Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MAY 8, 1992

Volume 2, Number 25

[ Page 1361 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

J. Beattie: It's a pleasure for me today to welcome to the House some constituents from Okanagan-Penticton. They are young men and women from McNicoll Park Junior Secondary School, along with their instructors. There are 36 grade 10 social studies students accompanied by their teachers: Ms. Saundra Priester, Ms. Lea Sutherland, Mr. Graham Watt and Mr. Bob Brownell. They have been here for a day and are going to be here until tomorrow.

I'd like to make special reference to three of the students who were competing in an essay contest: Amie Goertzen, Lesley Pratt and one of the students who's not here today, Ruth Hudson. They were the winners, and I'd like the House to make them welcome today. 

Private Members' Statements

SET-ASIDE LANDS

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I rise today to make a statement about the protected-area strategy announced by government earlier this week. The Premier, the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Environment told the province that this government had developed a strategy to begin to deliver on the promise of this government and also on the world's expectation that British Columbia would set aside 12 percent of its land base for the future, for diversity and for wilderness.

All of these words we use -- "set aside" or "provincial protected-area strategy" or "study areas" -- are really euphemisms for areas which we as a culture or as a government must now decide on the future of, pretty much for all time. I don't think I need to review for members how we came to this place, having to make these decisions, in 1992. Everybody knows that for many years we've put off the really hard economic decisions, the really hard environmental decisions and, for those of us who have this job, the really hard political decisions in terms of the land base. I'm really pleased, after six or seven months as an MLA on the government side, to be standing here after having seen this government, in a manner pretty free of emotion and rhetoric, proceed step by step to walk us back from where we were at the precipice last October.

You'll remember, hon. Speaker, that last October we were in a situation where we had an old-growth strategy and a round table and a provincial forest commission and lots of different local commissions all talking about what we were going to do to unravel the problem of the various expectations of industry, recreationists, persons concerned about the environment and native peoples. In running for office, our leader said that he would attempt to roll together all of these isolated discussions and set down a road for the pragmatic resolution of land use issues.

We had barely walked into this House when we saw the government move to name Stephen Owen in charge of a commission so the public could see us remove the politics from the issue. We got a little credibility from that. Then we saw the Minister of Forests advise his chief forester that after this, the annual allowable cut would be set by science and by biology, not by politics. I think we got a little credibility from that.

Now we see, not the Minister of Environment in the old-fashioned confrontational sense with the Ministries of Mines and Forests, but the Minister of Forests and the Premier and the Minister of Environment speaking in a unified way, to say to the public: look, we've taken the strategies implemented by the last government -- Parks '90, the old-growth strategy and the public hearings -- and we've rolled them together. Here, tabled for everyone to see, are 140 areas that this government feels, not because of political issues but because the general public and the biologists have told us so, need to be reviewed, perhaps for inclusion for all time in 12 percent of the land base reserved for the future.

This is not, of course, to suggest that these three individuals, the Premier and the two ministers, have given us a list of all contentious areas and solved all our problems. We still have to deal with land claims, watersheds, visual corridors and recreation conflicts. We have, once and for all, taken the realistic political step and said: here's a list; it's no longer ethereal; here is the list of land under consideration for future parks. In order for this to work, some people are going to have to, as we say, buy into this process. Hon. Speaker, I would like to say, through you to this House and through this House to the general public, that the logging community has to buy in; the environmental groups have to buy in; the mining industry has to buy in; the recreation industry has to buy in; foresters and biologists and professionals have to buy in; and native people have to buy in.

Before I sit down, I would like to say to the members on my side and members opposite that we, as representatives and leaders in this society, have to buy in. We have to show leadership and say to the public: here is a process; the process can work; let us work with one another and with the process to go forward to a future that's not confrontational, but is symptomatic of common sense.

C. Serwa: It's certainly a pleasure to rise and speak on the topic of land use strategy in the province of British Columbia in response to the private member's statement.

[10:15]

Our government had a fairly strong commitment to the development of this particular strategy. We had initiated a number of different resource-strategy-type groups. Certainly the Parks '90 strategy, with respect to parks and wilderness, was a group and a task force that went around the province. The Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, where we integrated a variety of perspectives of groups, bringing together exactly what the member was talking about -- members from industry and resource communities, and members with environmental concerns, all working together to develop a consensus.... The Forest Re-

[ Page 1362 ]

sources Commission was another group that was striving to find specific information on that particular area. The old-growth strategy project, which the member mentioned, was, again, another group. A committee of deputy ministers had been instructed to pull all of this together. We had gone out and got all this information, and we were going to pull it all together and look at an integrated approach to utilize all of the perspectives, accumulated knowledge and information.

When Premier Harcourt announced the Commission on Resources and Environment, he indicated that it would be headed by Stephen Owen -- a gentleman who as provincial ombudsman obtained a great deal of credibility; a man whose inherent sense of fairness, honesty and integrity is not challenged at all -- the most appropriate individual who could have been chosen for this specific role. He has high credibility throughout the province.

But we now come to the charade, which is the lamentable part of this whole situation. What have we done with Mr. Owen and the commission? We've tucked him away somewhere, and we don't hear about him anymore. The reality of this man's sense of fairness is such that he would say what he believes is absolutely the right thing and in the best interests of the people of the province. I suggest that he has been tucked away because he hasn't been malleable enough to say the right political thing. I think that we have all lost something by that particular tack.

The Premier, the Environment minister and the Minister of Forests very proudly joined together to make this announcement, and it was a good announcement. I was really positive, and I spoke positively to the local press about that particular announcement.

What was Mr. Owen to do? He was to implement a land use plan for the province. He was to work toward resolving disputes by defining protected areas like parks, to provide an element of security for the resource-extraction industry as well as for those who wanted to utilize parks. He was going to develop mediation dispute-resolution techniques and apply these techniques to land use disputes. He was to advise this government on the legislation necessary to achieve what we all collectively would strive to achieve. If we can achieve 12 percent of British Columbia land area, then so be it. It's a noble goal.

The only thing consistent about this government is their inconsistency. A combined announcement was made just a few days ago, again by the Premier and by the Minister of Forests and by the Minister of Environment, that has indicated all of these things that Mr. Owen is supposed to be looking at, and they've usurped the responsible role of Mr. Owen. I regret that ministries have been reluctant to give up their influence in these various areas. Unless we can maintain that integrated approach, we are going to lose the ball game. That's a very sad loss for all British Columbians. The inconsistency is that the logging is still going on in those sensitive watersheds, some in your constituency. There was no consultation on Fletcher Challenge and Interfor's sale of a TFL. Public input has to be brought into this, and Stephen Owen and the Commission on Resources and Environment is the commission to do so.

C. Evans: This three minutes is called rebuttal. It presumes that I take offence at what the member opposite says, and I rebut his comments. I don't think I want to use the last three minutes for that function.

I'd like to say to the environmental community and the logging community outside this room: look at what's happening here. The government is moving towards protecting 12 percent; the opposition says that they endorse the protection of 12 percent, and they criticize how it happens. That's democracy. People outside this room look in here to see what's happening. Maybe it isn't necessary for you to be out on those roads and blockades, and maybe it isn't necessary for you to be mad at each other on the ground anymore. The debate has been elevated to this room; it is democratic; it is moving forward.

