitration Centre, while promoting greater private sector participation in their operations.

Mr. Chairman, the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation will begin its second year of operation and continue working mainly with small and medium-sized companies to increase their export sales and to make them aware of export possibilities Priority marketing activities have already been planned for a number of key industry sectors.

In the food sector, an innovative grocery-marketing entry program is planned for the United States, Asia and Europe to increase the number of British Columbia products in stores in these regions. It is already quite successful. Efforts to promote seafood products will come about in cooperation with the various groups in the seafood and aquaculture sectors.

In the film sector, missions to Japan and Hong Kong will be organized to increase production opportunities and to diversify the province's dependence on the important California industry.

An ambitious program to increase exports of sawmilling equipment to a number of foreign buyers will take place in the coming year.

Recognizing the importance of research and development in the province, British Columbia Trade will assist companies in such high-technology sectors as aerospace, subsea and telecommunications with marketing assistance and funding for participation at events planned in these sectors — and we're doing very, very well indeed in these sectors.

In the natural resource sector, the corporation will participate in a number of initiatives designed to increase value-added exports. For example, we will provide a significant amount of money to increase value-added wood exports.

As a follow-up to the highly successful Globe '90 exposition on the environment held in Vancouver this March, missions to a number of countries will be organized to promote the products and services of the province's environmental companies in international markets around the world, specifically in the former eastern bloc areas.

A concentrated effort to increase British Columbia's share of federal government procurement contracts is being undertaken, with a series of seminars to be arranged on procurement opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, these are only a few of the activities which the ministry and B.C. Trade will undertake in the coming year. As you can readily see, we want to be targeted in our approach and, most significantly, to produce results for those we are assisting throughout all of the communities across the province of British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: Before I proceed to deal with a number of issues with the minister, the member for Kootenay wanted to raise a particular point, and to convenience her, I think it might be easier to do that at this stage.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to bring to the minister's attention the B.C. Trade Development Corporation's recent Partners in Export seminar in my home city of Cranbrook. I believe that was advertised fairly broadly throughout the area. I wonder if the minister would confirm that yes, it was broadly advertised by the Trade Development Corporation, that that was the part the Trade Development Corporation took in that — and that the minister spoke.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, as a matter of fact, we held an all-day seminar in Cranbrook. I made a speech that day to the chamber of commerce, which was televised. The newspaper in Cranbrook — one of the dailies — picked up one story one day and another story the following day. We had well over 100 people out for the luncheon, and the seminar was very well attended. I have had several letters from participants in the seminar who feel it has helped them to expand the export potential they have — and some of them didn't even know they had export opportunities to expand. It was well advertised. Constructive notice and more was given to anybody who cared to attend the seminar or, indeed, the chamber luncheon held that day.

[ Page 10746 ]

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister would tell me if he was aware, at the time he was in Cranbrook for this seminar as the guest speaker, who the MLA was for the area.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, I'm very much aware of who the MLA for the area is, and it is not up to me to tell MLAs what their duties are. But as you pointed out, you were very much aware.... At least, constructive notice through advertising — notice in the newspapers — was given to everyone. Surprisingly enough, I didn't see the member for Kootenay at any of those seminars, nor indeed, did I note the member.... She may have been there, but I didn't note her at the luncheon where the speaker gave a very interesting and informative speech — a rather lengthy one, I was told. But I didn't notice the member there. If I had noticed the member there, I certainly would have recognized her. If she was there, please accept my apologies for not doing so.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister is not anticipating defence over this. No, I was not at the seminar. My assistant attended in order to be sure that we knew what information was there. The minister has just said the advertising was extended broadly throughout the area, and it described who the sponsors of the seminar were, including the Trade Development Corporation, the Cranbrook Chamber of Commerce, who was managing it, and the chambers of commerce from Fernie, Elkford and Sparwood. According to the ad that went out, it was offered in cooperation with, "your local MLA, Duane Crandall." I think that if the minister didn't know who the MLA was, perhaps his ministry should have known.

I think the minister might offer an explanation as to why he has allowed this kind of blatant and deliberate misrepresentation of the MLA for the area. I think the minister owes an explanation for the broadcast information which was not true.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, mea culpa. I have sinned. I will take responsibility for that. The MLA’s name should have been correctly noted. Nonetheless, it was a most successful affair, and obviously your assistant picked up on it. I thank you for bringing this grievous error to my attention. I will assure you that it doesn't happen again.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister might have any explanation as to why he made this grievous error?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The answer is that I didn't check the copy closely enough to ensure that the hon. member — whose name I can't mention in the House — who is currently the member for Kootenay was included. Had we just said "your MLA," it probably would have sufficed. I'm sorry. There was an error there. As I say, I have sinned.

But it was a very successful deal and a successful day. It was successful on behalf of your constituents who will be able to increase their business in that area, to diversify the economy in the Kootenay area and to keep sending whoever the MLA is from that area to Victoria and continue to pay their salary. Mea culpa. I have sinned. I promise not to do that again.

MS. EDWARDS: It's very nice for the minister to say that he has sinned, but obviously he didn't place the ad, he didn't write the copy and he didn't approve it when it was there. He didn't proofread it. He was not the only one in the ministry who was doing this kind of thing. I will give the minister this: it's very difficult to know for whom the member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall) sits. But given that, I think the minister should have known who the local member for the Kootenay riding was, and I do not accept that as a kind of apology. I believe it's unacceptable.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'll tell you what we'll do as a bit of quid pro quo here. When we hold a function in Columbia River, I'll ask the member for Columbia River to invite you, and then everything will be all square. How's that?

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I want to begin this afternoon's discussions on the minister's estimates by talking about some trade issues and the government strategy in respect to those trade issues. To put it into context, clearly what's happening while the Uruguay round discussions continue — as best they continue in their struggling way — and as the GATT nations try to find a way to reduce tariffs, at the same time there is an increasing development of freer trading blocs. Obviously the European bloc will come on stream in 1992; there is the apparent desire to develop a bloc in the North American economy. There are clear indications that additional blocs may well be — at some stage down the road — created in Asia, and no doubt various countries who are now not involved in those kind of discussions will be seeking to become involved.

The fear that many of us have about all of this is that it will decrease the emphasis on GATT, on the Uruguay round and on the succeeding rounds after this one and possibly lead to the situation where the world is divided into three, four or five major trading blocs competing vigorously each with the other.

Recognizing that this is a federal responsibility in the final analysis, but understanding that the provinces have a fair amount of say in helping to develop federal trade policy, I wonder if the minister could give us some indication of the province's advice to Ottawa on this matter; what the provincial cabinet policy is; what the strategy is for British Columbia in respect of these two very different trends that are presenting themselves now in the world. What's the B.C. attitude to this?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to thank the hon. member for North Island for a very vital and very cogent question at this point in time.

[ Page 10747 ]

As the member is aware, provincial governments all across Canada, and indeed states throughout Australia, are becoming more and more involved in international trade and international matters. More and more there are direct relationships, direct meetings and direct involvement between those provinces and the various states, countries and companies involved throughout the world.

I believe that British Columbia interests are best protected by British Columbians, and that's precisely what we.... We realize the importance of the Uruguay round of talks, and we realize the importance of a big result, as they point out, because trade barriers certainly are coming down all around the world.

[4:00]

I believe multinational trade conclusions are vital to British Columbia interests. With that in mind, not long ago I spent a couple of days in Brussels talking with the people from the European community. One of the reasons I wanted to be there, as I mentioned during my opening remarks, is that on a percentage basis British Columbia is the largest exporter into Europe of any province in Canada.

I wanted to make sure, when the standards are set in 1992, when all of the walls come tumbling down — not when the process ends, but when the process starts, this whole process of coming together that started right after the Second World War.... It's important that the standards for things that British Columbia ships be the standards that Europe accepts. We were very successful in those areas.

We're talking in areas right now: plywood — the largest export of plywood into the European community — dimensional lumber, value-added products, canned fish products and a whole host of other things we are becoming involved in.

As well, I spent a couple of days in Geneva with various officials, right from the most senior officials down the list, talking about the Uruguay round of GATT talks which are concluding this fall. I guess early in December the results should be in. I think it is in the best interests of British Columbia that there be a big result, a good result, flowing from that.

You are quite correct when you say that the world is breaking down into trading blocs. That's why — whether or not you like the free trade agreement that was signed by the United States of America and Canada — it's important to British Columbia that we make our trading arrangement work north and south. It is important also that we retain a significant degree of independence and that we also do the things that are necessary so we can become involved in those other trading blocs as they open up around the world.

That is precisely what we are doing through our 11 offices and commissions around the world. That is precisely the posture that British Columbia is taking. We realize that we can't take a scatter-gun approach; we must target. And we can't do it all ourselves either. We have to rely to a large extent upon the government of Canada and its missions and emissaries around the world.

It's the government of British Columbia's position to be into areas where we have a significant advantage in products that we ship — even in some areas like subsidies, where we have absolute advantage, and even in areas where we have comparative advantage. But we must target, and we can't be all things to all people.

We expect good results in November. One item that may not have a good result, and that may prevent a big result — as they say in the GATT talks — is the problems with agricultural subsidies around the world, a lot of which emanate from Europe. That could put a damper on the whole thing.

