[ Page 11327 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Indian Self Government Enabling Act (Bill 64). Hon. Mr. Weisgerber

Introduction and first reading –– 11327

Adoption Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 73). Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Introduction and first reading –– 11327

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mr. Michael)

On vote 64: minister's office –– 11327

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Zirnhelt

Ms. Edwards

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Provincial Secretary estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Dirks)

On vote 54: minister's office –– 11337

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Bruce

Mr. Jones

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates. (Hon. Mr. Davis)

On vote 21: minister's office –– 11345

Hon. Mr. Davis

Presenting Reports –– 11346

The House met at 9:33 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

INDIAN SELF GOVERNMENT ENABLING ACT

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber presented a message from His Honour the Administrator a bill intituled Indian Self Government Enabling Act.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of introducing this bill because it provides another step towards self-government for many B.C. Indian bands. It does so by facilitating the implementation of Indian taxation bylaws and by offering Indian bands several taxing options.

We have worked in concert with the Indian community in constructing this legislation. We have particularly taken advice from Chief Manny Jules, who spearheaded the federal bill on behalf of Indian people and who heads the national Indian Taxation Advisory Board.

The legislation I am introducing today offers aboriginal people in British Columbia opportunities for greater self-determination.

Bill 64 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.

ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon Mr. Jacobsen presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Adoption Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I move Bill 73 be introduced and read a first time.

The Adoption Amendment Act makes provision for the regulation of private adoptions. Since the 1970s the number of privately arranged adoptions has increased significantly. This amendment provides for the licensing of non-profit adoption agencies to do the work currently being handled privately through a variety of third parties. This amendment is thus not privatizing work done by government but is regulating work already done in the private sector.

The objectives of this amendment act are to improve the quality of service available to relinquishing parents and adopting families and to maximize safeguards for children. The amendment act will neither increase nor decrease the work of ministry staff. The amendment ensures that relinquishing parents will continue to have a choice when placing their child for adoption. They may arrange placement through the ministry or through a licensed, non-profit adoption agency. The amendment act also streamlines the process for adoption of children by their step-parents.

Bill 73 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.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On behalf of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services, I ask leave for that committee to sit this morning at 10:30.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

On vote 64: minister's office, $270,000 (continued).

MS. PULLINGER: I'd like to start this morning by summarizing and tying up what we were doing last night. We were talking about ministry funding for marketing and promotion, the 2 percent hotel-motel surtax and the fact that it's going to go back into the ministry for marketing purposes. We mentioned the GST and Partners in Tourism. I'd just like to tie up that section of this debate.

The minister indicated that the 2 percent surtax will indeed go back into the ministry. I understand that it's a commitment and that some of it may go to the regions but not as core funding to the Partners in Tourism program.

Obviously most of that tax will come from where most hotels are — the lower mainland, Whistler and the Victoria region. So the vast majority comes from that golden area of tourism In British Columbia, and all 100 percent of the tax comes from the accommodations industry. I wonder if the minister could tell me just how that money is to be redistributed around the province? How is it to be allocated? Who decides how and where it will be used both in terms of the industry and in terms of the region? How will those decisions be made and on what basis?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I answered that question last evening. I've told the member, and I'll say it one more time, that we are seeking the advice and input from all of the nine regions, and they meet as a unit. We're seeking the advice of the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council, and they meet regularly. We've asked them for their input and suggestions. We've also asked the hotel and motel industry for their input. Once all the input has been received, the staff will reviewing all of the suggestions. I'm sure that the member and the industry will be pleased with the program to be set out by the ministry sometime in the late fall or early winter of this year.

[ Page 11328 ]

MS. PULLINGER: The minister has suggested this morning, and said last night as well, that he wanted input from the ministry. I would just like to put in the record very clearly that the council of tourism regions has petitioned the government for two things. They've noted the 25 percent reduction in funding for Partners in Tourism in 1987, and since then an approximately 30 percent or greater decline In purchasing power. They're very concerned about two things. One is a longer-term commitment to that program so that the tourism regions will know what their funding will be for longer than just the next 12 months. They have also asked for an increase in funding to the council of tourism regions of $1.2 million to bring that amount up to $4.5 million. Those are two very concrete suggestions from that body, and given the enormous success of that program, I hope that the minister will heed those requests.

Last night I noted for the record some of the problems of the tourism industry. About the goods and services tax, should it come in— which it is obviously going to eventually — the minister didn't respond to my question: what is he doing? What lobbying has he done? What interaction has he had with the federal government to ensure that the problems I mentioned, which are significant ones for the industry, will be at least minimized? I wonder if the minister would answer that for me.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I'm certainly not convinced that the GST is going to come in on January 1, 1991. This government is still very diametrically opposed to the tax. It's a waste of taxpayers' money. It adds literally tens of thousands of extra bureaucrats onto the federal payroll. It's still being fought nationally.

I wouldn't want to give any indication that this government is working with the federal government on the implementation of the GST. As everyone knows, our Premier, the Minister of Finance and the government are very opposed to the GST.

MS. PULLINGER: I still don't have an answer to my question. It's interesting to note that the response is political rhetoric, because we all know this government started by saying that it didn't want to tell Ottawa what to do about taxation. It told this Legislature that it couldn't do anything about the GST. It told this Legislature that it might lobby for some minor changes. But in effect this government has started off by being very neutral about the GST and accepting it right from the beginning. Public opinion has made it change its tune a little bit. I'm glad to see that. It's too bad the minister has no answers; it's too bad the government didn't take a stand initially, rather than waiting for their polling to show them it was time to take a stand on the GST. I don't see any action coming from the minister or the ministry in terms of trying to alleviate the effects of this tax which their political counterparts in Ottawa have decided to go ahead and impose in spite of the opposition. I'm sorry to hear that.

I'd like to ask a couple of questions about the SuperHost program. The main question I would like to ask about that one is what changes the minister has made in the program this year. Has the decision been made to privatize the SuperHost program?

[9:45]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Suffice to say that the SuperHost program has been one of the most widely accepted programs ever brought in by the Ministry of Tourism. It certainly did a tremendous job for all British Columbians and visitors alike in 1986. It has carried on and grown from there. We have no intention of privatizing that service.

MS. PULLINGER: As we all know, there has been enormous concern around the province about the Via Rail cuts, again by the federal government, the government's counterparts in Ottawa. The government has fought and won for the status quo, but as we all know, the status quo was unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. Tourism obviously is one way to use the existing rail lines very much to the benefit of the industry and the people of British Columbia. I think that railway transportation and other forms of mass transportation are not a thing of a past; rather they're the way of the future as we move further into the present environmental crisis. It seems to me then that it would be most worthwhile for this minister and this ministry to be looking very carefully at the potential of rail lines in this province.

I wonder if the minister can tell me if he has considered using or decided to use, for instance, the E&N rail line on the Island for tourism. Obviously that railway can be used to connect all the small towns up and down the Island such as Duncan, Chemainus, Ladysmith, Nanaimo and so on up. It could be extended to Port Alberni and Campbell River and connected with whale-watching tours, sightseeing trips and pocket cruises back to Victoria. There is also the potential for a ski train on the E&N rail. I wonder if the minister could tell me if his ministry is looking at either that railway or any of the others that have been brought to his attention, such as the one that Mr. Tod has been writing to the minister about.

There was a piece in the paper yesterday showing that one of the small rail lines on the Alberta border is just overwhelmed with business. Its popularity among tourists is enormous. I think we have that same potential for railways in British Columbia, be it the Kettle Valley or the E&N. Is the minister exploring any of those options?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: As the member is well aware, this government certainly opposed the cuts in Via Rail. However, the federal government seems to be coming down a little bit hard on British Columbia, and I don't know how much support we're getting from the representatives of the members opposite back in Ottawa on those issues.

I can say that we're extremely pleased with the service that the privatized train, the Rocky Mountaineer, is giving to the province and to tourism in general, running between Vancouver and Calgary and

[ Page 11329 ]

Vancouver and Edmonton with overnight stops in Kamloops. It has certainly meant a lot to the tourism industry in Kamloops. It would appear at this time that that privatized service is going to do better than they had originally projected. I would think that the first year's customers on the Rocky Mountaineer will exceed the volume that Via Rail used to bring into B.C. That's just one privatized service.

It would also appear that there's an extremely good chance that the Royal Canadian will get underway, which is a Toronto to Vancouver privatized run, starting In April or May of 1991. So we're certainly looking forward to that as well.

Regarding the rail line on Vancouver Island, Via Rail is still the custodian and the owner of that service and is still providing the service. If Via Rail has a business plan on which they would like some cooperation and input from the Minister of Tourism, I would certainly be prepared to look at it. If there is any other entrepreneur anywhere in the province with a business plan regarding rail service that they would like to bring to the Minister of Tourism, I would be pleased to be the facilitator. If there is anyone with any pocket tour ideas or any ideas whatsoever regarding tourism growth and development who would like to meet with the Minister of Tourism, I can tell the member that my door is always open.

MS. PULLINGER: I am pleased that the minister is willing to consider some of those options. However, I would like to suggest that the people of British Columbia have paid — and paid dearly — for the railway. For instance, the Esquimalt to Nanaimo line — the E&N — cost the people of this province a quarter of Vancouver Island with all the best resources, timber and mineral rights. It cost us ten years of tax-free money, and way back before the year 1900 it cost us $750,000. Obviously that's an enormous amount of money, of land and of value.

Taxpayers have paid dearly for railways, and it seems to me that if there's a profit to be made, we ought to return it to the taxpayers — certainly in the case of the E&N and many of the other lines. The government already owns a railway in this province and that too — it was our first Crown corporation, I might add — has cost an enormous amount of taxpayers' dollars.