Yesterday as I was writing these words, I heard an American biologist on the radio criticizing our decisions -- where we live, where I live in terms of this strategy -- and I felt incredibly demeaned. Here is a person coming from a country that says to us that we have to export whole logs or they'll countervail our forest products, from a country that won't sign the United Nations global warming document. He comes here to tell us that we're not managing land correctly. People out there in the communities, in the mills and on the blockades look at it: Canada -- British Columbia -- is having this debate in an honourable fashion. It is correct that the member opposite criticize us; it is correct that I defend our government. It's happening here. You can buy in, and it's real.

AIR POLLUTION IN FRASER VALLEY

R. Chisholm: It is imperative that this government take immediate action to construct a rapid passenger rail service from Chilliwack to Vancouver in order to slow down the deterioration of our air quality. This was promised in statement 38 of the NDP pre-election document "A Better Way." Now is the time to put these words into action.

The district of Chilliwack has a population of 51,000, and the Regional District of Fraser-Cheam has 68,000. Growth projections by the province say that our growth will be 29 percent in the next ten years. We feel this is a conservative estimate. In the first quarter of this year, Chilliwack issued building permits with a value of over $34 million. Clearly, what I speak about today affects a significant population; it will affect a much larger population in the years to come.

The Fraser Valley has recently grown and changed. We've been subject to the effects of rapid growth and increasing rates of pollution in the lower mainland. Pollution is escalating rapidly. Several studies have verified this. Canada's Green Plan, published in 1990, has a target of reducing emissions in problem areas by up to 40 percent by the year 2000. The Green Plan states:

"In the summer months, more than one-half of all Canadians are exposed to concentrations of ground-level ozone, or smog, known to have adverse effects on health. In fact, measured concentrations are sometimes more than double what is considered safe air quality, with conditions particularly severe in the lower Fraser 

[ Page 1363 ]

Valley in British Columbia, the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and the Saint John, New Brunswick, area."

That is a distinction the Fraser Valley cannot tolerate. The GVRD has been very accurate in gathering information on air quality. Annual reports are available from 1984 onward, with the ambient air quality information gathered.... The Fraser Valley air quality monitoring station is monitored by the GVRD. It samples carbon monoxide, ozone and a coefficient of haze. The data presented for the summer months and the GVRD ambient air analyst's reports indicate that the Fraser Valley's pollution requires immediate action.

If we look at the shape of the Fraser Valley, the funnelling towards Chilliwack and Hope is obvious. Our prevailing wind is generally from a westerly direction. During the summer when there is high pressure, little wind and no cloud cover, we are prone to temperature inversions. At those times there's a blanket of air trapped just below the tops of the mountains at an elevation of approximately 1,000 metres. Without a weather system creating a through breeze, we do experience typical onshore and offshore wind patterns.

During the day, as the land heats faster than the ocean, there is some breeze coming off the ocean from the west; at night, as the land cools, there is a breeze towards the ocean, but generally at a much lower velocity, so that the net air flow is up the valley. When comparing the mean hourly concentrations in Vancouver and Chilliwack, what we see from the air quality sampling is that the nitrogen oxide-carbon monoxide concentrations are highest in the more densely populated areas. Gas-and diesel-powered vehicles produce the majority of these pollutants. These higher levels of pollutants are generally centred in Vancouver proper, and blown eastward. It is with the addition of sunlight that it creates ozone. The ozone concentrations in the summer and early fall are typically higher at the Chilliwack monitoring station.

Not only do we receive the whole list of identified atmospheric contaminants, but it manages to cook in this smog soup, such that Chilliwack receives the highest concentration of ozone. One study looked at the mean wind directions and ozone concentration parts per billion on September 1, 1988. The westerly winds pushed the ozone up the valley. There is no reason to believe that Langley and Matsqui are generating more pollutants than Vancouver, but the ozone levels are two to three times higher. This is the formation of ozone, in chemical reactions in the sun, that shows up further downwind.

Thus we must reduce car emissions -- the major culprit. This means getting them off the Trans-Canada and into a rapid rail service. In the long run, it is the cheapest and healthiest way to go. With growth in the valley, congestion exists at all times on Highway 1. Consequently, either the Trans-Canada will have to be widened, thus encouraging more vehicle use and more pollution, or existing rail lines used, as was done successfully from Abbotsford during Expo 86, which would be more fiscally responsible. In 1988 the federal government offered $16 million for commuter rail service from Mission to Vancouver, rather than upgrading the Trans-Canada. The federal government could assist and could be sought to help defray the cost of the rail service. We cannot afford to procrastinate.

In addition to the statistical evidence on health problems, when you are on the valley floor there are many days with no clouds in the sky. You can look to the west and see the blanket of yellow-orange-brown pollution rolling up the valley. We know the sources, and the air quality monitoring stations provide clear proof of the components. Further studies on this matter are not required. We have the evidence. I urge this government to clean up the pollution and highway congestion in the Fraser Valley by the cheapest and healthiest means. Construct a rapid passenger rail service to Chilliwack now.

D. Streifel: I listened with great interest to the concerns of the hon. member, not quite opposite me but down the road a piece, so to speak. I would like to share with this assembly some of the concerns of some of my constituents as they communicate with me on this very serious issue of pollution in the Fraser Valley.

A letter starts:

"I am a grade 4 student who was asked to complete a neighbourhood pollution survey. In my survey, I noticed lots of pollution like exhaust smoke from a truck, people burning garbage in back yards, and people smoking at the corner of the streets and factories burning things.

"I think British Columbians should be concerned about air pollution in Mission because if they don't the hole in the ozone layer will get bigger and it can cause skin cancer and harm plants and it can also kill forests and kill animals. Glaciers will melt, oceans will rise, cities and wetlands will flood and we will have water shortages, changes in farming and rainfall patterns. We will also need more electricity for air conditioners."

[10:30]

These are the thoughts of Victoria Organ, a grade 4 student in Mission. This grade 4 student has brought these concerns to me and has also offered solutions -- well-thought-out solutions:

"As a concerned student...I think we should recycle. Make more bikes. Don't burn your garbage, and don't make fires in your back yard. Don't drive your car, and stop cutting down trees, and don't throw garbage on the floor.

"Sincerely yours,
"Victoria Organ.

"P.S. For more information call...."

Hon. Speaker, this represents our future, and this represents the main reason why I am proud of this government. My constituent, as well as the hon. member for Chilliwack, have offered criticisms and have asked for immediate action. Unlike the hon. member for Chilliwack, my grade 4 constituent has offered her well-thought-out solutions.

This government took action, beginning as early as November 15, 1991, when our Energy minister established the program to encourage transition from polluting home-heating fuels to clean natural gas on Vancouver Island. On January 16, 1992, our Environment minister acted quickly to reverse a disastrous decision of the former government and required that pulp mills 

[ Page 1364 ]

stop polluting. These pulp mill regulations are the most stringent in Canada. They're tough, but they're fair.

On January 24, 1992, our government began issuing non-compliance lists. We will now know who the polluters are. "We are committed to releasing this information on a regular basis," said the hon. Environment minister. "Public opinion and scrutiny will play a key role in meeting our goals of ensuring clean air, water and soil for British Columbia."

Immediate action, hon. member? We have had immediate action, and we have ongoing action. February 11, 1992: "Polluter-Pays Focus of Proposed Changes to Waste Discharge Permit System." Equity: the same method of calculating fees would be applied to all polluters. Polluter pays: the more you pollute, the more you pay. Cost recovery and reinvestment. In our budget speech: "Protecting Our Environment." This government is serious about protecting our environment; we demonstrate it by our actions.