British Columbia intends to be there. Not only do we intend to be there in the markets we've established now, but we've recently opened a new office in Munich, and we're targeting some special areas in the former eastern bloc. We're doing some business, and we've had some success — which I'd be pleased to tell you about later if you wish — in the Soviet Union as well.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister would care to share the government's strategy in respect of the very early discussions going on with Mexico, given the federal minister's comments that discussions and negotiations are in place with provinces.

HON. MR. VEITCH: From British Columbia's perspective, what we want to do is look closely at the implications of any new free trade in North America before taking a real position on it. We want to ensure that we at least have all the mechanics in place to attain the best possible results from the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement before becoming immersed in any agreement with Mexico or anyplace else in North America.

We are monitoring it very closely. I've personally talked with Mr. Crosbie about it. We have officials in Ottawa on a constant basis. We're still in the process, as you are well aware, of adjusting to the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, so it's important that gains achieved under the FTA not be undercut by any free trade agreement with Mexico.

It's important to us that we have our say at the table with the federal government, and we've expressed that in the strongest terms. We have negotiations going on right now — in fact, some draft resolutions are being prepared on the whole issue of the FTA; I obviously can't discuss them with the member at the present time, but I'd be prepared to share them with him after they have been concluded — so that we make sure that this province has a good spot at the bargaining table in any negotiations that may possibly affect the province of British Columbia.

As I said before, in addition to the phase-in of the free trade agreement, we are nearing the conclusion of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations. As you pointed out so correctly, that's also going to affect not only Canada but the United States. We must monitor and work very closely in all of those areas; in fact, we need to be on the scene as

[ Page 10748 ]

much as possible. We're in constant discussion about any participation Canada may have with the United States with regard to any new free trade agreements in North America.

In a nutshell, we want to ensure that we get the free trade agreement between these two countries as best we can — or at least that we have as many things ironed out as we can — before Canada or anybody else becomes too immersed in another free trade agreement in the North American hemisphere.

MR. GABELMANN: Given the speed with which these things sometimes develop, and given the fact that the province needs to develop a position, a strategy and maybe a defence, I wonder if the minister can tell the House what public involvement there will be in designing a British Columbia strategy on this.

I ask that question given the experience we've had with the free trade agreement, where the public was not involved in any way. The people who depend on industrial and other jobs in this province, and who may well have those jobs threatened by future trade agreements, haven't had an opportunity to be involved in the past. Does the minister have an advisory council of some kind or a process in place by which he seeks public involvement not only from the business community, which is well represented on the board of the Trade Development Corporation, but from the trade union movement and other areas of British Columbia which might not be represented through those organizations?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I guess I'm answering the hon. member's last question first. If he has people he would like to have on the B.C. Trade Development Corporation as directors, please forward their names to me. The directors change from time to time, and we're looking for broad representation from all sectors across the province.

As far as involvement with the free trade agreement is concerned, I made it very clear, as have some other provinces — without going into any confidentialities or negotiations that are presently underway — to Mr. Crosbie, my counterpart in Ottawa, that even though Ottawa constitutionally has paramountcy as far as international trade is concerned, things have changed. The FTA between Canada and the United States of America has introduced a completely new dimension to trade between these two countries. As you pointed out quite correctly in your opening statements, it is introducing new dimensions, new alliances, all around the world. The provinces, then, are having a larger say all around the world. We have, as I pointed out, offices in 11 areas.

Even though we recognize the paramountcy the federal government has, the government of British Columbia and other governments in Canada that have strong interests must be represented at those bargaining tables when the provincial interests come into play — specifically when British Columbia's interests come into play. I can assure you that we're not going to give up on negotiations in Ottawa until we do have our full say at the bargaining table, whether that comes to areas of dispute under the free trade agreement or to new agreements that may affect Canada as it relates to other provinces.

That's the first step we must take. We must have the federal government understand that we are a federation. We're a federation of provinces throughout the country — I guess that's what Meech Lake was all about — with equal rights, and "equal rights" means that we have to have equal rights in protecting our citizens, protecting our business and protecting our jobs here in British Columbia. And we need to be at the table sometimes before some of these incidents blossom into full-fledged disputes.

I think that's the first phase before we talk about any process of public involvement. First the provinces — this province in particular; I'm not going to speak for any other province — must be there and be there in good force whenever our interests are not only threatened but in any way impinged upon or whenever there is an issue arising that's of any significance at all to British Columbia.

That's the first stage in the process, and we are negotiating toward that end: a successful conclusion, I hope soon.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't want to get into a debate about all of those issues, and I don't want to get into a debate about history here either, but British Columbia missed the boat when it came to the fisheries component in the FTA. We were not in the discussions. The maritime provinces were; we were not.

Though I don't think that free trade with Mexico is imminent by any means — I think the problems are virtually insurmountable, given the total differences in our respective economies — nonetheless one has to be on guard in this country. I just hope — I say this now and then will leave it — that the ministry and the government are well prepared and do not allow to happen again what has happened with the impact of the FTA on the fishery.

I want to move to another issue. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) has been quoted earlier this year as keenly looking for a free trade agreement with Japan. This is not in quotes, but the story says that despite his unconcealed enthusiasm for a deal with Japan, the minister admits little success in selling the idea. How has his success been in selling the idea to the government of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, you are asking all sorts of questions which would verge on being rhetorical.

[4:15]

We are in the same position as we would be in with any free trade agreement with any other block, whether it be with another block within North America or, indeed, in Asia. We want to examine all aspects of any agreement that might arise with Japan. I also want to assure the hon. member that we want to make this agreement work first.

But having said that, barriers are coining down all around the world. We just can't hold back the tide.

[ Page 10749 ]

They're coming down in eastern Europe; there will be a whole new alliance. I guess an agreement that started really after the First World War with very few members now includes 12 member countries.

Then we have the EFTA as another grouping, a European free trade alliance around the European Community. We can't hold back the tide of change, so international barriers with respect to trade — and that's a movement of intellectual properties, goods, services and in some cases personnel — is something we cannot hold back.

But we are saying that wherever Canada enters into an agreement — realizing that Canada has paramountcy in free trade — as I pointed out in my opening remarks.... When you talk about Canada-Japan trade, you are really talking about B.C.-Japan trade, because we export 58 percent of all the products that Canada exports to Japan. We want to be at that table, we're going to be at that table and we're going to be involved in a very meaningful way if and when any discussions on any agreement with any other country, particularly Japan, come into play.

MR. GABELMANN: I can assure the minister that it was not a rhetorical question. When the Minister of Finance, who is presumably the second most important member of cabinet — at least on some lists — says that he is interested in pursuing a free trade deal with Japan, I take it seriously. Maybe I shouldn't. Maybe the question was rhetorical and I shouldn't have taken the Minister of Finance seriously. That seems to be a more popular thing to do in this province.

But it is a serious question, because the next question relates to the whole initiative that has come out of New Zealand over the past few years and also out of Australia to develop a free trade, given the closer economic relations between Australia and New Zealand, their desire to expand their trading blocs, their uncertainty about doing that in South-East Asia and their desire to move to North America and to link in with us and as a result with the United States.

We're probably looking at a more serious initiative there, at least on the part of the New Zealanders — and I expect increasingly on the part of the Australians — to try to develop some kind of free trade agreement with Canada. That clearly would impact more on British Columbia than on most of the rest of the country.

Rather than just asking for the minister's response at this point, let me complete my thoughts and the concern that I think British Columbians should have about this. There are initiatives clearly going on in Mexico; we've done it with the U.S. There's talk about Japan, and there are initiatives in respect of the ANZUS countries. If those efforts are encouraged or lead to a pan-Pacific free trade area, the inevitable result, at least in the short term — and by short term mean the next few decades — is an impact on our access to the European free trade area.

I think what will happen — and I'd be interested in the minister's response on this — is that increasingly these blocs, once they are relatively self-sufficient each within itself, will begin to erect tariff barriers anew to protect themselves. We will be in a world where tariff barriers will not be going down, as has been the whole emphasis of the multilateral trade negotiations under GATT. But we will be getting back into areas — maybe not smaller countries anymore but bigger trading blocs — which will go back into the whole protectionist era.

I expressed the concern last year in these estimates to the former minister that while we're riding both horses — the free trade bloc horse and the MTN horse — we need to recognize that in the long term those are going to be up against each other. We may well face some serious difficulties. If we're going to be relying on Europe and don't have access to Europe because we have put all of our eggs in the pan-Pacific free trade basket, we've got some problems.

I'm not predicting dire consequences; I'm not predicting anything. All I'm saying in all of this is that the really important agenda in my view — and I may not have everyone's support on this — is the GATT process, the MTN and the successful discussions with the Uruguay round. I know the agricultural barriers are the most difficult of all because of the social place that agriculture has in most countries in terms of the family farm, etc. We'll talk about some of those issues a bit later.

I just want to emphasize that, from my perspective at least, we need to be very careful not to let the MTN go. We need to be sure that it's the priority rather than the Minister of Finance's musings or the federal Minister of Trade's musings about Mexico or whatever else. Those things may be good in their time and in their place, but in the meantime the priority has to be the GAIT discussions. Do you agree?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Thank you very much for the very reasoned debate and statement from the critic. I agree. I couldn't agree more that the current round of negotiations of GATT are vitally important. As a matter of fact, when I was in Geneva, it was very important for me to draw out as many ambassadors to GATT from as many of those countries as I possibly could. I talked with, in separate sessions.... In fact, I even had dinner, which lasted longer than I wanted it to, with the ambassador to GATT from New Zealand.