If the government chose to be innovative and enlist some talent to run tourism lines in numerous places around the province, I think that it would be of great benefit to tourism generally — especially regional tourism — to take people out into the regions. Transportation, as we know, is not just a way to move people; it's an attraction in itself.

I also think that there could be some return to the taxpayers of British Columbia. I think that option is worth looking at, and I hope the minister doesn't ignore that option because of his ideology or philosophy that says that everything must be run by the private sector. I think there are some great benefits to be had there, and I hope the minister is willing to look at those.

I'd like to ask a few questions about the Islands Trust and tourism development on the Islands Trust.

First of all, perhaps the minister would tell me what he thinks of the kind of development that's being heavily promoted for many of the Islands. There was a Whistler-type development proposed for Galiano; there's one that is currently happening at Bedwell Harbour; and there was another one on Bowen Island. Can the minister tell the House what the position of the ministry is on those developments?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The answer is that there's a process in place, and I expect everybody to abide by the process — go through all the hoops and make sure that they've got their zoning in place and that they meet all the environmental standards for sewers, water, etc., abiding by the rules as set out by the various legislative bodies.

MS. PULLINGER: There's great concern on the islands that some of that development — while no one is against tourism development for the islands — is inappropriate for our islands and contravenes the Islands Trust and the community plan. In the case of Bedwell Harbour, there's an enormous amount of opposition, and there's concern that this ministry is supporting development that the people of South Pender vehemently oppose.

Given the fact that the tourism that works best is the tourism that grows out of the community, the culture and the history of any given area, I wonder if the minister could tell us what his intention is with the trust. Will he continue to support the Bedwell Harbour development and to provide it funding when it contravenes the community plan and there is enormous opposition to it?

HON. MR. MICHAEL Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that the Bedwell Harbour development met the framework and guidelines and went through the process. I'm not aware that it's contravening any community plan.

MS. PULLINGER: Recently the Ministry of Tourism, in conjunction with the federal government, awarded several hundred thousand dollars to a Snug Cove development on Bowen Island. Part of that approval and part of the qualification for that $660,000 was that the proposed development was a destination tourism resort.

There are a couple of things wrong with that. I wonder if the minister could tell me, first of all, why he has designated this project in Snug Cove as a destination tourism resort when there is no accommodation involved in the development, which is one of the criteria for that designation.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Unfortunately the press sometimes screw up press releases even though they are handed out in print and names are put beside statements that are made by respective ministers; and even though a correction is made by the minister the

[ Page 11330 ]

following day, the press does not print a correction. Unfortunately there was a screw-up on this release as it was written by the Vancouver Province.

I at no time made reference to that being a destination resort, comparing it with Whistler. That statement was not made by me. The evidence will clearly show it was not made by me.

All I can say is that it was an application that went through the proper channels; it went through the process. It met all the standards, and it qualified for the loan that it received.

MS. PULLINGER: Given that the minister is backing away from the position.... It was in the federal press release that you were quoted. I don't know why they would release something without your knowledge. In the federal press release you were quoted as saying that this was a destination resort.

I wonder if you could tell me under which part of TIDSA this resort qualified for funding, if it was not a destination resort.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Program B, product development.

MS. PULLINGER: The other thing that's interesting is that for this development to take place there needs to be some dredging done in Snug Cove and a breakwater built. There have been a significant number of federal taxpayers' dollars allocated for that. However, as long as two years ago, the bottom of Snug Cove was tested and found to be very toxic, probably because of the mills and inadequate dealing with sewage from the Island and surrounding areas.

I wonder if the minister would tell me why this government has chosen to give $330,000 to a development that cannot proceed because of pollution. It has nowhere to dump the dredged material.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I know very little from a technical point of view about the specifics and intricacies of the Bowen Island development. Suffice to say that from our point of view and from TIDSA's point of view, there would not be any funds forthcoming unless all the standards, concerns and process had been gone through. Beyond that, I cannot answer technical questions. Perhaps the member could get better information from Islands Trust or the Minister of Environment.

[10:00]

MS. PULLINGER: Okay. I'll give you a little more information. A man named Rondy Dike, an American, has applied for the TIDSA loan of over $600,000. His ability to develop the marina that he would like to depends on the successful dredging of Snug Cove and the building of a breakwater. Those two projects have been held up and, in fact, were put on hold before the minister decided to allocate $600,000 of taxpayers' money to this project. I'm not asking about the technicalities of the project. I am simply asking why, when the project is on hold, the government decided to go ahead and allocate those funds to this American developer.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I would be extremely surprised — and I don't have the wording in front of me — if the granting and forwarding of those funds was not contingent upon those types of problems being resolved. It's the normal process.

MS. PULLINGER: It seems to me, especially when there's great opposition to the development — Bowen Island is in a state of flux right now politically in terms of restructuring and so on — that a responsible government would make sure that a project is viable before it gave away large amounts of taxpayers' dollars. The appearance certainly is that this loan was made without any research into how they were going to ultimately resolve the problem of the contaminated sea-bed material. As I say, that problem was evident a long time ago. Certainly the whole thing was stopped well before this government gave any money to the project.

I have one last area that I would like to canvass: the Music '91 project you've come up with. I'd like to start off by saying that I think the mandate, as I understand it, of Music '91 is good. It's essentially to promote tourism in the regions and to provide a balance and a fleshing-out of our image as supernatural British Columbia — our clean environment. I understand also that it's to offset the fact that tourism from the United States is dropping, perhaps because our supernatural image is being very badly tarnished by the ongoing misuse of our resources. Also, the spectre of the goods and services tax is going to impact us very heavily in British Columbia.

I'm dismayed that the minister is not taking direct action with the federal government over the GST but is instead trying to find ways of alleviating the effects through this kind of program. Nevertheless, the concept is certainly acceptable and could indeed be very beneficial to B.C. tourism.

I understand that the director of communications of Music '91 has made the claim that over 80 percent of the 100 planned events will take place outside the lower mainland. I just wonder if the minister would care to confirm that and also to elaborate on precisely what the mandate of Music '91 is.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: First of all, I'd like to say just for the record that there's no evidence that U.S. tourists are staying away from British Columbia because of our misuse of resources. You may be able to measure that to the 0.001 degree, but there's certainly no evidence in my office, in my records or in the data that I read that would indicate that in any way. There's certainly an indication that the price of gasoline is a deterrent; there's certainly a fear that in 1991 the GST, if it does indeed come, could have an effect on tourism. Some people are saying that it could have an effect to the degree of perhaps 2 to 4 percentage points — maybe as high as 5 percentage points.

[ Page 11331 ]

Music '91 is certainly going to be an instrument; it's going to be a promotion shared equally by the provincial government and the private sector. We've already got major sponsors signed up and many more on the drawing-boards, which I expect to see announced in the next little while.

The idea of Music '91 is to take festivals throughout the entire province and to all communities. But more than that, Music '91 will give the current festivals, events and concerts being staged across the province top-notch entertainers to boost them and make them profitable in 1991. They themselves will be able to carry on in 1992, 1993 and 1994 with a bit of a bankroll and bring in top-notch entertainers.

MS. PULLINGER: I'm a bit surprised at that response of the minister, saying that it's to make these events profitable. I know, for instance, looking through who's been accepted and rejected so far, that the events the government has chosen to accept their applications for Music '91 programs are large ones like the Vancouver Island Exhibition. I'm not suggesting for a minute that they shouldn't be part of this program; I think that's good. But It does seem a bit strange that we're taking the vastly growing exhibitions, fairs and events.... However, I certainly don't quibble with the fact that they can be added to.

I'm interested to know if this is expected to be largely a rural program. I understand the objective is to get tourists out into the regions. Can the minister explain to me, then, why nearly half of the promotional events are taking place in the lower mainland? I find that a bit mystifying if the object is to raise interest and participation out in the regions.

Of the 18 promotional events scheduled to take place, ten took place outside the lower mainland, seven in the lower mainland and one in Victoria. Not too long ago I was in the Oakridge Shopping Centre in Vancouver, and I discovered there that in two arms of the centre were enormous displays and entertainers as part of this program. I find that to be inconsistent with the mandate of the program. Could the minister explain?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: First of all, briefing notes regarding Bowen Island, under the heading "Approvals." The project has received necessary approvals from Islands Trust and the GVRD, and it's supported by and is conditional upon dredging and breakwater work by the federal government.

Regarding Music '91, the promotions that are taking place.... I believe 16 centres have been chosen throughout the province. One of the problems we've had in expanding it beyond 16 is the size of the malls. The way the presentation was designed, it must be a good-sized mall in order to facilitate it. The number that was chosen after looking at all of the problems and the configurations was 16. However, I can assure the member that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 70 festivals — the vast majority of them outside the lower mainland region — will benefit from Music '91 between May and October of next year.

MS. PULLINGER: I understood the main thrust of this program was to bring in big-name entertainers to promote these regions in regional events. If we can't have the promotional events in the regions because of a lack of facilities, how then does the minister plan to have big-name entertainers in the regions? Surely if we can't have the promotional event, there's no way we can find either the facilities or the audience to draw upon out in the regions. How does the minister propose to make that work?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Two things. First of all, we may be expanding the current road show beyond 16 and decreasing the size of the display. That's one thing that is currently being considered by the board. The other thing the member should be aware of is that in 1991 these festivals and concerts will not be taking place inside malls. They will be taking place in their traditional settings, which are of adequate size. Whether it's a stampede or a community festival, they are held and staged in parks.... As an example, the Bluegrass Festival on the north shore of the Shuswap is held on a very large farm site where it wouldn't be fitting to put in a show in 1990 to promote this thing.

I can assure the member that in 1991 there will be big-name entertainers offered to in excess of 70 festivals throughout the province.