Our Environment minister announced innovative solid waste programs, oil recycling programs, green shopper programs, Partners in Recycling, recycling research. March 18: clean air strategy plan. May 8: "B.C. Environment Takes Important Step to Clean the Smoke from the Air."

That's action. That's direct. That's positive. That's leadership. That's immediate. My constituents in Mission are relaxed; they are assured that we have the future in control.

R. Chisholm: I thank the hon. member for his statements, and especially the grade 4 student, which shows the population is thinking about the problem. But government has got to approach it in a bigger way. The student wants us to stop driving a car. We've got to understand that we've got to stop thousands of cars from driving. That's leadership that we need from the government.

Since the ozone contributes to aggravated health conditions, we should talk about respiratory ailments such as asthma, and about people with various allergy conditions. This certainly is not the full extent of potential problems. A doctor would look at the full range of mucus membrane disorders to try and evaluate the aggravating effects. Poor health means higher health costs.

The demographics of Chilliwack, as compared to the GVRD or the province as a whole, indicate that we have a greater concentration in the age categories of zero to 14 and 65 and older. These are the very age groups known to be more vulnerable to poor air quality.

We have good reason to be concerned about the effects on our farmland. The department of plant science at UBC published a paper in March 1990 on air pollution and decreased crop yield in the Fraser Valley. Its field experiments clearly indicated that increased ozone exposures resembling those found in parts of the Fraser Valley could be causing crop yield losses of at least 10 percent. One study indicated a 95 percent likelihood that the aggregate losses of the seven crops studied in the Fraser Valley exceeded $1.9 million in a low-ozone scenario and $4.4 million in a medium scenario based on farm-gate values. Overall one is therefore forced to conclude that significant losses of revenues and crops are occurring in the Fraser Valley. The Fraser Valley farmers have enough problems to contend with. They do not need polluted air as well. The Minister of Environment's policy and planning division estimated that annual crop losses in the Fraser Valley due to ozone is in the neighbourhood of $10 million.

Tourism in the Fraser Valley is being killed because of pollution. Who wants to holiday or retire in bad air and spend hours on a congested highway?

We cannot wait any longer. We need a Fraser Valley rapid-rail passenger service now to reduce pollution, traffic congestion, highway accidents and health costs while increasing crop yields and tourism. Save money: use the existing rail lines. Build a rapid-rail service to Chilliwack. Be ecological, economical, efficient and effective.

J. Beattie: I'm rising to ask leave of the House to make another introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Beattie: In my earlier introduction of the students from McNicoll Park in Penticton, I made a serious omission. With the 36 students from the grade 10 socials class are four Japanese students, who have just arrived this week and who will be spending one year studying in Penticton. I would like the House to make them welcome as well.

MANUFACTURED HOMES

R. Kasper: Today I'd like to talk about the future of manufactured homes in British Columbia. The 1991 census results confirmed last week what many of us already know: British Columbia is the fastest-growing province in Canada. There will be about a million more of us here by the year 2000. To put that in perspective, the next eight years will see as much population growth as we've had in the past 19.

In that context, I want to talk about the contribution that the manufactured-home industry could make to housing and people. I would like to talk about the problems of those who currently live in manufactured homes and outline some of the ideas that I have about how to deal with those problems. I commend the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the industry, the United Mobile Home Owners, the park owners' association and local government for working jointly on a study of these issues. I look forward to seeing the results of that study this fall.

Who lives in manufactured homes? The manufactured-home registry has about 68,000 homes recorded, but this is probably a little high. A 1991 study estimated, from assessment rolls in the 1986 census data, that there are 58,000 manufactured homes in B.C., with about 42,000 of these being in manufactured-home parks. I have over 2,000 voters in my constituency who live in manufactured homes. Other members in this house, notably from Vancouver Island, the lower mainland, the Okanagan, Lillooet-Thompson and the central Koote-

[ Page 1365 ]

nay regions, will have perhaps 100,000 voters who have chosen to live in manufactured homes as their preferred and affordable lifestyle. On Vancouver Island and in the lower mainland, 70 percent of all manufactured-home owners are over 65. Outside of these two regions you will find a higher proportion of families with children. Throughout the 1980s, about 1,000 families a year moved and chose to go into a manufactured home. This year the industry expects that number to climb to about 1,500 and to move still higher in years to come.

There are about eight companies with approximately 600 employees in British Columbia who make CSA-approved -- Canadian Standards Association -- homes. All products are built to at least national standards, and in many cases the standards are exceeded because these homes have to be strengthened in order to be moved from site to site. From what I have seen, the quality is at least comparable to a home built on site with traditional methods.

But what needs changing? I have the impression that public policy does not recognize manufactured housing as legitimate. That shows up in things like voting within improvement districts. If homeowners have a $50,000 home sitting on a pad worth a fraction of that, they do not get the right to vote, but the pad owner does. Despite this fact, the existence of manufactured homes has been the catalyst to establishing those fire improvement districts. I think that's wrong and needs changing.

The banks are also reluctant. They are reluctant to make loans on $60,000 homes if the owner is planning to rent a pad in a park. At present manufactured-home owners have very limited security. Their parks could be redeveloped in short order, and there is a great shortage of alternative sites. I understand that the mortgage issue is under active government consideration, and I'm grateful for that. However, I suggest that there is a need to look at the broader security-of-tenure issue. The areas identified by the census as having the greatest potential growth in the next decade are Vancouver Island, the lower mainland and the Okanagan -- over half the manufactured-home parks in British Columbia.

I believe manufactured-home owners are entitled to better security than they currently have. Particularly, I would like to see a system where manufactured-home owners have the opportunity to buy their park at a fair price if it is proposed for redevelopment.

The law is unequal in other ways. When a homeowner wants to sell and move on, if the park owner decides to refuse to allow the owner to assign the tenancy agreement, as a practical matter there is no opportunity for the homeowner to do anything about this. Supreme Court actions are expensive, risky and beyond people's means. Yet that is the only route available to manufactured-home owners in that situation. Some park operators are using this tactic to convert their parks to adult-only developments.

The last government was aware, from the submissions to the Mobile Home Task Force in 1989 and its own research in 1991, that pad rentals have been running substantially ahead of the inflation rate for some time. They were also well aware that manufactured-home owners had virtually no choice but to pay up. Moving the home to a new park is totally out of the question because of the high costs associated with that movement.

The Mobile Home Task Force report in 1990, so far as it went, was a consensus document, but only three of its 15 recommendations were ever implemented. That report called for manufactured-home owners to be given the option of a lease, and I would like to see something in plain language developed.

Finally, I think the government should look at how it provides services to these folks. Improved low-cost dispute resolution mechanisms and one-stop shopping for manufactured-home owners dealing with government are high on my list. Depending on the problem, manufactured-home owners need to talk to the manufactured-home registry about registration matters, the residential tenancy branch about eviction matters, the human rights branch about discrimination matters, and the B. C. Supreme Court if the owner refuses to allow the homeowner to sign an agreement when they want to sell their home.

I look forward to hearing other members' perspectives on how life can be made better for owners of manufactured homes throughout British Columbia. The industry can grow and make a real contribution to people needing shelter.

D. Jarvis: In reply to the member's statement on manufactured housing in this province, I would like to add the Liberal caucus's voice to those in support of manufactured homes. The relatively inexpensive nature of manufactured homes is a feature that we fully recognize.