It may be of interest to the hon. member for North Island that Australia and New Zealand have agreed to put off any negotiations that they may have with respect to an Australia–New Zealand free trade agreement until after the Uruguay round of talks are concluded and all of the results are in and evaluated. The ambassador himself told me that in Geneva, and I respect what he's told me. It was backed up as well by the Australian Ambassador.

We want closer relations with Japan. Right now Japan is our second-largest trading partner, and conceivably, in just a few years' time if things continue as they are, it could become the largest trading partner for British Columbia. I had a group of Japanese individuals in my office today. I meet almost

[ Page 10750 ]

once a week with individuals from Japan. We are monitoring the happenings around the world.

By the way, when I was in Geneva, I also met with the Korean Ambassador to the GATT and asked him the very same questions. I asked him where his alliances were going and drew out as much information as we possibly could.

The federal government, of course, must take the lead in any free trade agreement that one might have with any other country, and it might do it at a province's urging — whether it be Japan, any other country or any other bloc. Neither my officials nor I have heard mention of any interest in Ottawa in any of the constant snooping, phone calling and so forth that we try to do with all of the contacts. I must admit that some of my contacts are diminishing in Ottawa.

B.C. House in Ottawa is continually on this issue, with its ear to the ground, trying to find out what is happening in any of these areas. I haven't heard mention of any agreement with Japan. I believe we've got to make the agreements that we have work first. We have to monitor very closely what is happening around the world. We have to make this agreement work first, but we also have to realize that trade barriers — and I'm sure the hon. member will not disagree with me — are coming down all around the world. We're watching very closely the development of the Asia-Pacific economic cooperation initiative that was inspired by Prime Minister Hawke of Australia. In this whole thing, Japan is still central to that particular issue. Japan is involved in that issue.

We all agree that the MTN must succeed first. The importance must be there. If it doesn't succeed, I think it will be bad for all of us. We are very closely involved in this process. We have not a large group, but a very well trained group of officials that is involved in watching this on a constant basis and indeed, I am informed, on a weekly and sometimes daily basis.

We are having a meeting of the APEC trade ministers in Vancouver in September this year, and my ministry and I will be actively involved in that process.

I couldn't agree more with the hon. member that the Uruguay round must conclude and that we must monitor the results. Let's all hope for a big result, as they say, from this current round, and we'll take it from there.

MR. GABELMANN: Leave that for the time being

I want to talk a little about Asia, South-East Asia, the trade offices and a few impressions that I picked up on a self-paid visit to South-East Asia this winter to learn a little bit about this area.

Before I do, I want to have clarified again the status of the Taiwan office. The reason I'd like that is because in the last year I have had three different answers about the status of that office: one answer in the estimates last year from the previous minister; another answer when I was in the Singapore-B.C. trade office; and yet another answer when I was in the Hong Kong office. I didn't go to Taiwan, and I have no intention of going to Taiwan until some things get sorted out in that part of the world.

I want to ask the minister if he can give the House a brief status report about the operation of that office. There are reports now that the trade corps, in fact, administers the office and not the chamber of commerce anymore. One of your offices, in fact, told me it was the ministry directly. I'm just curious to see what you have to say.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, you're sitting beside the Leader of the Opposition, who's a lawyer and accustomed to certain veils that are sometimes necessary — some in marriage, some in companies, and some in certain other circumstances. Canada doesn't have diplomatic relations with the Republic of China — with Taiwan, if you will — but it's one of our large customers, and we must do business with them. The Canadian government has an arrangement — you'd have to ask them what the arrangement is — with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. My deputy wouldn't know anything about that at all, of course. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has an office in Taiwan, and works in the best interests, we hope, of those who are involved in commerce in Canada.

We have a corporation known as the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation, which has an office in Taipei, and is involved in representing the commercial interests of the Trade Development Corporation, which happen to be the commercial interests of the province of British Columbia. I don't know if I have sufficiently veiled this for the hon. member, but the Trade Development Corporation has an office in Taipei. And of course, the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation has a very great interest in trade between Taiwan and British Columbia, as does the Ministry of International Business and Immigration. So we're involved on a consultative basis all the time.

[4:30]

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Minister, you probably appreciate that over the last three and a half years the New Democrat opposition has been supportive of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. We've been supportive of the trade initiatives and trade missions to Davos and to the Asia-Pacific. If we've been asked by the media or others about junkets, we've said no, they're worthwhile investments. Our feeling is that the province of British Columbia depends more on trade than any other province. It's a trading province and has been for a long time. So the approach that we have taken is that the province of British Columbia should be aggressive; it should go for the opportunities when they're there. You'll recall my questions to your predecessor, when I asked about increased resources in the Asia-Pacific in particular, and in the People's Republic of China, Thailand and India, where I didn't think we had sufficient resources to take advantage of those three very large players.

This year my question is slightly different.

Interjection.

[ Page 10751 ]

MR. HARCOURT: Well, I just say that we have Dickson Hall, who is a very good representative. I met him when I was on my seven or eight trade missions to Hong Kong and into the People's Republic of China. We've got good Canadian staff. They've upped the quality of the people in the Canadian embassies throughout Asia, in Singapore and Thailand — very good representation. But the B.C. presence wasn't as sustained as that of Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan to a certain extent. So I had those concerns. I know there have been some initiatives in that area.

I guess my point today is on Taiwan, the Republic of China. It seems, Mr. Minister, that we are far more tentative in Canada and British Columbia about our relationship with Taiwan than the People's Republic of China are. The People's Republic of China are massively involved in trade with the Republic of China, directly and indirectly. Isn't it time that the government of Canada and the province of British Columbia had a fresh appraisal of our relationship with Taiwan, given the changed circumstances in the People's Republic of China — and, indeed, in many other nations of the world who have taken similar diplomatic positions to what we have in the past?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MR. VEITCH: The statement that we are a trading province is quite correct. We have a budget which we've introduced in this House of — what is it? — $15.3 billion. We have a province with a population of a little over three million. Neither you nor I would have to be much of a mathematician to figure out that we have to sell something to somebody else or we don't live very well in this province. So we did that. We sold just about $18 billion worth of goods and services out of this province last year. We would have done a heck of a lot better if Ottawa had had some sensible monetary and interest policies in place and hadn't kept pushing us.

I know this isn't answering your question, but I'll go ahead; I think it's important. We believe that for every point the dollar is artificially raised — and it's about 10 points now — it amounts to about $1.3 billion worth of lost opportunities. We don't think that's any way for a trading country to operate. There has to be something wrong in the system. Even Ottawa ought to be able to see that, as far away as they are — 3,000 or 30,000 miles, whatever it is, over the mountains. I think you and I would agree on that issue.

If you're asking for an opinion as to the reappraisal that the government of Canada ought to have in its relationships with the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, or Taiwan — however they prefer to address it — we have thought for a long time that you can't completely blind yourself and say that there isn't a large trading entity there in Taiwan. The United States has a different policy, and it seems to work out very well for them. I predict personally that the barriers.... As you correctly pointed out, the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China have almost an open trading situation; they trade back and forth. I guess the only thing that doesn't move back and forth across the borders, across the sea, is manpower, or personpower.

I think that you'll find the same sorts of things happening that are happening in Europe, and you'll see some of those barriers come tumbling down, perhaps in the not too distant future; in my opinion, the sooner the better. It will give the people of Taiwan a better chance to do a lot of things and a better chance to focus as far as trade is concerned. It may even help them with some of their pollution problems as they regard other opportunities.

Any arrangement that the government of Canada could become involved in that would open up trading opportunities in China — even though it doesn't have the Republic of China's large net disposable income, as you point out so well — would be in the best interests of British Columbia, and what is in the best interests of British Columbia is in the best interests of Canada. That's the approach we have taken. As I say, through the Trade Development Corporation we have established an office in Taipei. It has been expanded. We're doing more and more business with the People's Republic of China.

As I said, we have to target. We just recently opened a new office in Munich because of the opportunities in Europe — southern Europe, the new eastern bloc nations, the changes in the GDR. We have to evaluate where we're at before we open any offices with respect to the People's Republic of China. We could easily get lost in that situation. We're probably better off at the present time to operate out of Tokyo and Hong Kong with — as you point out so well — the staff that we have and depend to some degree on the Canadian embassy and consuls in the People's Republic of China.

Do I think that Canada should realize the realities of a changing world as far as Asia is concerned? I think they should. I believe that those situations will change just as they've changed in Europe. I don't have enough of a crystal ball to tell you when that will happen, but I believe, as you do, that those things will occur not too far in the future.

MR. GABELMANN: Do the trade offices and the trade officers have a written mandate, a policy directive or a mission statement — whatever you might call it — in respect of what their purpose and objectives are and what their mandate is from day to day? I wonder if the minister would briefly give us a sense of what that mandate actually is.

HON. MR. VEITCH: As a matter of fact, not too long I asked my deputy to start re-evaluating all of the opportunities we have in all of our trade offices, taking a look at the mandates we've given to each and every one of them. We're doing that now. We're evaluating the value in each office to each part of the world — whether we're located at exactly the right spot, whether we should move to a different part of Tokyo or Japan, or whatever we should be doing.