MS. PULLINGER: How many big-name entertainers? How many major events with big-name entertainers, which is one of the major thrusts of this program as it has been advertised? How many will be coming into the province? Where are they going to be located?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: It's somewhat early to get into the details of all the big-name entertainers. One of the things we find about big-name entertainers is that they are not always that anxious to sign contracts one year in advance. Many of them don't like signing contracts any more than six months in advance, and some of them three months in advance, depending on how they are riding in the opinion polls at that point in time.

I can assure the member that she and the province in general will be pleased with what happens in 1991. We are not only supporting and beefing up the festivals and concerts throughout the province, but we are also going to be having three road shows with their own tents and entertainment all built in.

All in all, it's going to be a great year. I can also tell the member that as the road shows travel throughout the province, which will start in May and head right into October, the show itself will be changing. The personalities and leaders will be changing as the show traverses the province. If you see one show in May, it could be entirely different in July. With all the opportunities to enjoy music and enjoy entertainment in 1991, I think you are going to see a lot of people within the province of British Columbia travelling to a variety of communities. I can see Nanaimo people coming to Victoria, Victoria

[ Page 11332 ]

people going to Campbell River and things along those lines to cause a lot of tourism in 1991.

MS. PULLINGER: I wasn't asking about the road show; I was asking about the big-name events. There are three levels to this, as I understand it. The top level is the big-name events. I'm not asking about who has signed contracts or even who's going to sign contracts. What I'm asking is how many big-name entertainers the minister is planning to bring into British Columbia in the five or six months of this Year of Music. What is the regional plan? How does the minister expect to get those big-name entertainers out into the regions?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I just have to advise the member that I'm not going to be entering into releasing contracts or names. There's a tremendous amount of negotiation going on with literally scores of people at this point in time. I don't think it would be wise to release any names or give any false assumptions. Indeed, it could damage the negotiations that are currently in place.

If the member would like details as to the particular communities that will be touched by the road shows or the festivals that will be beefed up by top-notch entertainers, I would gladly provide the member with that, upon written request.

MS. PULLINGER: Let me try this a third time; maybe I'll get lucky on the third shot. What I said last time was that I am not asking for contract details or names. The minister indicates a willingness to tell me which communities the road show will go into and will touch. I'm simply asking for the same kind of plan for the big-name entertainers. How many big name entertainers are you going to bring into the province, Mr. Minister? Let me tell you a fourth time: I am not asking for their names or the details of their contracts. How many? Numbers. And how do you plan to get those people out into the regions? What's your plan for the province for the big-name entertainers?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Well, I am again somewhat at a loss for words, other than to repeat that at least 70 communities will be touched by big-name entertainers. Whether one entertainer does one, five or ten — or the name of the entertainer — I cannot state at this time.

How are we going to get them here? We'll get them through the normal process, whether it be by airplane, bus or whatever mode of transportation.

How are we going to entice them here? I suppose there are several ways you can entice them. We're talking fairly substantive amounts of money, and we're also talking about offering them family packages to come and visit "super, natural" British Columbia. We're enticing them with other benefits that a normal person might be enticed by.

[10:15]

MS. PULLINGER: It's not much wonder there are so many problems on the other side of the House. They seem to have a fundamental problem understanding the English language. I obviously am not going to get any responses to my questions, and I would suggest that the reason for that is because what they're putting forward as the main thrust of this program — the big-name entertainers out in the region — is in fact impossible. They can't do it. There are not the facilities or the ability to draw a large enough crowd to support that kind of thing. That is the reason the minister is skidding all over the place and giving me an answer to everything but the question I ask.

However, given that, let me ask how much is allocated. Is it 100 percent lottery funds — this $12 million? And will all of that $12 million be spent in the period between the launch in February — which I understand cost a quarter of a million dollars — and the initiation of the actual road show at the end of May? What is the budget figure for that time period?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, the words that were just said by the member opposite ring a bit of a bell on the kinds of words we heard from the opposition back in 1983, 1984 and 1985 prior to Expo — that it couldn't be done, what a failure it was going to be; and indeed, telegrams were sent by the Leader of the Opposition asking for the cancellation of Expo.

I can assure the member that this government and this ministry are very confident that the 70 festivals will be a success. They will be a bigger success than they've ever been in previous years.

Regarding money, the Lottery Fund is committed to $12 million for Music '91. We have a small board of directors in place, who are managing that money. The chairman of the board is Mike Horsey, who is the president of the B.C. Pavilion Corporation. We have a lot of people giving up their valuable time and donating it to the province by serving on that board of directors. It is anticipated that the private sector will not only match the $12 million and make it a $24 million promotion, but we're optimistic enough to say that they will more than match the money put up by the provincial government through the Lottery Fund.

MS. PULLINGER: How much of the $12 million is going to be spent in the 16 months from the kick-off in February to the beginning of this project at the end of May 1991?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: It will depend on the current decisions being made by the board, and whether or not they're going to expand the show beyond the current 16 communities for the year 1990. I don't have those figures. I can just tell you what the overall budget is, and perhaps when those figures are made available to me, I'll be able to pass them on to the member.

[ Page 11333 ]

MS. PULLINGER: Can you tell me then, if you can't answer how much is going to be spent in the 16 months advertising this show, how much is allocated to promotion and how much is allocated to the event itself?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I can't provide those figures, Mr. Chairman. All I can say is that the global budget committed by the provincial government is $12 million, and we expect the private sector to match or exceed the figure of $12 million.

MS. PULLINGER: Will the minister confirm that 100 percent of the government funding for this will come from lottery funds — in other words, zero from the Ministry of Tourism?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: In general, what the member says is correct, Mr. Chairman.

MS. PULLINGER: Thank you for the very general answer.

Can the minister tell me what the involvement of the primary marketing agencies — the nine regional tourism marketing associations — has been in the planning process of this event?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, the responsibility of the regions is to manage tourism within their region. Naturally it follows that they have a very high degree of interest in Music '91, and the Music '91 board are certainly anxious and willing to work through the regions and look for advice on top-notch festivals. There's a lot of communication. They act as catalyst and facilitator in many instances, reaching out and providing Music '91 with information on request.

MS. PULLINGER: I take it that there was no involvement in the development and planning of the event; the nine regional tourism associations weren't consulted. There have been four agencies chosen to hire for the road show. Obviously there are many agencies in British Columbia qualified to do that. Can the minister tell us how the selection process came about for those four agencies? Were they put out to tender?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: An agency review was held, Mr. Chairman.

MS. PULLINGER: There was no democratic process then; they were just selected by the government. Is that what the minister is telling me?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: By the board.

MS. PULLINGER: Okay. But the minister didn't ask for any applications or tendering from these hiring agencies. Is that correct?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I did not get involved in that to any degree. I couldn't name a single one of the agencies. The member has found out that there are four. It's my information that there was due process and that interviews were set up by the board of directors. But as for the number or the names of the agencies, I can't name them.

MS. PULLINGER: To alleviate concerns in the community out there and among the people involved in this business, I wonder if the minister would like to put on the record what that process was — to show us that it was indeed a fair and impartial process.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I'm advised that it was a fair process.

MS. PULLINGER: We still don't know what that process was. I find it difficult to accept the minister's word that it was a fair process. I would like to know what the process was. Is the minister not prepared to tell us that?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: If the member has an interest in that area, Mr. Chairman, I would gladly get the information from staff and provide it to her.

MS. PULLINGER: Thank you. I'd appreciate that, and I will pass it on to those who have contacted me with their concerns.

I have one final comment about Music '91. I wonder, first of all, if you could tell me how often these rather lengthy promotional newspapers are being published for Music '91. How many have been published, and where are they delivered?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: If the member is not on the mailing-list, I'll see that she is put on the list so there can be an accurate accounting kept of how often they come out. I would think that there is one tailored to each of the communities that the pre-road-show is visiting. I'm sure that it's safe to say there would be 16 issues put out if there are 16 communities being visited. There were certainly at least three or four issues put out prior to the pre-road-shows.

MS. PULLINGER: Obviously the minister has no plans for any of this, or if there are, he's not about to divulge most of them.

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER: That's a good idea. I'll ask someone else.

I'm interested to note, for instance, in the first one that crossed my desk — and it's six pages — that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Dirks) had his picture in it three times; the Minister of Tourism, four times; the Premier, three times. The Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser), now acting Attorney-General, has his picture in it; the Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Messmer) has his picture in it twice; the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) has his picture in it once; the Minister of Transportation And Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) has her picture in it once; the Minister of

[ Page 11334 ]

Municipal Affairs (Hon. L. Hanson) has his picture in it once; the Minister of International Business and Immigration (Hon. Mr. Veitch) has his picture in it; as do the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) and the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds). Isn't that amazing?

In the second one, the Minister of Tourism has his picture in six times and the Premier five times. I guess things were getting worse for the government. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is in the next one. Then there's the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and the Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen). Then, of course, the swing riding, the first member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) — a nice little plug for the Cariboo area. The Minister of Parks was also in that one. I find this absolutely fascinating.

MR. LOVICK: What about the backbenchers? Do they have any backbenchers?

MS. PULLINGER: They have two backbenchers: the first member for Cariboo and the first member for Dewdney. Obviously they're concerned about those seats.

That's one of the reasons I was....

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER: No, it's funded by lotteries.

It's obviously done on the basis of who needs their face out there a little bit more. I was complaining yesterday about one of the ministers promoting the members to the north and south of the Nanaimo riding as being local MLAs. This seems to be the same kind of propaganda, if you like, in which taxpayers' dollars are again spent to promote Social Credit. God knows they need that kind of promotion — they need any help they can get at this point — but I would suggest that maybe there are better ways to spend money in these than promoting your own members. On that happy note, I will.... If the minister would care to comment on the Social Credit promotion papers, I would be happy to hear his comments. Otherwise I'll turn it over to the member for Cariboo.