[10:45]

The province is facing a crisis in its urban areas concerning the inaccessibility of purchasing a home. Even in the lower Fraser Valley we are seeing a rapid rise in the price of both new and older houses. The economics of scale that manufactured housing creates provides young and first-time homebuyers with a bit of a break, even in light of the Finance minister's refusal to eliminate the property purchase tax for first-time homebuyers.

Perhaps this will not be the home which the purchaser will spend the rest of his or her life in, but it is a darned good start. As long as the stringent safety regulations as set out in the National Building Code are met, we are fully in support of this and any other program that will produce some method of affordability for first-time and young homebuyers in this province.

The Speaker: Minister of Municipal Affairs, there are still three or four minutes left in the reply time.

Hon. R. Blencoe: To the member, I'm not taking up your last few minutes; don't worry.

Hon. Speaker, I just want to add a few words as the minister responsible for housing and to congratulate the member for an excellent presentation on the issues facing manufactured-home owners.

[ Page 1366 ]

Our government's view is that manufactured-home-ownership is a way to encourage affordability. We are actively pursuing innovations for manufactured-home-ownership, and there's a major study underway now with all the major players.

The key areas are looking at improving the image of manufactured homes, looking at innovations in architecture and looking to other jurisdictions with exciting developments that I think would encourage all local governments that these kinds of homes are very valuable and can be a good start for young British Columbians wanting to get into their first home.

We are looking at regulations -- the very issues that my hon. colleague mentioned -- that are an irritant and that hinder those who wish to use this style of housing for a starter home. We're working with local government, because there is sometimes the impression that manufactured homes are problems. Indeed, we're finding that many local governments have not reviewed their bylaws or their approaches to this industry for many years.

Very recently I attended a manufactured-home display in Abbotsford, and I was very much encouraged by what the industry is doing in terms of the styles and innovations they are introducing. So I want to assure the member that we will take up the regulation issues he mentioned today. They are all valid, and they are actively being pursued. This government believes manufactured-home-ownership is a viable way for young British Columbians to get into their first home.

R. Kasper: I would like to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs for his comments and for assuring the House that some action is being taken. I would like to also thank the member opposite for his comments. This issue knows no political boundaries. It's an issue that can affect anyone anywhere in British Columbia who owns a manufactured home. What I would open to the members opposite and my other colleagues is that we work on a consensus as to how to solve the problem in a way that is going to be fair to people who are owners of manufactured homes, to give them the same rights as people who rent apartments and own homes and property. Right now, that isn't the case.

I would thank the member opposite for his comments. I hope all members of this House can set aside their political views to work together to make sure that this industry is viable, and it's strengthened for the future.

ALL-NIGHT FERRY SAILINGS

D. Mitchell: I rise today on a member's statement dealing with the issue of all-night ferry sailings.

We are in a state of chaos in this province when it comes to transportation planning. There is no transportation planning. That's evident by the fact that, when we reviewed the estimates -- we're still reviewing the estimates in this House -- of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, there was no plan. The budget for that ministry has been slashed. Important issues relating to safety on our highways, roads and transportation networks are not being dealt with.

A further indication of why the state of chaos is being allowed to perpetuate is that there is no one in charge. The fact that there is no single person in charge is evidenced by the Minister of Highways not having responsibility for all highways and transportation in the province. The B.C. Ferry Corporation comes under the control of the Minister of Finance.

A few weeks ago there were reports published through the news media that the B.C. Ferry Corporation was considering all-night ferry sailings between the mainland and Vancouver Island. When there was some negative reaction and questions were raised about whether or not this was going ahead, the B.C. Ferry Corporation refused to confirm or deny such statements or that the corporation was considering such a plan.

What then happened? During that period there was a lot of uncertainty and not a lot of trust, because there had been no consultation up to that point. Both West Vancouver and Nanaimo -- the communities where the ferry terminals at Horseshoe Bay and Departure Bay are located -- expressed concerns about the all-night service. They recommended to the Minister of Finance that they be consulted before any such policy was brought in. The mayor of Nanaimo, Joy Leach, claims that she had been promised a continuing dialogue on any all-night sailings by the president and chief executive officer of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. There were no consultations held in Nanaimo, West Vancouver or anywhere. But what happened? What happened was that a little more than a week ago, on April 29, an order-in-council was passed by the cabinet of this government that approved a plan for all-night ferry sailings.

The issue here is not all-night ferry sailings. The issue here is lack of consultation, and the other important issue is lack of accountability of a Crown corporation. Those are the two fundamental issues that must be addressed and that prove that this government is not committed to consultation, is not an open government as it claims to be.

The other overriding issue is the accountability of a Crown corporation that is owned by all of us as citizens of this province. It's not accountable to the people and communities where it operates. That's a problem, because we would expect a company operating in the private sector in our province to have some accountability to employees and the communities in which it operates. We would expect no less; we would demand it, in fact. Yet when it comes to our Crown corporations, which are owned by all of us, for some reason there's another standard. In fact, there are no standards. Crown corporations are allowed to get away with whatever they wish, with no consultation, with no regard to being good corporate citizens. That seems ironic to me. It seems ironic that a government that claims to be an open government, that claims to be a government of the people, is now running Crown corporations such as B.C. Ferries without any regard to local accountability and without any direction to them to consult with communities where they operate. That's a big problem. It's a big problem because there's no consultation as well.

[ Page 1367 ]

People in the Horseshoe Bay part of West Vancouver, who are affected because of the ferry terminal there, are outraged over the lack of consultation on this issue. People in Nanaimo who are affected by this decision are outraged. It's not because they're necessarily opposed to the plan; it's because there isn't a plan; it's because we're in a state of planning chaos when it comes to transportation; it's because they haven't been consulted, when they were promised that they would be -- and they're disappointed because of that broken promise.

There are a lot of issues here, but I think it really boils down to those two issues. It's not a question of some new innovation in ferry transportation, as the Minister of Finance has claimed. That's not the issue here at all. British Columbians, regardless of where they live, are interested in new ideas, and interested in having Crown corporations deliver services in a more cost-effective manner. But we haven't been told what the cost-benefit analysis of all-night ferry sailings is. We haven't been told whether or not this is going to save money for the people, save money for Crown corporations. We haven't been told what alternatives there are. I can tell you that the residents of Horseshoe Bay and the residents of Nanaimo have ideas, yet they haven't been asked to share them with the government, and they haven't been asked to share them with the Crown corporation that claims to be accountable to the people. That's the tragedy here.

Last week a petition was presented in this House by residents of Horseshoe Bay; hundreds of them who were concerned about all-night ferry sailings signed it. Another petition signed by over 4,000 citizens of the Sunshine Coast was presented by the Leader of the Opposition, asking for better ferry service. Why would the minister responsible for the B.C. Ferry Corporation give the people of Horseshoe Bay what they don't want, and why would he not be giving the people of the Sunshine Coast what they do want? There seem to be some strange standards here -- and no planning and no regard for what the people of the province really want.

Hon. Speaker, I think we have to ask the government to take a second look. Take a second look at this misguided policy, put it on hold, consult with the people, address their local concerns, and then come back with a plan that makes sense, based upon the principles of consultation and accountability of Crown corporations.