[ Page 10752 ]

We're evaluating all those things now, and we do have a mandate which must vary slightly from country to country, as you realize. There have to be codicils that will allow that to happen, but essentially the offices — although each operates in a unique business environment — have all focused their activities on four general areas: corporate investment, business information, trade promotion and promotion of British Columbia. The latter includes tourism and also education opportunities.

More specific services provided by the international offices include — without giving you the rule book on the issue, which includes a lot of things — identifying prospective investors and attracting them to British Columbia; matching and identifying market opportunities and distribution channels; providing specific information on trade, investment and business immigration, and other types of immigration and what is happening in the Canadian embassies around the world; facilitating business meetings; visiting business people. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, he was well received in Hong Kong, and if he returns there or goes to any other place, he'll be well received there — we'll ensure that that happens. They visit government representatives to the region as well; facilitate and coordinate provincial activities and programs in the region with the Canadian trade offices or embassies or whatever it happens to be, keeping their ear to the ground, being our eyes and ears out there and reporting back to us on a weekly basis, if necessary, on anything that can happen; and network through local associations and foreign government agencies.

Some of the examples of success achieved in the last year were: increased sales of $3.6 million in food products to Dah Chong Hong — my Chinese is not very good; it's second only to my English, I suppose — in Hong Kong; assisting the Daesung of Korea to investigate and invest $5 million in a plant to manufacture some products in Prince George; and assisting Orcatron Manufacturing Ltd. We just announced the other day the sale of $100,000 worth of scubaphone wireless underwater diver communication systems to Singapore. I understand that there is now $30 million worth of potential sales as a result of that one action. A Japanese company, I believe, has a 40 percent interest in Orcatron, a process whereby you can speak underwater to each other. There is $30 million in sales as a result of that, and all the technology, R and D and everything must stay here in British Columbia — that's part of the agreement.

The Tokyo office works closely with the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of Regional and Economic Development on securing a $5 million greenfield tourism development project at Boat Harbour on Vancouver Island. There is lots more; we could go on and on in numbers. But we are re-evaluating them. We're in the process right now not of writing a completely new rule book but of evaluating and updating it in light of some of the things you mentioned and some of the new influences and alliances around the world, and we are ensuring that they're included in general terms of reference so that we keep an eye on these things.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get back to the question asked prior to the last one, which was about trade with Taiwan. I appreciate the minister's response, but some two and a half years ago, through the then Minister of Economic Development, the government of British Columbia wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada to ask him to change the Canadian policy and recognize trade with Taiwan. The answer from the Prime Minister of Canada to the government of British Columbia was that the government of Canada was not ready to do that at that time.

[4:45]

Just prior to that we had opened an office in Taiwan through the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce. It was opened through the chamber of commerce, because it was impossible to do so directly, Mr. Chairman. A lot has changed over the years since the policy between the two Chinas and trade with Taiwan have taken place — or the non-trade with Taiwan.

I would just like to ask the minister if he would take the comments that have been made on the floor of the House today regarding trade with Taiwan seriously enough to aggressively go after the federal administration, along with his co-partners in trade throughout the nation, to do away with what has to be hypocrisy in the extreme. When we have the two Chinas trading with each other and then have the People's Republic of China telling Canada and British Columbia that we shouldn't trade with Taiwan, that has to be hypocrisy in the extreme.

Mr. Chairman, I would implore the minister responsible to accept that recognition of Taiwan is an idea and an initiative that now is long past due for the people of British Columbia, if not the people of Canada. These jurisdictions, with their newfound wealth and their ability to build and rebuild, need the expertise of British Columbians — their housing expertise, their building expertise, their bridge-building expertise — and all the environmental and pollution control and the environmental engineers we have in this province. Those countries in the Pacific Rim need our expertise desperately, and we can sell it to them. What's more, they have the money to pay for it.

I implore this minister — through the government, through the initiatives of the Premier's office and his office, through all the members across this country who are responsible for trade and industry in this nation — to ask the Prime Minister of Canada once again, two and a half years after this government already has done so, to re-initiate talks that will see at long last the hypocrisy and the wink-wink nudge-nudge ended. It's no way to do business in British Columbia and in Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to take that advice from this side of the House and go to work and get more trade from Taiwan for British Columbia.

[ Page 10753 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: The first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain is obviously very familiar with the Taiwan situation. When I was first appointed — and I don't want to use too much levity in this area or to be flippant — I talked to a certain minister in Ottawa who has an accent that is even funnier than mine.

I said: "I'm going to go to Taiwan." He said — and I won't even try the accent: "Well, you can't go there because your passport wouldn't be valid." I said: "I'm also the chairman of the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation. I'll go there under that veil." He said: "Even with a veil, you'd be so ugly they'd recognize you."

Anyway, I guess it depends on how we describe the word "recognition." As you pointed out very correctly, if you're talking about international recognition and diplomatic recognition, that recognition must come from the government of paramountcy— and that is Ottawa.

We have, of course, commercial recognition between the People's Republic of China and Canada, but more specifically between the People's Republic of China and British Columbia. We're moving, with as thin a veil as we possibly can do, in that direction. We have moved from having the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce representing us to having a Crown corporation representing us. We're nudging that door open as much as we possibly can.

We've talked to Ottawa about this. I impress it upon our counterparts in Ottawa and upon representatives from other countries who have an influence in this area that we must recognize the existence of Taiwan, as we must recognize the existence of those millions and millions of people who inhabit the People's Republic of China with its tremendous resource of human capital and needs that must be filled in those countries.

But Ottawa doesn't necessarily agree that the country should deal with Taiwan on a diplomatic basis. I've had discussions with representatives from the People's Republic of China. As far as they are concerned, commercial dealings with their province of Taiwan is no problem. We're moving closer to what is going to be a historic change. We'll keep working on it.

As a result of having much better representation in Taipei than we have ever had before, and as a result of having many trade missions going into Taiwan and many individuals working with the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation in Taiwan and through the ministry and so forth.... We are ensuring that we move into helping them with housing.

We're working on quite a few contracts now, and some have been concluded, as far as the environmental industries are concerned. The things the member from Little Mountain mentioned are being achieved. It would be easier to achieve, I believe, if we were able to deal government to government. That is not possible, given the stance that the government of Canada has taken. But we are promoting the interests of British Columbia aggressively and actively in Taiwan. We have increased our market share, and every day we have Taiwanese visitors in Vancouver and elsewhere in British Columbia.

An example of something that, it appears now, will come to fruition if it's environmentally sound, as I believed all along it would, is the China Steel operation which we hope will be established in British Columbia. That's just one example. We're going to keep working to open that veil. We're going to keep working to enhance our interests in Taiwan, at the same time ensuring that we don't block the door to the People's Republic of China. That would be a very bad mistake, in my opinion. I intend to keep the door open, while doing everything we can to deal with Taiwan and to impress upon the people in Ottawa the importance of expanding economic opportunities in that part of the world.

MR. GABELMANN: I hadn't intended to talk about Taiwan but I will add a few words. Clearly the recognition in commercial terms is there as much as it is with any country in the world. What we have now is a question of diplomatic relationships as a result of the historical. Time will no doubt take care of that. Clearly what the minister said in terms of choice.... It no longer is a clear choice, but if were a choice between one or the other, then one's got a bigger market and a significantly different long-term prospect. But that's beyond us now. Those were the issues of the fifties and sixties.

I want to go back to the trade offices. Before I go back to the mandate question, I want to talk about location and about Asia. I think our future is with Asia. I recognize that our trade with Europe and the United States is significant, but our future economic dynamism — and much of the world's — will be Pacific-based and, more particularly, Asia-based.

I've heard the arguments from staff people. May I say, by the way, that I've had absolutely excellent cooperation from the minister's staff here in British Columbia and in the offices overseas on my little holiday. I took some time to do a bit of a busman's job as well. I got first-rate and very helpful assistance. I got answers to these questions as I went around, but I'm curious to know how the minister feels.

Leaving aside Taiwan, Tokyo and Seoul, you've got an office in Singapore, which is in a sense the neutral choice in that area. That's the justification given for choosing to put an office in Singapore. Clearly the dynamic economy at this stage in South East Asia is Thailand. The economic growth rates there in the last three years have been 12 to 14 percent per year. When I look at the economic development in Thailand this past year compared with ten years ago, when I was last there, it is just mind-boggling — the dynamism in that economy. It won't be very long before Thailand reaches the same level of economic activity as South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and, in a different way, Hong Kong.

Even having been given some fairly convincing answers by staff people, I still wonder why Singapore.... I'm not suggesting you close Singapore and open in Bangkok, but I wonder: why not Bangkok

[ Page 10754 ]

too? Or why not some greater presence in southern Asia as well, linked perhaps into that whole Thailand area? I'm curious to know if the minister has any response.

HON. MR. VEITCH: A good question. You're quite correct. While we can't measure the growth in Europe, we can guess there's going to be tremendous growth there, depending on how well the former eastern bloc countries come together and what influence the assimilation of the GDR into the Federal Republic of Germany has on the whole trading scene in Europe. We can't measure it, but we have to watch it, and that's why we've moved an office into Munich. We're monitoring it very closely.