[10:30]

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'd like to raise the issue of the promotion of the Wells-Barkerville area after the contamination problem there. I know that the first member for Cariboo was disappointed that these people would be blockading the road or putting up information pickets and suggesting that the area is contaminated.

The problem that precipitated their concern had to do with the fact that the contamination had been known for some time. It was studied for several years. Then the document from Environment was, in effect, leaked to the press, it was published and everybody had a copy. A committee was set up, but there were no answers given. I wrote to you and asked you in the House whether or not you would be trying to set up a program similar to the one in the Okanagan, letting tourists know that it is safe to travel through the area.

You replied in your letter that the tourist association would be the ones you would be in contact with. I think it's the local chamber of commerce in particular that is most urgently concerned, and I wonder if you have given any consideration to this and to maybe having a program ready to go for these people before the end of this season. There is still time left in this season, and it's going to make quite a difference to the people in that area.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I've already asked the staff to have a look at that.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm sure you'll be ready, then. Can you confirm that they've been in touch with you directly, rather than just through me? Have they initiated a request?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I can report that I'm aware of the issue up there, and I have advised the staff to have a look at it.

MR. ZIRNHELT: The next one has to do with the role of your ministry in advocating on behalf of the industry to other government departments. The first one is the Serving It Right program. We get a lot of complaints from people running isolated resorts where there's quite a high staff turnover. They still find It expensive to send these people out, and it's not always convenient.... When the courses are offered in the area, quite often their staff is new, and it's turning over all the time. I wonder if you have considered going to your colleague the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen), who runs this program, and asking him to be more responsive to the isolated areas by developing a correspondence course or some other more easily accessible program, so that they can have their people trained.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I can advise that I have already spoken to the minister, and indeed, some adjustments have been made to ease the burden on certain areas of the private sector. I would offer an invitation to the member that if he is aware of any entrepreneur having difficulty meeting the standards and requirements, please have that person contact me, or please give me all the Information, and I can assure the member that I will work diligently on their behalf.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I would be pleased to do that, and I appreciate your continuing assistance to these people.

In a similar vein, there is the signage policy of the Ministry of Highways. You are probably aware of that and have been working with committees, but I have recently become aware that there are still some niggling problems. They are small problems, but they still require some fine-tuning of that policy. What is

[ Page 11335 ]

your ministry doing to ensure that tourism operators are well represented through the ministry to the Ministry of Highways?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I can assure the member that the policy is under continual review. I have attended a committee meeting recently to sit in and observe the problems and discussions that were going on. I think the sign policy is first-class — and I am sure the member will agree. It has been well received throughout the province, but suffice it to say, there naturally are problems following the implementation of a policy as big and as widespread as that. I can assure the member that we're working to bring the complaints down to the zero level. Whether we'll ever do that or not, I doubt, but we're certainly working in that direction.

Once again, please make sure any complaints or concerns are filtered into the office of the Minister of Tourism. We have a seat on that committee, and we assure the member that we will continue to carry those concerns forward to try to satisfy entrepreneurs throughout British Columbia.

MR. ZIRNHELT: My final question has to do with the involvement of your ministry in integrated resource management through the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Forests or your own activities. I have done a bit of work in the past with some of your fishing-lodge-owners by way of integrating them into planning processes, and I know that a lot of tourism operators of fishing-camps have a real concern that part of the product they're selling is the natural environment both surrounding their lodge and in some of the areas they go into. I wonder what your ministry is doing to become more involved at the local or regional or district level — somewhat more localized than the very broad regional planning that goes on in forest regions. What are you doing to protect, for example, the need for not logging down to lakeshores and for protecting fish habitat and so on?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: We have a direct line into the forest resource planning committee. We have a senior person assigned from our ministry to give advice to that committee on tourism concerns.

MR. ZIRNHELT: The direct line to the forest resource planning committee — do you mean the timber supply area planning committees? Do you expect to be represented on timber supply area planning committees?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we participate when invited or when there's a concern expressed by a tourism operator.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I think the problem with timber supply areas — I've raised this with the other ministers — is that they tend to be very large-scale and can only be most general in nature. If I can be more specific for a minute, the Cariboo Tourist Association has developed a statement of concerns which has to do with the protection of viewscapes and resource management that relates to the need for the protection of their industry. They have no tenure on any of this land, so they have no direct power; it's only indirect. Of course, the Ministry of Forests has most of the control, although we understand that timber is not always number one in provincial forests. It is possible that other land uses are primary.

In their efforts in the past through the Ministry of Crown Lands, the people you represent — the tourism operators — have tried to ensure that planning for Crown land took into account their interests, only to find out that that is not under the control of the Ministry of Crown Lands; it's under Ministry of Forests control. That puts you right back to needing to be involved so that the playing-field is somewhat level. Other than just representing concerns, I wonder what power and influence you have to protect the industry at the planning table.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: My deputy sits on the deputies' sustainable development committee. The minister sits on the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development and the Cabinet Committee on Environment and Land Use. Those were the concerns expressed by the industry, and I think the government has dealt with those concerns,

MR. ZIRNHELT: Finally, I appreciate that integration can take place at the highest level; I'm not doubting that. My concern is really about operational-level planning. What it comes right down to is that there may be a small business program licence from the Ministry of Forests that takes an area that has been left around a lake and decides that it should be logged, and that doesn't come under any planning at the moment. Unless the tourist industry can force a local resource use plan in an area, it comes down to there being no table to sit around. Making operational the intent of the policy remains extremely difficult.

I wonder if your ministry is involved actively in the establishment of planning groups, zoning processes or something that is proactive, so that the operators don't have to take valuable time at the height of the season to be reactive to a situation with respect to some resource — usually a forest resource — that has a plan which will affect the resource they're involved in protecting.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: We are proactive in areas where we are interested in the development of a land use plan for tourism purposes. I'd just like to remind the member that we have a relatively small staff with a tremendously large scope and mandate. We only have 77 people; the Ministry of Forests, conversely, has several thousand. We depend on the Ministry of Forests for consideration in planning. I know that the minister does have great concerns for the development of the tourism industry. As we are alerted and advised that issues at the local level are a concern, we can involve our staff to some degree. I repeat that the

[ Page 11336 ]

Minister of Tourism serves on the Cabinet Committee on Environment and Land Use and the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I've had the opportunity to see the video that I think your department was involved in producing on sustainable development and how it relates to the tourism industry and to promoting British Columbia. I would just like to compliment your ministry and all the people involved in developing that. It carries a fairly powerful message. If you are successful in using it as one of the aids, then your staff, who are few in number, can convey the message of your ministry to other ministries.

MS. EDWARDS: First of all, I have a fairly simple question for the minister, to which I hope he can give a good, solid, positive answer with a great deal of enthusiasm. My question is: what has the minister decided to do to address the problem at our heritage sites, such as Fort Steele? The problem is that they do not totally represent the multicultural background of the development of the province.

I will put to you the example of the Chinese and their influence on mining and on the community at Fort Steele. There is nothing in the development of Fort Steele which represents the fact that the Chinese were very heavily into the mining that was done there. They in fact carried on the prospecting and placer mining at Fort Steele for years. They were a very essential part of the community of Fort Steele, and the heritage of that particular culture is not represented at all. Has the minister considered that situation, and is he prepared to begin almost as soon as he can to rectify that situation?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I would suggest to the member that she contact the minister in charge of Fort Steele and the minister in charge of culture.

MS. EDWARDS: I intend to do that. However, I would like the Minister of Tourism also to recognize the fact that that is an important part of what draws tourists to Fort Steele and to attractions such as Fort Steele.

I will move on, however, since I understand the minister is probably going to say he doesn't have anything to do with it, since he's not funding it. I think the minister has a lot to do with it, and he should be encouraging that kind of expansion of the attractions that we have.

[10:45]

I want now to tell you a little story, which everyone is welcome to listen to. I've told parts of this story before, but I expanded it this year. I occasionally drive across the Alberta-British Columbia border. I have already told this House about driving from Calgary to Revelstoke one time, and coming across the Alberta border into British Columbia. Having passed on Highway 1 all the huge embellishments to travel in Alberta, which you lose and leave at the Alberta border when you come into British Columbia, I was confronted with a sign which says: "Use of seatbelts compulsory in British Columbia." And then it says: "You are in B.C."

Shortly after the border, we ran into a huge tourist booth; it looks lovely — brand-new, round roof, attractive, parking-lot, going to be able to get a glass of water, restrooms and the whole thing. It belongs — on B.C. territory — to the province of Alberta. As I understand it, British Columbia was offered the opportunity to participate in building and operating that tourist booth, but decided not to.

I further experienced what every driver into British Columbia by Highway 1 finds, and that is that there is no place to find information on British Columbia until you get to Golden. The minister is fairly familiar with that kind of distance, but he is also probably familiar with the fact that you don't even find an information booth in Golden up on the highway; you find it down below. As I said, I've gone into this before.

As I understand it, there are minimal attempts to correct that now, and maybe we will have an information booth on Highway 1 by the time we have traveled a full half-hour or more into Golden, into British Columbia, after having passed the huge, attractive and active Tourism Alberta booth which is on British Columbia's side of the border.

I will now tell the minister about a trip I took this spring with some visitors from out of the province. We had to spend an hour or so in the Elk Valley with little to do but look around. Where do you go? Well, I can tell the minister that there is no development at the Hosmer coke ovens. There is no development at the Michel collieries, which should be a Canadian national heritage site. There is no development of any kind to amuse a visitor for an hour or two.