L. Krog: I rise in response to the comments of the hon. opposition House Leader with respect to all-night ferry sailings. I'm surprised that his remarks strayed so far from the topic as set out in Orders of the Day

Having lived on both sides of the Strait of Georgia, I must tell the hon. members here that I have some deeper understanding of the issue of 24-hour sailings than perhaps anyone else here today. I wish to assure the hon. opposition House Leader that, although there is a concern about consultation within the communities of West Vancouver and Nanaimo, there has been ongoing consultation over many years between the British Columbia Ferry Corporation and the citizens of Nanaimo. I can assure the hon. member that the response of the B.C. Ferry Corporation by the institution of all-night sailings is good news for Vancouver Island. Only last year I attended a meeting where Mr. Rhodes, the president of B.C. Ferry Corporation, and numerous executives and upper Island tourist association members and upper Island municipal councils and mayors attended. I can tell the hon. member that those people asked for exactly what the government has provided to the people of Vancouver Island: 24-hour sailings.

I want to tell the hon. member that many citizens from communities on Vancouver Island have had to miss numerous events such as weddings and funerals on the lower mainland because of a lack of 24-hour sailings. Not everyone can afford to fly, and not everyone can afford to pay for taxis at either end. This is good news for working people on Vancouver Island. Numerous people living on Vancouver Island have to go to the Shaughnessy Children's Hospital. They are going to enjoy the benefit of these 24-hour sailings. I can tell the hon. member that people from one end of this Island to the other are happy with this decision.

I have here a letter from the Victoria chamber of commerce addressed to the Hon. Glen Clark: "The Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce would like to commend your decision to expand the ferry service to Vancouver Island by scheduling 24-hour sailings from Nanaimo to Horseshoe Bay."

The hon. member is so very concerned about consultation. You're quite right, hon. member, that there will be some impact on the traffic in West Vancouver and the city of Nanaimo, but that impact has been ongoing for a number of years. The large trucks that are lining up to catch the early-morning sailings are doing so in the middle of the night now. An awful lot of truckers depend on that route for their livelihood, and they're very happy about the all-night sailings.

Surely the opposition is not suggesting that commerce and tourism should be discouraged or that the right of people living on Vancouver Island to travel back and forth should be discouraged. He has talked about further studies and comments. I would remind the hon. member that the British Columbia Ferry Corporation has been operating for several decades. I can assure you that from my perspective, representing Parksville-Qualicum, it has been studied to death. We are very happy with what this government has done. The minimal impact that it will have on traffic in the middle of the night in Nanaimo is far outweighed by the benefit to British Columbians generally. I commend this government for what they have done.

[11:00]

D. Mitchell: I thank the member for Parksville-Qualicum for his comments on the statement. But I have to say to members of this House that the member for Parksville-Qualicum has really missed the boat on this one. He doesn't understand the fundamentals of the issue. In fact, the member is really out to sea on this one. The issue is not whether all-night ferry sailings are good or bad. The government and the B.C. Ferry Corporation refuse to share with us any analysis about the economic impact of all-night ferry sailings or the 

[ Page 1368 ]

cost-benefit analysis to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. The issue here is one of consultation.

I find it laughable that the member for Parksville-Qualicum claims that there has been consultation and that the people of Vancouver Island are satisfied. First of all, it's very clear and well documented that the people of Horseshoe Bay in West Vancouver are outraged, for a variety of reasons. I don't need to go into that any further. But I can tell, as my constituents, they are legitimately outraged.

Is Joy Leach, the mayor of Nanaimo, happy? Let me quote the words of the mayor of Nanaimo. Joy Leach said: "Nanaimo has received mandates and fait accompli from on high" -- without any input for the city's concerns about traffic and parking. "I think it is very unfortunate that Clark" -- referring to the Minister of Finance -- "felt he could divine our response and impose a solution which may in fact cause difficulties to the communities directly affected."

Is Joy Leach a resident of Vancouver Island? Of course she is. She is an elected representative of one of the largest communities on Vancouver Island. Do you know what else she has said? She has said:

"We have lost our patience with the high-handed approach. It is unacceptable to simply say we must serve the needs of the province.

"We don't believe 24-hour service, running traffic through neighbourhoods late at night, can ever be part of the solution."

It may reduce lineups at the ferry terminal, but it will also "attract more traffic through the city. This move will leave Nanaimo under siege from traffic congestion."

Clearly, not everyone on Vancouver Island is happy about this. They're not happy because they haven't been consulted. It's going to increase traffic congestion on both sides of the Georgia strait, both at Horseshoe Bay and Nanaimo, and that hasn't been dealt with. We're in a state of transportation chaos. The mayor of Nanaimo, Joy Leach, is concerned that the new sailings will increase traffic to the Island, while the roads are not adequate to handle the volume.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways told us during the review of his estimates that the Island Highway isn't likely going to be completed until the year 2001. We've got things backwards. They're not going to upgrade the highways, but they want to put more traffic onto the highways. They've got things backwards. This government is confused. As usual, they're in a state of chaos when it comes to planning, and their approach on this one, with no consultation, no accountability, is to say: "Ready. Fire. And, oh yes, let's aim. Let's aim later on. Let's consult after the fact; after the decision has been made."

Decisions are made in cabinet; secret decisions, and then people are consulted. That's unacceptable; it's wrong. The government must take a second look.

Hon. G. Clark: Committee of Supply, hon. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR CULTURE

On vote 58: minister's office, $308,000 (continued).

Hon. D. Marzari: I wanted to put forward a response to the questions asked by the member for Saanich North and the Islands during my estimates on Tuesday. At that time I confirmed that Pradinuk Advertising had been commissioned by my ministry to perform an internal audit: (1) to determine the effectiveness of the Ministry of Tourism marketing division; and (2) to identify ways that existing ministry resources could be used more effectively. This is consistent with our government's and this ministry's commitment to make the very best use of taxpayers' dollars. The member asked me to provide the names of the principals of the company and their expertise for doing this audit, and questioned the reason for the audit.

This Ministry of Tourism and Culture has been through numerous reorganizations over the last five years. Tourism particularly has gone through five ministers and six deputy ministers. For more than a decade, Tourism has retained the services of one advertising agency, which has had an account worth more than $10 million over the term of the account. As it is every three years, this advertising contract is opened for retendering this spring. In fact, the contract is now overrun and running on extended time. It's time to review that contract. This is therefore an important opportunity to conduct an independent analysis, to perform a disinterested external evaluation of our procedures and practices and to evaluate and improve the efficacy of our marketing program.

To protect the public's interest we specifically excluded Pradinuk Advertising from bidding on the agency-of-record contract, which is coming up for retendering and will amount to somewhere between $600,000 and $700,000. The ministry took this step to ensure that Pradinuk would not be in a position, after doing this review, to benefit unfairly from information obtained in the course of previous contract duties.

Further to the question put yesterday by the leader of the official opposition, Pradinuk Advertising is a well-established Canadian company operating since 1978. It has worked extensively in the public sector for governments of different political stripes and in the private sector. It possesses a long track record with experience in retail, manufacturing, service and tourism sectors. The company opened a Vancouver office this spring.

With respect to the principals of the company, Ron Pradinuk has had over 20 years' experience in communications and marketing, with extensive work in tourism, including a similar internal tourism marketing audit and a development of Travel Manitoba's marketing and communications strategy for a Conservative government there. He is Manitoba president of the Alliance of Canadian Travel Associations and past president and founder of the Canadian Association of Professional Advertising Agencies. His private sector travel experience includes being past president of the Western Canada Owners' Association of Uniglobe 

[ Page 1369 ]

Travel, which is a world franchise. John Kalil has senior account management expertise on major national and international accounts. His most recent experience in tourism was handling the international holiday marketing program for Canadian Airlines. Bill Bell is an experienced communicator. He has been an award-winning managing editor of a community newspaper, and for more than a decade he has been responsible for publications, communications and public relations for Douglas College, which was given an international college communications award. He has also developed marketing and communications strategies for private sector clients.