If you're looking at why we opened an office in Singapore, it is at the centre of a great deal of economic activity — and it certainly is neutral; there's no question with respect to that. It is also a very good area for certain interests that British Columbia has, not the least of which is aerospace and the aerospace industry. So it's one direct entry where our representatives can keep their ears to the ground — not to mention agricultural products as well. The representative we have there now has a doctorate in agriculture and is also very attuned to the aerospace industry, surprisingly enough.

Why not open an office in Bangkok? Well, what we're doing is exploring representation, as we have done, for instance, in Korea, which has had the same growth patterns over the years. I don't know what their growth is this year; I think it's down to 7 percent or something. They think the sky has caved in on them because their growth rate is only a true 7 percent. Yes, Thailand has 12 to 14 percent growth, there is no question about that.

What we have done in Korea is.... We have a local representative, on an experimental basis, working out of the Canadian embassy in Seoul. And we are exploring representation in Thailand, whether it be a local representative or.... How we'll handle it we're not sure yet. It's part of the overall picture that I want to look at very closely — and very quickly, because that area is expanding.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

When we are able to put these pieces together, we will be able to look at areas like Bangkok. Who knows? It may be a precursor to opening an office in that area, although I can't promise you that we'll be doing that. But we are certainly exploring representation in that area, because we believe that we can't get along without having some kind of representation in an area that is expanding so quickly.

[5:00]

Unfortunately, we are little British Columbia, with lots of space and three million people. We're doing quite a bit when you compare us to places like Quebec and Ontario, which spend a lot more in their offices around the world. With the greatest of humility, the British Columbia offices are doing one heck of a lot better job around the world than they are; there's no question about that.

We are exploring Thailand. Who knows, it may lead to opening an office in Bangkok somewhere down the road. It's part of the review we're putting together now of all of our foreign undertakings.

MR. HARCOURT: I want to continue that very briefly. Mr. Minister, the time has passed for exploring and re-evaluating Thailand. I visited Thailand in 1986 with a major trade delegation — with Lavalin, to promote the ALRT, which is absolutely essential there. They have to be above-ground; they've got water-table problems.

We went with a very aggressive approach. The Canadian government and Lavalin were successful at getting that, after some "Perils of Pauline" negotiations over the last little while. A number of other trade opportunities opened up while we were there.

I can tell you that from the ministers in the Thai government I spoke to, from the Canadian Ambassador I met with and from the major Thai business leaders I spoke with.... They were all saying the same thing: "Why is British Columbia ignoring the opportunities in Thailand?" It has 55 million people and a growth rate that is among the highest in the world, and is a very vibrant and exciting country which has never been overrun and has been independent for centuries.

"We are a major industrial power," they told us. "We want to do business. Where are your business people? Where is your activity, British Columbia, to help your business people come here?" There was no long-term strategy; there were no staff. And that was four years ago. I'm not being critical about this; I'm being impatient more than critical. Surely the word has got back to you and your officials that the Thais have said: "We appreciate CIDA; we appreciate the quality of the External Affairs and government people who come. We want your business people to talk with our business people and do deals." And they want to do deals.

I have brought this up every year: we in British Columbia are missing opportunities. I'm not just being critical of the provincial government; I'm being impatient about our lack of resources there. I'm being critical of our business community for being too short-sighted to get off their duffs, get into that country and put some deals together.

I'll tell you, the Thai business people want to deal with Canada; they want to deal with British Columbia. So I am really not being critical; I'm being impatient. I'm saying that the sooner we can get some good staff and B.C. business people into that country, the better we're all going to be for that effort.

HON. MR. VEITCH: There's a difference between exploration, as Jim Chabot used to point out, and active exploration. We're actively exploring. As a matter of fact, just a few weeks ago I had a long meeting with the minister of economic development from Thailand and some of his key staff. The Asia-Pacific Foundation is becoming very active there. We're

[ Page 10755 ]

working with Thai business and government. A major mission from the board of trade went to Thailand this year, and we were involved with it.

British Columbia companies are, as you say, beginning to get off their collective duffs and get into Thailand. They realize that there is a tremendous opportunity there. You are quite correct: it has never been overrun, it's stable in most ways and it has a large population that needs the things we can sell to them. So we're actively promoting Thailand.

Unfortunately, as you point out, we don't have the resources to open offices every place we'd like to open them. We're actively exploring some kind of semipermanent — maybe permanent — relationship in Thailand. I had discussions with the minister, and he also said they would welcome us with open arms. The Asia-Pacific Foundation, Arthur Hara's group, is working very closely now with Thailand through the B. C. Trade Development Corporation and our ministry to open up new opportunities in that area. We're having some good success. Other missions are planned by the Vancouver Board of Trade.

You're right: it's an area we've got to get into, and there are opportunities abounding for British Columbians if we just look beyond our borders and get with it. It is one area where I really will agree with the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. HARCOURT: I have just one last point to reinforce what I'm saying. I'm glad to hear the minister outline some of the initiatives that have been taken by the Vancouver Board of Trade, the Asia-Pacific Foundation and others in British Columbia.

May I suggest a fellow by the name of Sean Brady, who was the High Commissioner in Singapore. He was living in Bangkok and was married to a very famous, skilled Thai actress. He is fluent and is doing some trade development work there. Those are the kinds of people who could be on the ground now — I use him as an example — while we are re-evaluating and considering what sort of presence and resources we want in Thailand.

I want to reinforce that time is passing us by. The Thais are going to be patient for only so long, and other people will be there to take our place if we're not there. So I want to stress the sense of urgency and impatience.... I'm not being critical. I'm just saying we're missing opportunities — not just the B.C. government but B.C. business people — for being out there and being skilful in trading in the very magnificent, exciting country of Thailand.

MR. GABELMANN: Beyond that and talking about getting in on the ground floor, the stirrings in Malaysia these days are really quite significant in economic terms. While we missed getting in on the ground floor in Thailand in many ways, we're not too late to be a part of what will be the engine of the South-East Asian economy. We're perilously close in terms of Thailand, but we should also be looking ahead. In the next decade Malaysia and Indonesia are going to be increasingly strong economic powers, and it is clear that Malaysia is not very far away from moving into that league as well.

I want to go back to the question of trade promotion, which the minister talks about as being one of the mandates. When you are a tourist or a traveller, as I was for a month or so through that area this winter, you have difficulty identifying British Columbia products. Most of them are invisible. You don't see the results of our trade on the street. There is one product that you can identify, and that's apples. Everywhere you go in Asia — and particularly in the cities — every stall that's selling fruit and vegetables is loaded with Washington State apples. You see Washington State apple boxes all over Bangkok, Hong Kong and South-East Asia as well. You occasionally see the odd B.C. tree-fruits box, which is usually carrying somebody's belongings. Very rarely do you see our apples in any quantity being sold over there, but you certainly see Washington State apples. So they're doing something right, and we're doing something wrong.

When I was in Hong Kong I asked this question of a variety of people, in the ministry office and in the Canadian embassy trade office. I asked some of these questions out of office hours too, in terms of some of the trade people, to try and get to the bottom of this. I was told in a variety of ways — I'm not quoting any person here directly, because I don't want to do that — that the Hong Kong office, in particular, does not do trade promotion. It's there to do investment immigration. It's there to bring money and moneyed people into British Columbia, and to bring investment into British Columbia. It's not there to do trade promotion. In fact, I was told informally by one Canadian government official in the press club that Air Canada, in conjunction with Cathay Pacific, does a better job of marketing B.C. apples in Hong Kong than does the B.C. government. I found that hard to believe; I found that astonishing.

I'm particularly interested in that because I grew up in that industry, and I have a bit of knowledge about the quality of product that we have in this province. I compare it with the Washington State apple, which is not nearly as good. It's a good product, but it can't compete with our top-quality product.

But we don't market that stuff there. When I asked the questions directly, I was told the priority is not trade promotion; the priority is entrepreneurial immigrants.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Who was this?

MR. GABELMANN: I don't want to get people in trouble, but I got that answer in your office — in the British Columbia office as well. Dickson Hall's name was mentioned today, and it was not from Dickson Hall. Dickson Hall was on holiday when I was there. I didn't have the opportunity to meet him on that trip.

I'm saying to the minister, clearly and specifically and directly, that the mandate, as understood in that office, as told to me, is investment, entrepreneurial

[ Page 10756 ]

immigration, information about British Columbia, information about opportunities for immigration and investment in British Columbia — an information service. There appeared to be no programs that should go on jointly with the industries in this province. The apple industry, in the scheme of things, is only a small part of our overall trade pattern and trade volumes, but it is very important, in terms of a way of life and an entire valley in this province, that we try our best to keep it alive. That industry in the Okanagan suffers from domestic problems in terms of government policy. Then you go abroad and discover that we're not doing anything to promote that industry in an effective way, and we're told Cathay Pacific and Air Canada do a better job.

I don't want to get into a debate about that with the minister. I want to relay to him that that's the story I got, and it's the story that's clear to a visitor on the streets. If it's being done very well, there's no evidence of it. The minister might not want to argue with me about it, but rather, check into it and see. Maybe we can find some ways of doing some really active, creative kinds of promotion of our products — and I don't mean just B.C. apples, but a whole variety of our products.

I'll leave it at that point. The minister obviously wants to answer at this stage.