So where do you go? You go across the Alberta border to the Frank slide museum or the Leach collieries, or you could go further if you were travelling for any length of time, which we weren't. But there's a whole tourist corridor which also goes on to the Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump. The Albertans are working hard at their tourism in this area, and they have very good establishments.

When we went into Alberta, there was a huge, gate-like structure similar to what happens when you go into national parks. It's very welcoming, and says: "Welcome to Alberta. Alberta does this for you. Please stop and stay." There is another tourist booth. That is lovely. When we came back into British Columbia, we had this marvellous information that seatbelts are compulsory in British Columbia. By the time you get to a small pull-off on the road where there's a Crowsnest lake campsite, you have a sign that says: "You are in British Columbia." Well, hurrah! There is no tourist information booth until you have travelled almost a half-hour and are in Sparwood.

This is a sad situation, considering that the average summer daily traffic on Highway 1 in 1987 — and it has increased considerably since then — was 5,541 cars. On Highway 3 it's 2,689 cars. That's a lot of cars to be going past these marvellous Alberta facilities and nothing in British Columbia.

[ Page 11337 ]

I have three border entries in my riding, and another one just beyond the edge of my riding, the Creston one. Actually, I think the Kingsgate one is in mine, and there's one further down the way. I have four; I counted it wrong. I've got the Kingsgate, which is just on the border of my riding, the Eureka one, the south country one and the one near the Alberta border.

These crossings should have welcome signs. They should have the most marvellous welcome to all these visitors we brought in. You will remember how you and I and everybody raved about them coming in for Expo and then coming again the next year and increasing their numbers. But I'll tell you, the numbers are not increasing so greatly. There's no reason in the world why we shouldn't use this efficient and effective way of welcoming visitors, of having some kind of welcome at the borders of the province.

I see the minister waving his white flag in surrender. I'm sure the minister is going to say that we, as a provincial ministry, recognize the value of that, the efficient way of spending money, and we are going to put up welcoming facilities, including information centres, at the border points. If that's the case, I will be happy to sit down and listen to the minister tell me about it.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: They are already ordered. They will be up soon.

MS. EDWARDS: May I ask a grammatical question? To what does the "they" refer? Are you talking about silly little signs or about information centres?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Welcome signs.

Vote 64 approved.

Vote 65: ministry operations, $24,681,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

On vote 54: minister's office, $272,757.

HON. MR. DIRKS: It's a pleasure for me today to speak on the 1990-91 estimates for my ministry.

Provincial Secretary is a very diverse and important ministry that has a threefold mandate.

First of all, my ministry provides essential services for the administration of government, including protocol, administration of elections, the processing and custody of official documents and the management of government records and archives.

Secondly, the ministry manages community-based public programs, including lottery grants and multiculturalism, and provides administrative support for the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities.

The third ministry mandate is the planning and coordination of information and services across government in order to ensure that the government's policies, programs and initiatives are presented in a clear, accurate and consistent manner.

I'd like to take a few moments to briefly review activities in some of these areas.

Due to the continuing achievements of the B.C. Lottery Corporation and the resulting increase of contributions to the B.C. Lottery Fund, the lottery grants program continues to support a broad range of community programs. As you know, we have strengthened the lottery grant program by establishing strict guidelines to ensure that all applications are given fair and consistent treatment and public moneys are disbursed in a prudent manner.

A major objective of my ministry is to broaden and strengthen the province's support for multiculturalism. British Columbia is committed to developing a harmonious society where differences are respected and traditions cherished. We have established a multicultural programs office with staff who work closely with the provincial Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage.

Another priority of our government is to encourage and promote greater participation by persons with disabilities in all aspects of the social, economic and cultural life of British Columbia. We have a very active 13-member Premier's Advisory Council for Persons With Disabilities, which is serving a key role in helping us achieve this objective.

Elections British Columbia also comes under the Provincial Secretary's mandate. Ministry staff in that area have had a very busy year. As required by the Election Act, a provincial enumeration was carried out last year and new voter identification cards were issued to all registered British Columbians. Also, following the establishment of new electoral districts, the elections branch prepared new regional electoral maps, amended voter records and converted street indexes.

Another important Provincial Secretary responsibility is archives and records management. One of our major objectives is to strengthen community archives development in British Columbia. To that end, we recently announced two programs to encourage and support archival development: the community archives assistance program and the community archives advisory and training program.

In summary, ours is a ministry of diverse activities, providing services to government and the public. I am proud and honoured to be the Provincial Secretary, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the ministry for their hard work and dedication. Joining me on the floor this morning to help in the estimates are the Deputy Provincial Secretary, Mel Smith, and the assistant deputy, John Mochrie.

MR. D'ARCY: I welcome the minister's opening statement, even though there was really very little in it that is new or unknown to British Columbians. I do have some questions for the minister, however.

As the publicity surrounding the grant for the recycling program in White Rock circled, the minister made the comment that he intended to tighten up

[ Page 11338 ]

procedures. Everyone welcomed that comment. Perhaps the minister can elucidate for this House and the people of B.C. just what procedures are being tightened up and how. On that note, I would suggest to the minister, as has been suggested by the ombudsman, the comptroller-general and the auditor-general at various times in the past ten years in various reports to this minister and to previous ministers that were tabled in this House, that the best way to restore public faith in the granting progress and the general disbursement of lottery funds is simply to let a little sunshine in— not just to tighten up the procedures but essentially to have firm guidelines, defensibly prepared and defensibly presented to the public of British Columbia, and a defensible method of approving and disbursing grants.

In case the minister or anybody on his side of the House might be concerned that the perceived political benefit, shall we say, of granting any given grant in a community would be lost to the party in power, I might note that I believe — and, I submit, so does most of the public — that if the government is making the right decision, then the same political credit that may accrue under the existing circumstances would still accrue to them, with the additional credit of having a process that is open and free and that the public can see. Not only must the process be fair; it must be perceived to be fair. There must be sunshine on the process of approving and granting public funds.

It's not just we on this side of the House who have said that all lottery funds are public moneys; people on the other side of the House, including various ministers in charge of the program, have made the same statement from time to time. If lottery funds and proceeds from the Lottery Corporation are indeed public money, there is absolutely no reason in the world that there shouldn't be the same level of openness and public scrutiny that exists for any other disbursement of government funds. In fact, even if Treasury Board may not need to scrutinize each individual grant as it comes along, there's absolutely no reason that once a month, or every several months, Treasury Board should not scrutinize what has been recommended to the minister by the approving officers and what the minister has approved.

I asked the minister similar questions which I put on the order paper in previous years. I guess the government hasn't had time during the session to answer them. They're fairly simple questions. Essentially they are just a short list of the grants that have been recommended for approval by staff and have not been approved, as well as any grants which have been approved and were not recommended by staff In previous years, the government has not seen fit to answer simple questions like that. I just wonder if the minister would have that information handy.

[11:00]

Before the minister gets up, if he or his assistants are still in a note-taking mood, since he made some comments about the multiculturalism program of his ministry in his opening statements, perhaps he can tell us about that program. We know that the multiculturalism ministries, both federally and provincially, have tended to consist mostly — at least as far as the public perception goes — of political people showing up at ethnic organizational groups and handing out cheques. I wonder if the minister can tell us exactly what sort of programs they might have in British Columbia — particularly programs designed to promote tolerance and understanding among members of different ethnic groups in B.C.

For instance, one of the complaints that I had over the winter months was during a time when many municipal councils — some of them quite large, like the Greater Vancouver Regional District — were exercising their democratic right and passing, one might say, purely symbolic resolutions endorsing the two nation duality of Canada; in other words, the francophone reality in Canada. These resolutions — and I think one was even passed by the Capital Regional District and by the city of Victoria — received little or no attention from the media. Whereas when a small community of 1,000 people in the minister's riding under the new distribution of Rossland-Trail-Salmo exercised its democratic right to pass an English-only resolution, that was major nationwide news.

I'm wondering if the minister has thought about using his ministry to address this imbalance on the emphasis given these stories. I'm not suggesting these stories should not have been reported; I'm simply saying that quite clearly there's a tremendous imbalance. I believe the multiculturalism ministry in British Columbia should be taking some steps to redress that. Whenever we hear of misunderstandings among the groups or cultures in British Columbia, I think the multiculturalism programs of this government and the federal government should be brought into play in a major way to resolve that.

Also, in most communities, including the area I represent — I think it's a much greater issue in the lower mainland area —  quite clearly one of the important things to the non-English-speaking community, as far as multiculturalism goes, is the question of so many people whose native tongue is not English. I know the minister may want to say that's an educational problem, but I would suggest to this committee and to the minister that, as far as the people in the multicultural community go, it's very much a multiculturalism problem. I wonder how the minister has his ministry working with the educational community to assist in that endeavour with those individuals who may have no disability whatsoever. In fact, they may even be above average in intelligence and in work ethic but have a difficulty because the language they were born into and raised with was not English, which is a tremendous advantage that the rest of us have.

I'd also like the minister to expand a bit on exactly what he means by information services around the province. Is he talking only of the public affairs branch? If so, could he advise the committee of how he differentiates between what he calls information services and what everyone else in the province refers to as government advertising, and particularly how the public affairs branch advertising relates to

[ Page 11339 ]

the level of advertising which is done by individual ministries and departments? Quite clearly it would appear that most government advertising is done by individual ministries. Do these ministries report to the public affairs branch, and just exactly how does this coordination operate?

On this series of questions, perhaps the minister can also give us a little information as to what the mandate is for the publication known as the B.C. Update and essentially what its individual budget is for British Columbia, since once again the public is paying for this service.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm very pleased to respond to the member for Rossland-Trail. He covered a wide variety of topics. I'll try and answer all of them, although I may well inadvertently miss one or two.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly that lottery moneys are indeed public moneys and should be treated that same way. They should be treated with the utmost respect and should be distributed in a fair and equitable manner. Certainly that is what we were trying to ensure when we brought in new guidelines in February of this year. The guidelines that we brought in are now embodied in our new application form, which has been revised so that it is indeed more readable. It will give us better information, so the branch can review it and determine how the project is going to proceed.