For this particular assignment, for a review of work done in the community of British Columbia, Pradinuk boosted its already substantial expertise and experience in the tourism sector by retaining the services of Ms. Ann Pollock. Ms. Pollock has 17 years' experience in tourism-related projects in western Canada. She has served as executive director of the Tourism Industry Association of B. C. Ms. Pollock has developed a comprehensive marketing plan for Alberta's Ministry of Tourism, developed a Canada-Japan marketing strategy for Tourism Canada, and helped develop a marketing strategy for the Asia Pacific Initiative, a joint federal-provincial project.

Yesterday in question period the leader of the official opposition asked me the following question: "Would the Minister of Tourism agree that it's important, prior to commissioning any contract to a company, that that company has a long and proven track record of service in the area of performance they're being asked to examine?" The answer I gave yesterday and I repeat today in estimates is yes. The company we commissioned to assess our marketing program has a proven track record and offers exceptional service, expertise and performance. That's a good deal for the taxpayers of British Columbia. We will be providing a report on this project for the information of all members.

I would like to turn for a few minutes to the issue of the research being done on the opposition side. During my estimates last Tuesday the member for Saanich North and the Islands asked me why I had closed the ministry's tourism office in San Francisco. As I informed him, the office had been closed a year ago by the Social Credit government, six months before I ever became Minister of Tourism. Such mistakes are perhaps explainable when we have new members in a first debate as opposition critics. However, the research presented to us in the past few days on the topic of so-called patronage can't be so lightly excused.

I would like to refer to a press release issued by the caucus yesterday related to the questions first arising in these estimates. This release contains significant inaccuracies and one outright falsehood -- which is damaging. It, and the accompanying documents, identify Vancouver lawyer Paul Sabatino as an owner and principal of Pradinuk Advertising. This is absolutely false. Mr. Sabatino is not an owner or a principal in the company. He had nothing to do with the operations of the company, apart from its incorporation, and he was totally unaware of this company's service to the Tourism ministry until he was contacted by the media as a result of the Leader of the Opposition's press release.

Mr. Sabatino is seeking a retraction and an apology today, as he well should. The opposition Liberal caucus proved that they are unable to understand a corporate registry document, nor did they have the decency to contact individuals whose reputations could be at stake, before making allegations about them in this House and the media.

The Leader of the Opposition suggested in the news release that Pradinuk Advertising -- a 14-year-old national and reputable firm -- needs political connections in order to get work. This is not the case. The firm has talented and experienced personnel and a long track record of tourism marketing. The Leader of the Opposition has cast aspersions on the reputations of a professional, a lawyer, and an experienced advertising firm. There's a pattern emerging here with the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal caucus. This so-called patronage list which has been compiled is the result of shoddy research by an over-anxious partisan zeal.

Even with six months' preparation, the leader and caucus have proven themselves unable to bring to this House anything more than incompetent and inaccurate attacks on individuals in our community. I understand the board of the Working Opportunity Fund has had something to say about the quality of the Liberal caucus's research in the past few days, and the caucus has been forced to retract its unfounded accusations.

I would like to return to consideration of the estimates for vote 58. Part of the minister's office budget pays the salary and benefits of my executive assistant, Ray Edney. Ms. Edney joined my staff from her previous position with the women's program at UBC. I was surprised to read in the Liberal caucus's so-called patronage list that Ms. Edney secured her employment as a result of being a former assistant to the Premier's principal secretary, Linda Baker. I want to inform the Liberal caucus that Ms. Edney has never worked for Linda Baker, and in fact has never met Linda Baker. I can only assume that because Linda Baker's deceased father's name was Rae Eddie -- a former MLA of this House -- perhaps there was some confusion, and my assistant Ray Edney somehow got involved in the equation. Is this the kind of care this caucus takes when it alleges to tell the taxpayers about this government? Is this the kind of new, positive opposition the leader promised us in the election?

[11:15]

I think the Liberal caucus and the leader have a lot to apologize for to this House and to the individuals they have maligned over the course of the last days -- apologies for their incompetence and for partisan zeal. I hope these apologies are forthcoming.

L. Reid: I have some questions directly pertaining to the Ministry of Tourism. As I'm sure you are aware, kidney patients are dependent on dialysis and can only travel if there is treatment available. In the past tourists have turned to the Travellers Dialysis Clinic for treatment because B.C.'s endless waiting-lists make it impossible to receive treatment at their destination. The clinic may soon close. Do you have any response in terms of 

[ Page 1370 ]

accommodating tourists within the province of British Columbia who require medical intervention at their destination?

Hon. D. Marzari: Let me take that on notice and come back to you with a response at a later date during these estimates.

L. Reid: If I might ask my questions, perhaps you could come back in response to all of them. I want to make particular reference to dialysis on sea cruises. British Columbia, the port of Vancouver, hosts the ship that takes dialysis patients on tour in our waterways. The letter is addressed to the Premier, and it says:

"We are desperately waiting an answer regarding the Travellers Dialysis Clinic in Vancouver. We have a dozen or more dialysis travellers coming into Vancouver in the next few weeks, plus many more in August. Their vacation plans have been made for months, and we are now told that they may have no place to receive dialysis treatment."

This is a significant issue because dialysis patients require dialysis a minimum of three times a week for four hours at a time. We need some sense that the government is going to go forward. Otherwise, it becomes an issue of discrimination for us. If you happen to have a kidney problem and are unable to travel because you can't have dialysis treatment at your destination, it does not at all meet the needs of folks who want to travel in British Columbia. Right now this government is having dialysis paid for at Bellingham hospitals and points further south.

We believe this service can be provided in British Columbia, and indeed this is a tourism issue because people need to travel to British Columbia. During Expo we allowed dialysis patients to be treated at the Travellers Dialysis Clinic, because there was a greater need and a greater pressure being placed on British Columbia hospitals. Next year this province is hosting an organ-transplant games. A tremendous number of individuals will be travelling to British Columbia to participate in that. I know that you, as the Minister of Tourism, will want to be able to welcome them to British Columbia. Certainly they are not able to come if we cannot provide the very necessary medical services that will make their stay pleasant and possible. Again, any comment would be most appreciated.

Hon. D. Marzari: I thank the member for her comments. I know that Independence '92, the recent conference held at the convention centre for disabled people from around the world, really did make the downtown tourism and hotel community rethink what services and physical accessibility now exists in the city of Vancouver. I think many people in the city are now aware, more than ever before, of people in wheelchairs.

I would like to add my own concerns to those of the member for patients needing dialysis. I think that if the member can bear with me, I will come back to the House as quickly as I can with some response to her question. I will confer with the Minister of Health on this issue.

L. Reid: To leave you with one last thought, it is not just folks travelling outside the province that we are concerned with; i.e., world travellers coming to Vancouver. It is members of this province who live in Kelowna and other areas who in fact cannot travel to Vancouver, because they cannot receive the necessary service.