[5:15]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Just so there's no misunderstanding in any of our trade offices — and we have some of our senior officials sitting here — I know that a fax will happen to go out tomorrow morning, ensuring that trade promotion is at the top of the list. It will be signed by the minister, in case they don't understand that or in case that happens to slip their minds.

I know that you were over there, and I know that you were talking with an official and not with Dickson Hall, the director. I'm sure Mr. Hall understands that trade promotion is paramount, as well. It will be reinforced by a fax tomorrow morning — I can assure you of that — and not only there, but to each and every office that we have around the world.

We did commission a study by Deloitte or Touche to deal with the very issue you're speaking of with respect to B.C. tree-fruits — apples and.... The purpose of the study was to examine issues relevant to competitiveness, to gather information, and to provide assistance to make the industry more self-reliant. The study, I hope, acts as a basis of discussion for consultation involving ministry officials, members of the industry, officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the B.C. Trade Development Corporation.

We're also, I can assure you, going to make our officials around the world aware of what you have said. It will be done tomorrow morning. I want to thank the hon. member for drawing that to my attention. I believe that you were talking to an official — I know you were — but not with Mr. Dickson Hall. I'm sure he's of a different persuasion. But just in case they aren't, we'll underscore it.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I've tried to be careful about these comments because I don't want to get a staff person into trouble, but I thought I would just read to the House my own notes shortly after my return, because they were fresh at the time, and I was very careful not to overstate anything in my own notes about my trip. My notes were: "And we should establish trade as the major focus of our efforts. The Hong Kong office now is focusing almost exclusively on attracting investment and investors. Canadian officials are privately, and quite rightly, critical of B.C.'s failure to promote B.C. products." Those are my notes following my trip, particularly out of Hong Kong. This is Canadian government trade officials informally and privately being very critical about B.C.'s trade promotion efforts.

I say that not to pick on a very small number of people who work in these offices. It was a question of direction, a question of what the mandate was for those people. Clearly, it was investment-related issues and not trade-related issues. I don't have any fear of contradiction about that. That was the sentiment throughout that whole sector of people I talked to in Hong Kong. I'll leave that for now; I think that's enough said about that.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I hear what the hon. member is saying. As I say, in case there is any dubiety about what part of their mandate is, it will clearly be underscored, and we'll ensure that they receive a fax memo tomorrow on that particular issue.

You mention the Canadian offices and Canadian embassies around the world. We work very closely with them, and some of them are very good and some aren't so good. I went into a particular office — not in Hong Kong; it was elsewhere in the world — and asked them about some particular British Columbia information that I know is available to them, and they didn't have it available and they weren't too helpful in that area. Wherever any of our people run into that around the world, I ask them to get that information back to us so we can get to Ottawa and say: "Look, this is what happened to me in Europe. Smarten up and do a job for us." I guess if they are pointing their finger at one of our officials in Hong Kong, they've got three pointing back at them, brother.

The trade offices around the world could realize that British Columbia contributes a tremendous amount to the Canadian economy by way of exports. We're going to try and make them more and more aware that they should be promoting not only eastern Canada aggressively but the most westerly province as well. Without being critical of them, I can mention to you that they are sometimes less than diligent in the way they promote British Columbia in parts of the world.

However, I hear what you've said. You can be assured and others can be assured that there will be no dubiety on what their role is in these areas. And nobody will be in trouble.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to move on to a brief question on another subject, the coordinator for

[ Page 10757 ]

international competitiveness office, the appointment last year of Oksana Exell. We haven't — at least I haven't — heard much lately about this particular office. Can you bring us up to date?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Oksana Exell did some very good work for me, as a matter of fact, on the small-business study when I was Minister of Regional Development. I have a very high regard for the ability of that person; she's extremely experienced.

It's interesting that you should mention B.C. tree-fruits. It was she who was the leader in putting together the study with respect to competitiveness relative to B.C. tree-fruits and our seeming inability to sell what we ought to be selling around the world. She was very incisive in the way she investigated all of the players involved. As a matter of fact, some of the people said that she's more candid than she ought to be. I disagree with them.

She has now moved on to a new job within the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, having done that job for us on contract. She's now the corporate secretary of B.C. Trade, as the corporate secretary who was there before has moved on to another position. So she's now the corporate secretary. She's a very capable woman, very experienced in these matters. By the way, she did a heck of a job for us in pulling together this study.

That's the information, I believe, that you require in that area.

MR. GABELMANN: I agree with the minister: an outstanding person who does outstanding work. But I was curious about the current status of that whole program — an advisory board for the coordinator of international competitiveness. Is there a coordinator now? Is there a board? Is it doing anything?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Along with the job of corporate secretary, she's still doing that job as well, so she's got quite a load on her plate. She is very capable. We've combined the two positions, actually, within B.C. Trade.

MR. GABELMANN: Does the advisory board still exist, or is it now disbanded?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm trying to remember the members of the advisory board. It's Jim Matkin, Darcy Rezac.... It still exists and still meets with Oksana. One of them, Darcy Rezac, is a member of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation board, so that's the linkage back there too.

MR. GABELMANN: On another subject, I want to ask about the cooperative overseas market development program. This is the tripartite agreement between the government of B.C., the government of Canada and COFI. My understanding is that the current agreement runs from '86 to '90. I'd like the minister to clarify. This is the fourth in a series of five-year agreements. Is it being renewed? What is its status?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I didn't know.... I'm very pleased, by the way, that my estimates came up today, but had they not come up today, we would have had our first official meeting with respect to negotiations on the renewal of an agreement. We have had unofficial meetings with COFI. I personally have had meetings, and my deputy and others have had meetings with COFI. A forest sector person has had meetings. We've also had meetings with the government of Canada, so that we know where they're coming from. I'd say that by next week, negotiations will be well underway. I think that over the years it has been a very successful arrangement. However, I'm sure the hon. member will agree that regardless of how successful something has been in the past, it requires a certain amount of fine-tuning from time to time. I think both sides will agree it is necessary. We've had those discussions with the government of Canada, and informally with COFI, and hopefully the formal talks will begin next week.

MR. GABELMANN: On another topic. Back in the early seventies, the B.C. government became involved in agricultural aid to developing countries. This was a program that didn't receive a lot of attention during the seventies and into the eighties, and in fact has virtually petered out, I would say. I'm one who believes that British Columbia, as a province, should play a role in international aid and development, though not in a contradictory way to the government of Canada in its proper role. But there is a role for British Columbia, and we can in fact do some long-term benefit to our own economy by being involved in various aid programs.

I wonder what the government's response is to the request from the British Columbia Council for International Cooperation. This is a group — to jog the minister's memory — which met with both the government and the opposition not very long ago. It was within the last week or so, if my memory is correct. They made a series of suggestions and recommendations which I think have a lot of merit, and I wonder what the minister's response is.

I'll just very briefly outline the summary of their recommendations. It's entitled, "Partnership For Global Development," and it's a proposal to the B.C. government to establish a fund for global development. They recommend that the government of B.C. establish an annual fund in the amount of $1.5 million for international development projects and global education activities within B.C., and that the above fund, be administered by the B.C. Council for International Cooperation. This council includes a wide variety of community groups. I won't try to list them all, but there are literally dozens of non-government organizations involved in this. Thirdly, they recommend that this organization, the BCCIC, retain an administrative fee of 5 percent for running the operation, that 85 percent of the funds be allocated to overseas development projects and that 10 percent be

[ Page 10758 ]

utilized by BCCIC members for global education programs within B.C., which is a very good thing for us to do in developing future trading and business relationships with other countries. If people have had contact in their student and formative years with our province, it can pay monumental dividends in the following years when those people go back to become ministers of trade, presidents of corporations, principals of universities or whatever else.

[5:30]

This is a summary of the recommendations made by this group. I wonder if the government has had an opportunity to consider this proposal, some variant on it or some other kind of effort toward international development — keeping in mind the real benefit that there can be for us too. I don't think we should just do these things because we want to be do-gooders; nonetheless, we have an obligation. Despite our complaining all the time about our state of affairs in this country, we are very wealthy, and we have a standard of living that is envied by most of the world. We can do great work in many developing countries. The neat thing about it is that these things are not only beneficial to those countries now but also beneficial to them and us in the years to come. I wonder what the government's response is to this particular proposal.

HON. MR. VEITCH: That's a very important question from the hon. member for North Island. You'll note that CIDA at least has a presence now in British Columbia. We're working very closely with CIDA, and we've tried to explain to them in as strong terms as possible not only that they should be doing more things that you can quantify in areas abroad but also that British Columbia ought to be working more closely with them. As a matter of fact, I was criticized for a speech I made to them one evening, but I'm not too worried about being criticized. British Columbia has a tremendous amount of expertise that it can lend to the world, and CIDA seems to be a perfect vehicle for that. I'm going to tell you that the Ministry of Education has a Pacific Rim initiative. We have two students from ISEC working with the ministry.

What the member says brings on an interesting philosophical discussion that I'm sure we could continue at another time or another place. I honestly believe that with all the newly emerging nations around the world, including the eastern bloc nations and nations in Africa, we need a new kind of Marshall Plan in this world. As people living in free countries where we have all of the wonderful things that are made available to us, basically as a result of being free to do our own thing, all of a sudden an opportunity is opening up to us, not only in Europe but also in Asia, in Africa and all around the world. We're not taking advantage of that. I believe the governments of Canada, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and other governments, if they really want to see these new initiatives proceed, ought to be taking advantage.