You spoke about letting light in, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. If you look back at the statement that was made back in February, I did make a promise that we would issue an annual report within two months of the close of the fiscal year, listing all the grants approved during the year, together with payments made to grant recipients. I'm very pleased to say that although we didn't quite meet the deadline of two months due to some technical problems, that report is now complete and will be released later today. It's right up to March 31, 1990. That certainly will let the public scrutinize where the funds are going. As far as controlling how those grants are made, we have, first of all, put in, similar to what you were talking about — Treasury Board — a committee of cabinet ministers in place. Four cabinet ministers review all applications that are outside the guidelines. Even ones that do fall within the guidelines are reviewed by the cabinet ministers' committee if the grant request is for $150,000 or more. It is not simply reviewed by me or approved. I only review grants under $150,000 that fall within the guidelines.

We have tightened up the administrative procedures. All grant requests must be reviewed by the lottery branch with sufficient documentation provided to allow for an effective evaluation of the request. Grant recipients must use competitive bidding procedures for purchases over $50,000. This will eliminate some of the problems of the past. The ownership of assets acquired as a result of a grant must be held in the name of the grant recipient. More detailed documentation is required for larger projects, including site visits, before the final payments are made.

We have asked the other recipients of lottery money, such as Municipal Affairs and the Health Care Research Foundation, to submit annual reports on how those funds were expended. So we have certainly tried to comply with the requests and the recommendations in the comptroller-general's report and the auditor-general's report.

In regard to multiculturalism, I am very pleased to say that we do have a very active 23-member committee that has held meetings in various parts of the province and actually staged a symposium with the government this June in Vancouver at the Simon Fraser University harbourside centre. It was attended by delegates from over 100 different organizations from across the province. It was a two-and-a-half-day affair. I attended most of the sessions, and I can tell you that good dialogue was heard. We have acted on the recommendations of that multicultural advisory committee.

We have done some other things. We did lend support to the B.C. Association of Broadcasters in their campaign "Racism — if you don't stop it, who will?" I'm sure you've heard that tag-line on your television and radio.

We also recently assisted the Hastings Institute by guaranteeing that we would purchase space for senior management to take some of their courses — $50,000 per year for the next three years.

We also have made a number of grants to multicultural agencies. One of the things that I found very interesting in taking over this ministry and learning about multiculturalism was the myriad of multiculturalism agencies out there. The theme of what they're saying to me — and what they want to say to the world — is that they want to be, first and foremost, British Columbians. They want to move into the mainstream of society, and yet they want to bring to that mainstream the strengths of their heritage. That's a goal that we have been trying to advocate and certainly work towards.

We have assisted some of the multicultural agencies offering programs to immigrants on the ways of our society. We've also instituted this year a granting program to heritage language schools. It is important to maintain the culture of these people as they move into our society.

The mandate of the public affairs bureau is to plan and coordinate information services across government, and in doing this they evaluate ministry communication plans and work with the ministries in developing issue management strategies.

In regard to "B.C. Government News Update, " about which the member had some questions put on the order paper early on, I'd just like to advise him that "B.C. Government News Update" was started in July of '89. Up to the end of this June we had produced 47 "B.C. Government News Updates." The average cost of these is $5,298, for a grand total of $249,037. They are produced in-house, and that is really why the format is such that they can be changed rapidly and inexpensively. I'm very proud of that "B.C. Government News Update." It's an effec-

[ Page 11340 ]

tive way of getting the message out In a very economical manner.

[11:15]

The purchase of air time on BCTV, CBC and CKVU-TV was $1,036,000, or approximately $22,042 for each of the 47 commercials. They are aired mostly during television newscasts. They've proved popular and highly informative. One issue covered was the availability of degree-granting courses at regional colleges. British Columbians were also told about new tough security regulations to ensure fair play in the stock market. We warned drivers that they would face stiffer penalties for driving infractions, and so on. We urged British Columbians to become more environmentally aware, and the list goes on. These are just a few of the messages that have been carried on "B.C. Government News Update." There are many more.

They are written and produced in-house by the public affairs bureau, which I mentioned before. The average production cost is approximately $5,300. That compares very favourably if you were to go out into the industry. The industry average is approximately $50,000 to produce a 30-second commercial. We have a very effective tool in getting the message of government out to the people.

I've partially, at least, answered most of your questions.

MR. D'ARCY: Just working backwards. Briefly, perhaps the minister could elucidate more on this apparent loaves-and-fishes ability he has to put out a publication, as he says, for $5,300. I would suggest that since it goes to every home and business around the province — roughly 1.5 million addresses — that to be able to produce this, print it and distribute it for $5,000....

Most MLAs would like the ability to put out a publication like that in their own ridings and distribute it for $5,000. The minister can apparently do that for all of the people in British Columbia. As I say, it's an amazing ability that he seems to have. Perhaps he could let everyone in the chamber and the people of B.C. know a little bit more of how he manages to accomplish that wonderful feat by doing it, as he says, in-house. I presume that means not contracted out.

The minister, when he speaks of the approving committee for grants over a certain amount or grants that don't fit the guidelines, seems to miss the point. The point, really, from the public's point of view with the public's money, is credibility and trust. It matters not a whit to the public whether the approving is done in secret by one politician, a committee of four politicians or a committee of 23 politicians. Why not include the whole treasury group? Why not include the entire Social Credit caucus?

The fact is, the public has a problem with trust and credibility surrounding the use of lottery funds. The government may say that it's all entirely above board, and maybe it is. If it is, why not open up the process? The minister said we have incorporated what I've suggested here earlier by having a Treasury Board type of approval process. The Treasury Board people oversee $15 billion a year. We're talking about several hundred million. If the Treasury Board is competent to handle $15 billion a year, why aren't they competent to oversee this $200 or $300 million, or whatever it is? Why does the minister need a special process done by politicians in secret? Why not just turn it over to the Treasury Board? Or have a periodic review by the Treasury Board?

That's what I'm talking about: credibility. As I say, the Treasury Board scrutiny may not make one single different decision than what the minister and his committee of ministers make. But the public has to see that, Mr. Chairman, and that's what the minister doesn't seem to understand: that the committee of four ministers is no more generating of trust and credibility — as far as the public's belief in how their own funds are being disbursed is concerned — than having one minister make the decision. It isn't necessarily because it's a Social Credit group of politicians; the public might well think the same way were it a New Democratic group of politicians handling public funds in secret.

Maybe the minister can address this major problem of public credibility. That's why in my opening remarks I used the term "defensible." The process not only has to be correct and proper, but it has to be defensible as far as scrutiny by the general public goes. I don't think that most people really care too much whether people on this side of the House can scrutinize what goes on. They say: "Well, they're just politicians too; they're just politicking." But the public themselves want to see some sunshine go in there. They want to hear statements from the ombudsman or the comptroller-general or the auditor-general that speak in glowing terms of the procedures used to disburse these public funds, instead of every single year when the ombudsman or auditor-general or comptroller-general comes out with a report and the public reads disparaging comments from these public servants about how the government handles its funds. That's what the public needs to read, Mr. Chairman.

I'll leave that with the minister, and I hope he can answer some of these questions and address the problem of trust and credibility that the public perceives, with the handling of the public's own profits from the Lottery Fund.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, obviously we have a little problem with terminology. I was referring to "B.C. Government News Update" when I was talking about the production costing $5,300 per commercial. I thought that was clear when I referred to BCTV, CBC, CKVU-TV and so on. That was all part and parcel of one answer. The member opposite is getting those blurbs on television confused with the Provincial Report, which is now called B.C. News. Seven issues of the Provincial Report newspaper were published in 1989-90, and I think this is what the member opposite is referring to. These were distributed to all households in B.C., at a cost of 13.5 cents per household, including the mailing. In February

[ Page 11341 ]

1990 the newspaper was reformatted and retitled B.C. News. I think that's what the member was referring to as "going to every householder."

The printing and production costs for the year totalled approximately $700,000. Eight issues are planned for 1990-91, estimated at approximately $800,000. So they are two different things.

The other thing that puzzles me — and I don't really know how to respond to it — is that the member opposite refers to Treasury Board as though it were some entity apart from this House, apart from politicians, that sits like a Greek god and rules over.... His colleague assisted him with $15 billion. I'd like to remind the member opposite that just as the Treasury Board has a dedicated staff who certainly do research and advise the various ministers on Treasury Board, we have a lottery branch staffed by professional people who look at all these applications, verify the information we have received, communicate with the various groups to ensure that they have the information they require and evaluate the project completely before they bring forth a recommendation or a package for approval.

Treasury Board is a committee of cabinet ministers. The civil service part of the Treasury Board makes recommendations and certainly will bring forth issue papers to Treasury Board. But it is, in the final analysis, a committee of cabinet ministers who sit around a table and make the decision as to whether an action should indeed go ahead or not. In a very similar way, the lotteries branch brings forth their recommendations. They do the analysis and footwork, and then they bring forward that information to the committee of cabinet ministers.

As I interpret the minutes of the Public Accounts Committee, when questions were asked of the auditor-general about the process that was in place today, he was fairly complimentary about it. I think his words were that if we are following the procedures that we outlined in our February guidelines, he was quite pleased with this. I think we have let light in with the issuing of the reports on all the grants approved and the moneys advanced to the various recipients during the year, we have taken a giant step forward.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm not going to belabour the point, but the minister still is not addressing the major issue, which is not how the branch itself handles applications. I think most members of the House would agree with me that in our dealings with the branch on behalf of constituent groups that have made applications to it, we have found them very able, cooperative, industrious and fair. The difficulty is not with the branch, as I have stressed before in talking to this committee, but rather with the final approval process, the disbursement of the funds and even with the guidelines.