I realize that there are extra dollars being committed from the Ministry of Health this year for extended services for renal dialysis patients. However, if you happen to need dialysis, you tend to call the hospital in advance to make arrangements, and for the last two weeks the three hospitals in the province which accommodate dialysis patients have not been able to accommodate anyone over and above their wait-lists.

So indeed you have folks living in the interior of this province who cannot travel to Vancouver for business interests, for family interests or just because they would like to leave their city and travel through other parts of the province. For us as Liberals, it's a discrimination question. We should not be treating outside travellers better than we treat residents of British Columbia, and I leave it with you for your insight.

K. Jones: I'd like to thank the minister for the cooperation that has been exhibited by both her and the Minister of Economic Development in consideration of things that have been done to try to find a means of continuing the British Columbia Transportation Museum in Cloverdale. I know that she has met with the hard-working team of local volunteers that is trying to bring full community involvement and full provincial involvement in maintaining this wonderful collection. I would like to say that we really appreciate the support that you and your staff and the other minister and his staff have been providing in allowing these people the time to work on the necessary requirements to make it possible to come up with a proposal.

I believe you have given them till June 30, and I think that that is reasonable and provides a wonderful opportunity for the community to really get involved with it. I know that we have the backing of Mayor Bose and the city council, and I am continually getting more petitions coming in. I'll be tabling some more later next week, as I don't want to bring them in in dribs and drabs. I'll try and bring them in as one order, and hopefully they will represent people who are committing themselves to coming out and supporting the organization on a long-term basis.

Could the minister give us some indication of her further direction in the matter at this time -- methods from a Tourism standpoint whereby this museum and the adjoining museums projected for this site could further be made a part of the overall responsibilities of Tourism B.C. and the tourism benefits of the Tourism ministry?

Hon. D. Marzari: The fact of the matter is that the Ministry of Tourism and Culture approaches the issue of the transportation museum not from the tourism angle, so to speak, but because it's the minister of culture and heritage resources that actually owns the vehicles -- starting with the 18 vehicles from the King brothers' truck collection that were donated to the 

[ Page 1371 ]

ministry of culture in 1974. The number of vehicles in that collection has, of course, grown over the years until finally in 1987 it numbered 300. I gather that's where the number of heritage vehicles remains.

Of those vehicles, our curators and museologists tell us that 65 would be considered class A vehicles, therefore important to British Columbia's history. Class B vehicles are good for display and excellent for museum purposes, and those number 100. Class C vehicles, which I'm told have little significance for a curator or a museum per se, number ten. There must be others, therefore, that haven't been classified or are not relevant to the museum itself.

We are operating inside a structure owned by the B.C. Pavilion Corporation under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Economic Development. There has been a lot of communication between ministries around the future of both the collection of vehicles and the transportation museum itself. The bad news is that this museum is very expensive to own and operate. The Pavilion Corporation and the ministry of culture are both trying to make more efficient use of taxpayers' dollars. The museum has been slated to be abandoned or to be dismantled.

It is important, as we go through the process of looking at a facility which is costing the taxpayers of this province upward of $500,000 a year, that we take a very long and cautious look at it. With 25,000 people visiting every year, the museum is simply not making a go of it. With a great deal of marketing injected -- I gather there were marketing dollars injected a few years ago -- the attendance went up somewhat, but not enough to break even or to begin to think that the museum was at all financially viable. Very few museums are financially viable, but from the cultural point of view, my particular jurisdiction has to do with the maintenance of a collection -- not necessarily the preservation of this particular museum as it sits.

I'm very happy that the community, particularly the Cloverdale business association, has come forward to suggest that they might be able to pull together a financial package to make this thing work and to provide an anchor for the business community of Cloverdale. In fact, the plans that have been put on the table to suggest some kind of an integration with the Surrey Museum and to create some kind of an anchor point for the business community sound very exciting.

I cannot promise this House, however, that there is going to be a follow-through and that there is going to be a museum there at the end of the summer, largely because what we will be looking for between Economic Development and Culture is a business plan that pays off and that's going to make sense for the taxpayers' dollars as well as for the business people in Cloverdale.

I have asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs to get involved and to take a look at what other programs exist in the menu of Municipal Affairs programs to assist business associations in providing a better complement to upgrade their main streets in order to attract more customers. I'm hoping to open that dialogue as well with yet a third ministry. I believe in all ministries gathering together to solve the problems of a community. If the problem of the Cloverdale community is that it wants an anchor, then perhaps there are other plans that we could look at. I do not want to leave that community stranded, but I must answer honestly and openly that I don't know if there is a resolution for this. I'm hoping, and I'm looking forward to the meeting with the Cloverdale merchants and the mayor of Surrey to see whether or not there is a possibility of money coming from partners in the community to assist, if there is to be any future for this museum.

I must say that the class A vehicles and certain of the class B vehicles will not be sold. They are museum pieces, and they are guarded as museum pieces. They are relevant to British Columbia's history. Whether or not they may be geographically dispersed to other museums remains a question right now for future planning and consultation.

I thank the member for his words and for representing his community on this issue.

[11:30]

G. Farrell-Collins: I believe we are less than a quorum, and I would suggest we call for a quorum and then continue.

The Chair: Hon. members, we now have a quorum and the committee will please come to order.

K. Jones: Further to the minister, are there any plans in your budget this year to do something about promoting tourism as a business in all of the upper valley areas rather than just in the downtown Vancouver area, such as the Cloverdale area, to be able to focus tours or advertising? We have such a thing coming up next week: the second-largest rodeo in Canada, the Cloverdale Rodeo. It's something that we should be promoting throughout the world on behalf of the people of British Columbia. It's a first-class rodeo that brings people from all over the world.

Interjection.

K. Jones: It just happens to be in my riding, yes. It's one that needs to have the opportunity to share, along with all of the other major events in this province, in the promotion capability of the Tourism ministry. Would the minister give some idea of what her plans are to focus more of the tourism dollar into the Fraser Valley area -- Surrey and Delta and into the Chilliwack-Abbotsford area?

Hon. D. Marzari: It might interest the member to know that almost 60 percent of tourism in British Columbia is British Columbians travelling from event to event and visiting different communities. Certainly the travel to festivals and rodeos and community fairs is a major part of the tourism that occurs in our province.

At the moment we have nine active tourism regions in the province, and the Fraser Valley is represented by the Southwestern B.C. Tourism Association. These associations have suffered a cutback in their marketing dollars; however, these associations still remain strong and viable. Their administrative budgets have not been cut, and they advise me and advise the other regions on 

[ Page 1372 ]

what is available and what is going on in their regions with their fairs, festivals and rodeos.

If you ask me if I have plans for how we expand the tourism market, and how we push tourism out of the city of Vancouver and out of the city of Victoria into our suburban regions, the answer is yes. Those plans are obviously there as we work more closely and better with our partners in tourism and as we hope over the long-term to get their marketing dollars and their marketing strategies upgraded and boosted. As for this coming summer, I think that the southwestern association and Tourism Vancouver will be doing some promotions. But I appreciate the member bringing this to my attention, and I will certainly assure the member that his comments will be passed along to our southwest partner in tourism and to Tourism Vancouver.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to pick up with a few short questions on some comments that the minister made earlier today when she began her estimates. Her comments were interesting and intriguing and had quite the political angle on them, and I intend to comment on them quite lengthily.

I do have a very simple question for the minister. Perhaps she could answer for us: was the contract given to Pradinuk tendered? If so, who were the other applicants or the other bidders? Perhaps she could give us that information right away.