It's interesting — at Davos, Switzerland; it was the first time in the 23-year history of the World Economic Forum that the eastern bloc nations were featured. I had the opportunity to sit around the table with small groups — the minister of economic development from Czechoslovakia and the new minister of culture and development or something from the GDR and a host of other people — and one of these individuals came to the table I was then at; I moved around from table to table. I believe he was the minister of economic development from Czechoslovakia. Someone said: "You have a degree in economics?" He said that yes, he had a doctorate in economics from some university. He said: "You are trained in Marxist economics?" He said: "Yes, I was." He said then: "What could you possibly know about market economies?" He said: "I don't know anything about a market economy, but if you want us to succeed, it's up to you to help us in our market economy. You have an obligation to help us." I pounded the table and said: "Amen! You betcha we have an obligation to help those people."

We have an obligation not just to throw money at a problem, but we have an obligation in whatever way we can, whether it be intellectual properties, talents, or anything else, to develop — for want of a better word; maybe we need a new word for it — a new Marshall Plan around the world whereby we help those people. The doors are opening. They may close again, and we should be in there now if we basically believe that most of the things we are doing in this province, this country and this hemisphere are correct. We have an obligation, and it is an opportunity that may only come a few times in many generations of people. So I agree with the hon. member.

Whether or not we should be directly involved in a provincial fund is another thing. It's a matter of policy. But I can tell you that we have been talking to CIDA; I'm going to continually talk to John Crosbie; I'm going to continually talk on the immigration side to Barbara McDougall.

Just recently I was elected vice-president of the Pacific Northwest Legislative Leadership Forum, which takes in five states and two provinces — and I understand now that possibly Oregon will be joining it — and I tried to get the same kind of message through to these people. I said: "If you really want to help and" — as you just pointed out — "if you really want to expand international trade and you want to expand the boundaries or the writ of this population group that has 16 million people within it, then start looking to these countries where these opportunities are and use whatever resources you have, whether they be monetary or intellectual or otherwise."

I don't believe they are always looking for money. They are looking for ideas; they're looking for help; they're looking for intellectual capabilities. We have a vast supply of that in Canada and in British Columbia and in North America. We just don't have the vehicle to deliver it. That's really what we ought to be looking to do, in my humble opinion.

MR. GABELMANN: I won't pursue it further, other than to say that I trust that the minister and his staff will have a close look at this proposal from the

[ Page 10759 ]

B.C. Council for International Cooperation. Hopefully — whether it's that model or something along those lines — something can be developed. I think it would receive widespread support in this province.

I have believed for a long time, and have had confirmed very much in my own mind on my travels, that education — neither a good nor a service; it's closer to being a service, I guess — could be a major export item for British Columbia.

I just want to read a brief two paragraphs that were printed in an English-language paper in Bangkok on the January 26 this year. It's a message from the Australian Ambassador to Thailand. He says:

"Another area in which we anticipate substantial growth is in our educational links. In the past year there have been substantial programs initiated between Australian and Thai universities, and more are scheduled for 1990.

"Australia is keen to offer its educational facilities to Thai students, and we believe the links between our countries will be strengthened by the interaction of young people studying together."

Given the federal role of education in Australia as compared to here, this becomes more of a provincial role, and clearly British Columbia is the province that should be taking the lead in extending educational links between us and Asia-Pacific countries. There is a magnificent opportunity out there for future economic relations as a result of educational links now, not just students from developing countries coming to study here, but equally importantly, students from here going to participate in programs in those countries. Those kinds of opportunities are really opening up, and I urge that we pay some real attention to that in the coming years.

I know it's happening, that the Vancouver School Board is involved and that other school boards are interested. I know that some of the community colleges have excellent programs developing along these lines. Cap College, for example, has an excellent business-related program We're doing a lot of things, but there is much more to do student to student, both ways, and it's something we have not yet spent enough time on.

I'll leave those topics for now.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I don't know if the hon. member has been reading our mail, I'm sure he hasn't. But with what you've said about the export potential, the two-way potential of young people studying with young people and the economic and social spin-offs — which really are the same thing we talked about before — that this can provide.... We have just engaged a new officer at the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation. Her name is Diane Anderson, and if you wish to talk with her, we'd be happy for you to speak with her at any time. Of course, the Ministry of Education has a Thailand officer, but we have just engaged Diane Anderson at B.C. Trade, and I would be very grateful to receive any information or thoughts that the hon. member has on how we could expand those opportunities.

We realize that it's not just exporting educational opportunities, as Vancouver Community College and others are doing, and BCIT is doing to some extent; it's also people-to-people interaction, reaction and interface with other people. We know that in the long run a network will develop which will be beneficial to both British Columbia and the other jurisdictions.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'm aware that all members of the Legislature have a very important event to attend this evening, and I don't want to delay unnecessarily, but I think, at the same time, it's possible for us to complete this set of estimates prior to adjournment, and that also would be desirable.

I have another subject I want to canvass. The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) has a few minutes....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Do you want to do both together?

MR. GABELMANN: They are two different issues. I'll go first and then the member for Burnaby North. Unless other members have anything else, that should complete this set of estimates for this year, which I think would please most members of the House, given how long we've taken on some of the other estimates.

The question is immigration. First of all, may I ask if the minister could give us a bit of an update on the status of the negotiations with Canada, in terms of an immigration arrangement. I appreciate that the status of that agreement will be different now that Meech Lake has not been agreed to. Nonetheless, we have — what? — six other provinces with agreements, and in many cases they have been in existence for some time. I wonder if you could bring us up to date. Obviously negotiations are to a certain extent confidential, but if possible, give us a sense of what's in the agreement or what the objectives are for the province in the agreement, where the stumbling blocks are, and just where we're going.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member will realize that immigration has been a shared responsibility under the British North America Act, between the provinces and the federal government. A long time ago the federal government assumed paramountcy again in this area. There are seven provinces that have immigration agreements — only three that do not — running all the way from the Cullen-Couture act of Quebec down to the one in Prince Edward Island, I think, that's simply a paragraph and a half.

British Columbia has been negotiating.... I must also tell you that I've asked my staff as well to bring back more information to me, in the light of Meech Lake not being successful. Meech Lake would have taken these agreements and made them part of the Canadian constitution. That's really what it would have done — any agreement that we're negotiating. There are other things for Quebec and some other things that go along with it.

I can't give you the detailed specifics of the proposed administrative agreement. That's what we would have now: an administrative agreement rather

[ Page 10760 ]

than a constitutional agreement as a result of the failed Meech Lake accord. It can't be provided, since that agreement has not been signed.

I want to share the approach being taken on selective issues of direct interest to British Columbia. I want to say that we are in negotiations, and some of the goalposts have moved. We may be going back and talking about something else as well — a little more, perhaps. Since immigration is shared constitutional authority, there's a clear need to sort out the respective responsibilities. Moreover, these responsibilities tend to fall into one of three main function areas: planning, selection and settlement. Consultation and coordination are extremely important, but let me turn to some specific issues. I want to move through them as quickly as I can.

[5:45]

The planning function is key. Good planning in the context of economic and social needs of the province is absolutely essential. We have to be involved in that planning. Selection needs to be increased, based on the economic objectives of the country and the province. As far as I'm concerned, I'm speaking for the province of British Columbia, and I want to see that our interests are paramount in this area. Settlement issues are of direct interest to British Columbia Canada does contribute money in many ways toward settlement. I don't have those exact numbers in front of me; I do have them in another book, and I can provide you with them later on.

One of the big costs to the province of British Columbia this year is an additional $25 million that we have in the budget of the Ministry of Education, which is purely for English as a second language in schools. We believe that where we don't have control over some of those areas, we at least need to share some of the settlement costs. In other words, Ottawa needs to provide us with more money. By the way, the total money that Ottawa provided to British Columbia last year from all sources, for settlement, was $14 million.

We're looking at those three areas. We're looking at cooperation and coordination on planning and selection in specific areas as they relate to economic objectives for the province, and also settlement issues and the funding of those issues.

Negotiations are proceeding very well, regardless of the collapse of Meech Lake. We haven't spent quite as much time on it, because we're also taking a look at our position to make sure that we get the best possible deal for British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: Planning, selection and settlement: that's a neat way of dividing it up. Does the question of the total number of non-Canadian immigrants to British Columbia come up under the planning section of this discussion? If so, is that treated as a percentage of the national objective in terms of numbers, or is there a B.C. number in absolute terms?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, it certainly does come up under planning. They tend to have a target — they being the federal government — and that may change somewhat now with negotiations that are going on with Quebec.

By the way, Quebec has a large degree of responsibility for landing immigrants into their province that we don't have. We think that they spend about $48 million a year. We have 13 percent of the national immigrants, compared with our population share of 11 percent. Quebec has about 18 percent, and they're losing them. They don't stay there very long.