The minister says we've tightened up the guidelines. That may be true, except that there is still a kind of notwithstanding aspect of it, which I'd like to hear the minister say is going to be changed. It goes back to a rule dating from a few years ago that essentially says that funds can be approved for any purpose which the minister believes to be in the public interest. Maybe the minister is going to say any purpose which a committee of ministers deems to be in the public interest.

Once again, this is nice, clever verbiage that essentially says the government can approve money for anything they want and any way they want, irrespective of the guidelines. So tightening up the guidelines for your average tiddly-winks society grant application may affect the guidelines for the tiddly-winks society, but it doesn't affect the guidelines for the minister or his committee if he simply decides that for application X, Y or Z they're not going to worry about the guidelines or about the one-third aspect.

That's the issue, Mr. Chairman. It isn't that when the minister or his committee goes beyond the guidelines it's irresponsible; it may indeed be eminently sensible to go beyond the regular guidelines or to go beyond the one-third grant. In fact, looking at many of the grants where the amount exceeded the one third base, you can say yes, it was a responsible use of money. Even a lay person such as myself, without knowing anything too much about the society, would say: "Yes, that looks like a pretty good idea."

The problem is the perception. Because the guidelines and the dispensing of funds have no open public scrutiny, the question of trust and credibility is not there. I think it is unfortunate.

With many members of the public having a propensity for gambling through the buying of lottery tickets, the government of British Columbia has a lot of public funds at its disposal and the capability of doing a lot of good with those funds; indeed, it has used them to do a lot of good in British Columbia. But the perception is that they have not been disbursed, and the decisions have not been made, in a defensible way.

I'll let the minister reply to that, and we'll leave this issue for the time being.

[11:30]

MR. BRUCE: The member for Rossland-Trail has made several suggestions and different comments about the whole process. In Public Accounts we canvassed lottery grants fairly extensively. It would be fair to say that when it comes right down to it, at least from what I see, it's not a question of public perception at all with respect to how the lottery grants are handled. I think that both from the auditor-general and the Public Accounts Committee.... When one looks at the end use of those funds and at how they are spread throughout the province regardless of ridings, there is a fairly even hand and a fair application of those funds.

It's fine to go on and on about it, but the final analysis of all of this, from what we see in the minutes and from what we had through Public Accounts, is certainly that the minister and the ministry have undertaken several changes. The long and short of it is that there is good value for the

[ Page 11342 ]

money disbursed through the Provincial Secretary and lottery funds.

What I would really like to draw to your attention.... The member for Rossland-Trail brought out the fact that he felt the general public were looking for someone — be it the comptroller-general, the auditor-general, the ombudsman or someone along that line — to say that things are in good hands. I would just like to underscore the fact that if one reads the minutes from the Public Accounts Committee of June 5, one will see that the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) said.... I'd like to quote this, because I think it's fairly important. He said:

"The former Provincial Secretary indicated that this was too big a job for one person."

We were talking about the dispensing and adjudication of lottery grants.

"Although I can't find it at the moment, I believe you recommended an advisory committee to assist the minister with this onerous responsibility."

He's referring to the auditor-general.

"In 1981 the ombudsman recommended that as well, and he also recommended that there be an ongoing working group to assist advisory committee to assist the minister. The response of the Provincial Secretary's ministry was to set up a committee of four ministers of the Crown. I'm wondering if that meets, in your mind" — the mind of the auditor-general — "the goals that were behind your recommendation in terms of assisting the minister."

I'd just like to read into the record the response of the auditor-general, so that all of the people of the province understand what he had to say. His assistant, Mr. Price, said:

"Yes, I think that the setting up of a committee of ministers.... Again, one would have to see how this works in practice; in theory, it seems to be an acceptable way of dealing with the situation. It's providing a second opinion, if you like, of the process. For example, with lottery grants, the granting process falls outside the administration of the Financial Administration Act and the established controls there. An example of the sort of control that is normal throughout government, but that is not in place for lottery grants, is that prior Treasury Board approval is required for non-discretionary grants of over $100,000. So I think, to some extent, the committee-of-ministers approach brings it more in line with Treasury Board controls. So that was a long way of saying yes, I think it's appropriate."

What the auditor-general and his department are very clearly saying to this House and to the people of British Columbia is that this committee of ministers is an appropriate and good way of dealing with applications for and adjudications of amounts larger than $100,000 or $150,000 — or whatever that mark is. If the member for Rossland-Trail wants some assurance that someone other than those who are elected, be it the comptroller-general, the auditor-general or the ombudsman, has some feeling of confidence in the process that's been initiated and carried on by this government, there it is in black and white, from the lips — I was there and saw them move — of a representative of the auditor-general, who very clearly stated that this process was in fact a good one and one that could be followed.

I think that what we in this House should now do is make sure that the people of British Columbia understand that that is the process, that the final use of the dollars has always been found to be a good use and that the particular process we have in place will stand us all In good stead with the people. They can be assured that the process is in good hands.

MR. JONES: The member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) has clearly pointed out one of the major problems with respect to the advisory committee that's advising on these grants, and that is the public perception of the problem.

At the same time, I want to comment on what the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) has said with respect to this advice. The ombudsman in 1981 indicated that there should be an advisory committee. I don't want to disparage the decision-making abilities of any four cabinet ministers, but clearly the intention of the legislation — the Lottery Act, chapter 249 — resulting from the ombudsman's report was that the advice be at arm’s length from government. I come to that conclusion because of the provisions in that legislation that allow for remuneration and out-of-pocket expenses to be paid to the advisers on that committee. Cabinet members have many avenues of access to out-of-pocket expenses, and they're adequately remunerated already. So clearly the intention of the drafters of the act was to allow for an arm's-length, non-political advisory process to assist the minister. The previous speaker clearly pointed out that the former Provincial Secretary found this job too onerous. It was most difficult.

I quote the comptroller-general's report in saying that this is too great a responsibility for one person. That advice is necessary not from political colleagues of the Provincial Secretary but from a group that can bring some expertise in this area and provide sound advice.

Another area where I strongly differ with the comments of the member for Cowichan-Malahat is with respect to the fairness and even-handedness. How do we assess the fairness and even-handedness? Clearly we don't have the perception of fairness and even-handedness in the process. If we don't know, if we don't have access to information and if we can't find out all the groups, organizations and individuals that have been denied grants under this legislation, then how do we accurately assess whether the process and the product has been fair? The previous speaker indicated not to worry about the process and just look at the product. If you do look at the product, it's difficult to criticize except on the infamous incident that we're all aware of. My concern is that lack of access to information precludes any serious analysis that is going to lead us to a definitive conclusion on whether or not these grants are fair and even-handed.

Let me give you an example from information that I have access to in terms of my community. This was a grant request to purchase office equipment and furniture for a very valuable community group in North Burnaby that I believe the minister would like

[ Page 11343 ]

to support. This is the Italian heritage language school, Comitato Attivita Scolastiche Italiane — CASI for short. They made a very reasonable grant request; they're starting up in a new facility to offer Italian in the evenings and on weekends to children and adults in an effort to preserve their heritage. The minister agrees that the key to maintaining heritage is language. I think some 500 students are offered services through this organization. A very simple request for office furniture and equipment was denied by that minister, at the same time we see grants like the one to pave the parking-lot of the Delta Chamber of Commerce being approved. I don't know what kind of fair and even-handed decision-making would come to that kind of conclusion. A group that is trying to preserve the Italian culture and language in North Burnaby is denied an application, whereas the Chamber of Commerce, which I would think has a lot more ability to attract resources than a local community group, is given a grant to pave their parking-lot.

How does the minister rationalize the act that clearly suggests, because of remuneration and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses, that it not be a committee of cabinet ministers that is the advisory body? Secondly, how does he justify the appearance of an even-handed approach when we see such disparity between a worthy community group in one constituency being denied grants, and paving of parking-lots for another group being approved in another constituency?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I would advise the member opposite, and I think he's been advised of this before, that that committee of cabinet ministers is not set up under the provisions of section 3, I believe it is, of the act.

I'm not exactly sure what he wishes to achieve with a public advisory body. If I understand lottery applications from my constituency correctly, a lot of public input is placed into lottery applications before pen goes to paper and an application is filled out and forwarded to the lotteries branch. Even if you were to put into being such an advisory body to look at these final applications and advise you of which ones should or should not go ahead, the first thing is that it would be a very unwieldy process, because the committee of ministers now in place meets approximately once a week. So you would have to gather these people together. Even then, there is a delay of some with the new guidelines and the additional checks and balances that have been placed in effect even now, if all things work the way they should, you're looking at somewhere between six to eight weeks to get any kind of approval on an application.

[11:45]

If you were to put in a public advisory body and were to delay these applications until you could get this public advisory body, who would this public body be? Where would you draw them from so that they could understand the complexities of the total province — the small communities, the large communities and so on? Then at the end of the day, after this advisory body had duly sat and advised as to what should go on, it would still require the approval of the minister for something to go ahead.

In the final analysis, it rests with an elected person to make that decision, put pen to paper and approve an application. That's the way it should be, because it is the elected representative who will — looking at your public viewing of how things are handled — have to face the electorate and be accountable for his or her actions. With the cabinet committee in place, I think we have that. We have people who are responsible and will be held accountable for their actions. We have a reporting system in place that will let the public know what applications were approved and for how much money. We are accountable. Again, the same as the government is accountable in any other area, we are, through the release of reports and information, kept accountable for our actions.