Moreover, we find that one of the principles they enshrined in the Cullen-Couture agreement was to have linguistic opportunities. Our research seems to indicate that they have only about a 30 percent success rate in that particular area. So they're landing in Quebec and moving to other parts of the country, particularly British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not sure I got an answer as to whether B.C. spends any time worrying about how many.... I recognize that the people can immigrate to P.E.I. and then move to B.C., and we don't have any control over that — nor should we in this kind of country. But I was curious about whether there was a target figure. What did we have? There were roughly 25,000 immigrants last year in B.C. That's clearly more than 10 percent of the national immigration, which was 165,000 — 14 percent. So clearly it's more than the 11 or 12 percent proportionately. I wonder if that's desirable. Is that what B.C. wants to have? Is that where we're headed? That's one question in the first area, which is planning.

I'll move into the selection area. One of the things you learn in Hong Kong is that we turn away — when I say "we" I mean Canada, and B.C. is a major part of this in terms of Hong Kong immigration — a lot of talented people because our priority seems to be investor immigrants. I know that the total number of investor immigrants is not high overall, but a lot of well-educated and well-trained people who have skills to bring, who could come in and be a major part of our economy but who don't have money, get turned down. People with money get accepted.

I would argue — and I think many British Columbia economists would too — that we don't have a shortage of capital in this province so much as an inability to put it to work. We don't have a shortage of capital, but we have a bit of a shortage of skilled entrepreneurial types, who do want to come but get turned down. I wonder what your attitude is to that.

HON. MR. VEITCH: That's precisely what the negotiations have been all about, at least since I've been involved as minister, I've said that there are people with specific talents — and they may not speak French — who need to come to British Columbia to do specific things to help us economically and to help all other British Columbians. Their coming here will not only benefit them; it will also imbue all other British Columbians with benefits. That is precisely the group we're going after; that is precisely the group we are negotiating into any agreement we have with Ottawa. Without some say in that kind of

[ Page 10761 ]

selection, there ain't no agreement. That's it precisely; I agree 100 percent with you.

MR. GABELMANN: My final point is on the settlement side, the third area in immigration. There needs to be a lot of attention in this agreement with Ottawa not only to ESL.... It's not just learning the language that's important. A lot of our costs here in this province have to do with other relocation issues, such as the impact on mental health and all kinds of other social development issues. I trust that the ministry will pursue those issues with vigour as well.

With that, Mr. Chairman, unless the minister wants to respond — I don't think he needs to — I would finish my comments. I think the member for Burnaby North has a thing or two to say.

MR. JONES: I want to ask the minister a very brief question, because I know there is an important social function that the minister is anxious to attend. This has to do with the office of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. A small aspect of that operation is who the corporation uses as its in-house travel agent. Let me get right to it by reading a memo dated May 1, 1990, to all staff in Vancouver from the vice-president of finance and administration. The memo is to introduce the Uniglobe travel agent and her location on the seventh floor of 999 Canada Place. I don't suppose there's any problem with that. I suppose that particular corporation would choose a particular travel agent.

The part that I'm concerned about is this: "As of May 8, all business travel arrangements must be booked through Pamela." That destroys the competition aspect; nevertheless, I'm sure that is done for some reason. Then there is this second part: "Additionally, all recipients of new market development or other export-assisted programs, including trade missions, should be directed to Pamela." What that says to me is that all the clients of that corporation, all the clients of the ministry, are also asked to use Uniglobe — maybe not as a condition of them being recipients under these programs and maybe not as a condition of being in receipt of government loans, assistance or whatever, but I'm sure that conclusion can be drawn. This seems patently unfair to me. It would be like the Minister of Social Services and Housing sending out a directive that all welfare recipients have to buy their groceries at a certain store. That's exactly the kind of thing that is being suggested here.

I'll quote again: "All recipients of new market development or other export-assisted programs, including trade missions, should be directed to Pamela." Now why would you do that? First of all, why Uniglobe? I'd be interested in knowing that. Secondly, why would you want to direct the clients of ministry services to use any particular travel agent? It strikes me as passing strange. It's fine if the ministry wants to do that and has good reasons for choosing that particular company. But to direct clients of the ministry to use that travel agent, I find very strange.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm so glad that the member for Burnaby North asked that question. Quite frankly, these "clients," as you call them, are always recipients of some help from the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation, which is a Crown corporation — which is Crown money, which is Crown money, which is Crown money. The more business that flows through that travel agency, the less our costs are for travelling around the world.

What happened here was that the ministry was chosen by the travel users' committee, which was created by the office of the comptroller-general, as a pilot ministry to determine the benefits associated with using a single travel agency within a ministry. Since British Columbia Trade was so closely associated with the ministry, they also formed part of the pilot.

Firstly, the reason for this was that since the British Columbia government did not receive any reduction on airline travel costs over the casual traveller — in fact, sometimes it even costs a little more — or any special services as a large corporate user, a pilot project was initiated to review potential cost savings and volume discounts, which we are getting back. It's government money; it's your money we're spending.

The potential benefit of airline bonus points for Crown use — underscore "for Crown use"; so we can get those back into the system — is better service. And, by the way, we tendered it. Among those who applied to the tender in Vancouver were American Express, Goliger's Travel, Hagen's Travel, P. Lawson Travel; and in Victoria, Blaney's Travel, Uniglobe Heritage Travel, Marlin Travel and Travelworld.

Savings are calculated at a 15 percent discount for Asian travel, 10 percent for travel outside Canada and 7 percent for in-Canada travel. We're saving money for the people of B.C. We intend to do that. We intend to get the best bang for the buck, my friend.

MR. JONES: I'd just like to pursue that a bit. First of all, I appreciate that there was a selection process, and I take the minister at his word that it was tendered. If that's the case, then it certainly was appropriate. It seems to me that we have a Crown corporation that operates.... In order to save taxpayers' dollars we want to use this particular service arrived at by tender. Are you telling me that if clients of Uniglobe use that agency, somehow through the Crown corporation, there's a financial saving to the ministry — a sort of kickback? Could you clarify that for me, please?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, I would never use the word "kickback." What I'm telling you is that we are receiving discounts which we would not have obtained had we carried on as before. Large corporate users around the world and around this country receive discounts, and these discounts accrue to the people of British Columbia. They save the people of British Columbia a substantial amount of money.

[6:00]

[ Page 10762 ]

I must underscore that it's a pilot project. We are going to take a look at it for a period of time. If it doesn't work or if there are other benefits, then we'll throw it out and try something else, but right now we're saving money in the deal.

MR. JONES: I just have to pursue that point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Yale-Lillooet on a point of order.

MR. RABBITT: You pack it. That's fine, gentlemen, I'm gone.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We recognized the member on a point of order.

MR. JONES: I just want to pursue that point very briefly, just so that it's clear in my mind how these discounts work. We have a Crown corporation that uses a particular travel agent, and there's a saving of taxpayers' dollars — good work, good stuff. Then there are the clients, who are in receipt of benefits from the Crown corporation. They are also urged to use that particular agency. I thought the minister said there was somehow also a discount to the Crown corporation as a result of those clients using that particular agency.

Now "kickback" is a pejorative word. The minister says "discounts," but I don't see any difference between those two things. I could appreciate the Crown corporation using a particular agency and saving taxpayers' dollars in the process — fair enough. But then to urge clients, who are really at arm's length from government, to use a particular agency, with the Crown corporation, through the process of being directed to that agency, also receiving discounts.... I find that very strange. If you want to call it a discount, that's fine with me. But it's money accruing to the Crown corporation from businesses that are at arm’s length from government.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Quite simply, any of these clients, as you prefer to call them, who don't want to use the service don't have to. But if they are involved in a large buying situation, they're going to travel more cheaply to wherever they're going, so they're going to help themselves. If they don't want to do it — if they don't want to use this service, and they want to pay twice as much money to go someplace — it's up to them; let them. But if I was one of these clients, I'd make sure I saved as much money as could. I'd use the buying power of the government if I could get away with it.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I think I did misunderstand the minister. The benefit accrues to the client, not to the Crown corporation — is that what you're saying?

Interjections.

MR. JONES: Just as long as I understand that the benefit the minister talks about is not to the Crown corporation, but to the client.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: To both? Then I have a problem with that. I have a problem if the Crown benefits from arm's-length relationships out in the business world.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, at the present time, the idea is that if all of the travel within the ministry and the Crown corporation goes through one agency — and as I say, we were asked to do it by the office of the comptroller-general and others — then the Crown saves money, by way of getting a lower rate to travel somewhere. And if one of these clients can also become involved in that and also get to pay a little less for travelling somewhere, they're taking advantage of the more extensive travel that the Crown does. So it helps them; they both benefit. It's a win-win situation, my friend. I know you may not be familiar with it, but it is.

MR. JONES: I want to get this absolutely clear, and all this requires is a yes or no answer. When a client uses Uniglobe, the client benefits. That arm's-length relationship between Uniglobe and the client takes place out there in private industry, and there is no benefit to the Crown corporation as a result of that transaction. So does the Crown benefit from that arm's-length transaction or not?

HON. MR. VEITCH: You can't answer some things yes or no. But I will, as much as I possibly can. Sure, the Crown benefits, because it improves the scale and broadens the number of passengers and dollars that are coming in. We pay a little less and the other folks pay a little less, so it's a win-win situation. I know you don't understand that, but it does happen.

Vote 41 approved.

Vote 42: ministry operations, $21,533,100 — approved.

Vote 43: British Columbia Trade Development Corporation, $11,050,000 — approved.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:06 p.m.