One of the problems that I have is the opposition members' lack of understanding of what the guidelines are. If we have a perception problem in the public, I think it's mainly due to misinformation given to the public by the members opposite. I refer especially to information put out by the member who just asked the questions about a grant for a school ground project in Peace River North School District 60 — an award of $63,000 for an athletic field in Fort St. John. He painted this to the public as being the only instance of assistance to a facility being located on school grounds. If he had even looked at his own area, he would have realized that indeed this wasn't the only instance; in fact, there are other instances: Chilliwack School District, a facility for the teen-mom support program, $45,000; School District 44, North Vancouver, $52,250, to convert a gymnasium into a performing arts centre; Langley School District, $74,000, to develop a conference and training centre; Lions Bay recreation committee, $9,833, playing-field at Lions Bay elementary school; Capilano College, North Vancouver, $400,000 for a recreational facility for college and community use; Cariboo College Foundation, Kamloops, $500,000 for a playing-field; Port McNeill, $35,000, softball field — this was a cooperative deal between the town and the school board; Logan Lake, a ball-field built in cooperation with the school board, $25,000.

The problem isn't really the way these grants are being administered, I would submit, Mr. Chairman. I think they are being administered very well. The information is available as to what grants are given. A committee of responsible individuals is in place to make the final decision as to which grants should be approved. It's really the dissemination of information and the lack of dissemination of information by the members opposite that causes a problem in the publics perception.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. JONES: The real problem in terms of these grants is not the existence of the guidelines or the communication to the public about the guidelines; it is the lack of interest on the part of the minister to follow those guidelines. Clearly some 25 percent of

[ Page 11344 ]

the grants given in this province — millions of dollars — bend the guidelines. The guidelines indicate, in terms of school districts, that school districts are precluded from getting such a grant. The list that I had, from some 18 months.... Now perhaps there were others before that time or after that time. But in the 18-month period that I have information on, there was only one such school district that did receive a grant under the GO B.C. program That just happened to be in the minister's riding, and I think that's been confirmed.

Clearly the minister isn’t interested in any advice, whether it be from his colleagues or from an arm's length committee. He doesn't agree with that process. He wants to be the czar of grants. He doesn't want any advice. Nobody is suggesting that the minister doesn't have the final responsibility for the grant. But I think in terms of some credibility in the process — at least a process of some arm's-length advice passing across the minister's desk — it would give some modicum of reassurance to the public that that whole process, which is providing millions of dollars to citizens in this province, is a reasonable one.

It's not a reasonable one now. It has been criticized by the ombudsman on several occasions and by the auditor-general and the comptroller-general. Sticking four cabinet ministers in some illusory advisory committee — and I question whether they meet and provide any advice — does not solve the problem.

I think that in the final analysis the minister gave the real answer on June 13 this year, when he said that political considerations are really the major factor in the lottery grant process. He said: "Should lotteries be anything different than any other thing that we have over here at government?" Is it political? "That's what the Legislature is all about, " he told reporters. So clearly the minister, after all that attempted defence, in the final analysis gave the honest answer on June 13. At least I appreciate the honesty that occurred on that day.

I would like to raise one other matter with the minister, and again it goes back to the grant denial that I talked about earlier. This province, save for the more impoverished provinces in Canada, is really a backwater in terms of providing assistance to heritage language groups. The minister, at a heritage language workshop on November 25, 1989, spoke very eloquently about the importance of this area. He said: "Language is the key to cultural retention."

I think we all understand that we live in a multicultural country, and that It's critical that ethnic groups and organizations be allowed to acquire, maintain and preserve their cultural heritage. The key factor in that is retention of their heritage language.

The minister on that occasion announced that some $200,000 would be granted to help the evening and weekend heritage language classes in this province— woefully inadequate in terms of contribution by the other more affluent provinces in this country. Nevertheless, that announcement was made and is appreciated. Although it's not adequate, at least the $200,000 was there and was announced. I'd like to ask the minister: was that $200,000 spent in the fiscal year in which it was announced?

HON. MR. DIRKS: As I said that day — and I thank the member for bringing that question up — it is very important. That's why we introduced the heritage language funding assistance. I'm a firm believer that you do need some guidelines, and you need guidelines that you follow. You've got to have a formula for dispensing funds so that it is done equitably. What we did was design a level of support: $500 for 25 or fewer students; $900 for 26 to 50; $1,500 for 51 to 100 students; $2,000 for over 100 students. The maximum grant available was $2,000.

We weren't sure what kind of an uptake we would have. We have received 112 applications representing 19 different language groups. The total amount requested to date is $152,400. The total amount recommended to date is $148,050.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I think the amount was.... I'm having trouble with my writing here. I think the announcement in November last year was for $250,000, not for $200,000. The minister indicates that the applications add up to $152,000. Have those grants been approved by the government?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Yes, the amount of grants that have been approved and disbursed is $148,050. The largest language group was the Chinese at $63,200. The Indian grouping of languages is second at $24,800. The Japanese is $12,750, and the German language is $9,900. Those have all been approved and sent out.

MR. JONES: I appreciate that response. I assume that this is an ongoing program and that these groups need ongoing support, but it strikes me as somewhat not forthcoming when an announcement is made for $250,000 and then a formula is established which generates $150,000. Somewhere between the announcement and the application of the formula we're missing some $100,000.

The reason I'm so concerned is that the group I mentioned earlier is in very serious financial difficulty. They were denied their GO B.C. grant — and I appreciate that that wasn't for operating funds. But at the same time, we are missing some $100,000 in support for these groups. I imagine some of these groups are in a similar situation to the Italian-language school in North Burnaby.

It would seem to me that $100,000 is left over in that fund. If there are groups experiencing severe difficulty in their operating ability, if they are struggling financially, it would seem to me that the minister would make available some emergency funds out of that remaining $100,000. Given that we do have a disparity of almost $100,000, I would like to ask the minister: if a group is experiencing unusual and difficult financial circumstances through no fault of its own, would the minister entertain any applications above the guidelines to meet the emergency situation of any groups in the province?

[ Page 11345 ]

HON. MR. DIRKS: Just for clarification, we announced that $250,000 would be available and sent out 150 applications. We sent out applications to all schools, but all schools did not apply. That's why we've got funds left in the program. It wasn't a matter of cutting them off; some did not apply for that funding. I really don't think the member opposite is saying that simply because funding is there and people don't apply for it, we should spend it.

[12:00]

MR. JONES: I appreciate the comments the minister makes. However, the minister admitted that in setting the guidelines, it's not a perfect process. Perhaps the guidelines were not adequate. Perhaps a maximum grant of $2,000 does not fit all situations. I'm suggesting to the minister that the guidelines, because of their inadequacy, may have resulted in unfair and unequal treatment of groups. Limiting each group to $2,000 perhaps placed hardships on some of them.

I'm suggesting there is money left over in that budget. There are emergency situations. There is some need, in some generosity of spirit on the part of that minister, to ensure that some of these language groups do not go under, and that we don't lose the ability in these communities to carry on with heritage language training. That's what we face with the Italian-language school in Burnaby. We face the loss of that school, and those young people not being able to carry on learning the language of their heritage.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Although I am very hesitant to break the guidelines, if there is a certain circumstance such as that, I would certainly review the information.

Vote 54 approved.

Vote 55: ministry operations, $22,786,243 — approved.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis). We should perhaps recess for five minutes until the minister arrives, at which time we will be going into Committee of Supply.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We'll recess for five minutes.

The House recessed at 12:03 p.m.

The House resumed at 12:05 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

On vote 21: minister's office, $308,757.

HON. MR. DAVIS: A few brief remarks, Mr. Chairman. The proposed expenditures of this modest little ministry are of the order of $37 million in the current fiscal year. That's a small amount relative to that of a number of other ministries in government here in Victoria. It covers both the energy side and mining, and relates to two broad sectors of economic activity in the province which together generate close to $1.5 billion of revenue to the provincial treasury. So you can see that the expenses on the part of the taxpayer of $37 million are small as compared with the $1,500 million annually generated as revenue to the province. Over and above the revenue to the province, the energy and mining industries pay taxes to Ottawa and to the municipalities in the order of $500 million. In other words, it's a $2 billion sector as far as government in this country is concerned.

Essentially the energy side is pay-as-you-go. There are few, if any, subsidies paid by government in respect to energy. Indeed, our moves in the last several years have removed all but a very few areas where tax money goes out to companies involved in either energy or mining. As far as services to those industries are concerned, we are putting them increasingly on a pay-as-you-go basis, with industry paying the costs of those services, be they surveys or the generation of statistics for tax purposes or hearings covering new developments in B.C.

In terms of staff, the ministry is roughly the size it was in 1986. At one time it employed upwards of 500 people; restraint cut the number back to around 350. It's currently of that order even though activity, particularly on the energy side, has increased substantially. It has increased markedly in the gas-prone area of the Peace River. There has been a considerable increase in interest in generating power privately and in supplying B.C. Hydro more cheaply than Hydro had been supplying itself.

On the mining side, we have a new tax regime which is generating roughly the same income as previously. Our tax regimes, insofar as they apply to energy, have been developed in relation to taxes charged in adjoining administrations. In oil and gas, we've got a tax regime that is competitive with Alberta. On the power side, B.C. is unique in that the water rental fee is much higher here than it is in any other province in Canada.

[ Page 11346 ]

Mr. Chairman, I think that substantially covers the estimates for my ministry. To repeat: they're modest in relation to the income generated by those industry sectors for government — particularly provincial. We are obviously operating more efficiently, because with fewer people we are covering a lot more activity in B.C. now than was the case a few years ago.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services, and I move it be read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PELTON: By leave, I move that the rules be suspended and the report be adopted.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Veitch moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:12 p.m.