Hon. D. Marzari: This particular contract, because of the timing of the major contract coming up later this spring, which will be the contract for the agency of record, a contract of over $0.5 million, was not tendered largely because the time available to prepare for the larger contract -- the terms of reference, what we should be looking for, who we should be looking for.... There was little time to prepare for that agency-of-record contract. Also we had, in Pradinuk, an agency of record, an agency of repute. Consequently, the contract is ongoing at this point. As I said, I will be bringing a report back to this House on the findings of this review.

G. Farrell-Collins: It begs another question. Are there no firms already incorporated in British Columbia that have similar or perhaps better qualifications and that could have done exactly the same job, as opposed to incorporating a firm at the last minute -- not even a month ago -- from outside the province to come in and do this contract work for us?

Hon. D. Marzari: Once again I come back to my point about shoddy research and impugning the professional reputations of people who have been in the business of tourism marketing and of doing evaluations for decades. Whether or not a company is incorporated in British Columbia at the last moment is not the issue. The issue is whether or not we have people who can do the job efficiently and well and who have a reputation for being able to do that for governments of all political stripes. That is the issue. We have people working on this contract who know the business and have proven themselves time and time again, not only in British Columbia but across the country. They are consulting with each other and are performing a bit of research for us that needs to be done before we go to the contract of record.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's intriguing to hear the minister wax eloquent with a statement that I'm sure was prepared by their communication department, which we all know to be extremely extensive and full of NDP patronage appointments. It's very intriguing to hear the minister talk about how terrible the Liberal research has been on this issue. She stood up in the House three days ago when she was asked this very question, and when she was asked again two days later, she still did not have the answer. The minister is in charge of her ministry, not the official opposition. The minister should have the answers to these questions, not the official opposition. She is the one who was elected, who was appointed and who should have the answers to these questions. We shouldn't have to be finding out this information for her.

I might also state that the Liberal caucus asked this minister -- for that matter, all the ministers, including the Premier -- on the first or second day of this sitting, in written form, with the rules and procedures of this House in mind, for a list of all contracts that had been let, the people involved and their credentials, whether or not these contracts were sent to tender and what the amounts of the contracts were. This minister failed to do her research. This minister failed to find the answers to those questions, if not for this House then certainly for herself. Perhaps if she had done so, and if the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs had done so.... We'll see what other ministers are going to end up in trouble over this. If those ministers had done their research at the beginning of this House sitting some seven weeks ago, then none of this would have happened, and the minister would have been informed of this well in advance. To turn her finger and blame it on the Liberal opposition caucus for not doing proper research is like the kettle calling the pot black. Self-righteous indignation is hardly becoming a minister of the Crown when she is the one who has not done her research.

I am not attempting, nor has the Liberal caucus ever attempted, to impugn the reputations of the people who may or may not be involved with Pradinuk in Manitoba or British Columbia. The question that was asked by the Liberal opposition was: why the rush to incorporate this company in British Columbia? If this is such a good company -- and it may well be; they do have some very good credentials -- why is it that these people find a gentleman in British Columbia to do the contract who happens to be a member of the NDP? He lost the nomination -- and I don't know how he managed to do that; I understand that he came in third -- to the member who now sits for North Vancouver-Lonsdale.

How they chose that gentleman with prime NDP credentials, as we've seen in a whole raft of patronage appointments by this government.... How is it that this same gentleman extends the legal services of the 

[ Page 1373 ]

incorporation of that firm to a law firm that happens to have as one of its prime partners the president of the New Democratic Party of this province? So there is money then flowing from the Ministry of Tourism to Pradinuk, whose British Columbia branch has been incorporated less than a month ago, and then the very fees that go to pay for that incorporation and any future legal services go to a legal firm with a gentleman who is acting -- and to this day is listed with your own Minister of Finance's registry of companies -- as the sole director and shareholder.

Why is it that this flow of funds from the Ministry of Tourism goes to one NDP member, who then takes it to an NDP law firm, where one of the senior partners of this law firm is the president of the New Democratic Party? The minister totally misses -- and so do the members of her cabinet -- the issue here. The issue is that this minister and another minister of this Crown are simply uninformed, have not done their research and do not know what's going on in their own ministries. We don't know if the deputy minister is granting these contracts. We don't know who is granting these contracts. The minister says she knows nothing about it; she didn't even know the audit was being done, when the question was first asked in this House. Who is having trouble with research? Not this caucus. It's the government that's having trouble with research, and it's that minister who's having trouble with research.

We have absolutely no concerns about the qualifications of the people doing the job. The minister has listed their qualifications, and they sound like extremely competent people. The question is: why was this company chosen and why was this contract not tendered? And I certainly don't take the minister's explanation at face value. I think it's highly suspicious. Why was the contract not tendered? Why was this particular gentleman chosen to do the audit, as opposed to other people in this province who may have been just as able to do the job? There was no tender. We still don't know the amount of the contract. I don't believe the minister said that in her statement today, and I would like her to perhaps rise. Maybe she doesn't even know the amount of the contract yet. We'll have to find that out. It's the minister who is not following proper research procedures. It's the minister who doesn't know what's going on in her ministry.

[11:45]

What we are concerned about is not the qualifications of the people doing it. We are concerned about the process that has taken place. We are very concerned that this contract goes -- like many other contracts have gone -- to a gentleman who has strong NDP ties. His company is a newly incorporated branch of this company. The incorporation is done by a law firm with strong NDP ties, and there is no explanation as to why this has taken place, other than "there wasn't enough time." I'm surprised she's not standing and saying that it is the mess that the Socreds left behind that is causing her to go to her NDP friends to give these contracts.

The explanation that was given by this minister less than an hour ago simply does not wash. It does not stand up to the scrutiny of the fair-minded people in this province, and I would like the minister to explain a little better why this contract went to the friends and insiders of this government, was not publicly tendered, was rather given to the friends of this government. I would also ask her to comment on the actual cost of the contract itself.

Hon. D. Marzari: I think the member of the opposition is using political bafflegab to cover up the fact that the members of his research department maligned and cast aspersions upon the professional integrity of a number of people on their famous -- now infamous -- list of so-called patronage appointments, and then standing up in estimates and during question period in this House and maligning their professional integrity and suggesting that friends and insiders around the legal firm had signed incorporation papers with a company that was becoming incorporated.

This grand attempt to malign and cast aspersions in this House has serious impact on people's ability to do business in the community out there. It has labelled people in this community as friend and insider. Some people don't mind that. Some people don't mind being on a list. In fact, I've been asked: "Why can't I get on this fancy Liberal list."

Interjection.

Hon. D. Marzari: Exactly. But others find this repugnant. Fair-minded people in this province find it repugnant, especially when the Liberal caucus does its research in a way which is sloppy, slipshod and does not reflect reality. I quoted Mr. Sabatino's name in this House. Yesterday Mr. Levi, on the WOF board, threatened, I believe, legal action. There are a number of areas in which you have produced sloppy research, and no amount of bafflegab in the House and highfalutin rhetoric is going to get around the fact that you must apologize. There are people in our community who need apologies because of this shoddy job that's being done.

The contract itself is a $50,000 contact. It is producing results that give us the information we need to set terms of reference and long-term plans for the tendering of the major contract that our ministry is putting forward to the responsible professional community over the next few months. This contract is giving us the material that we need to go forth and provide our terms of reference for the major contract. As I said, a report will be coming to this House in terms of what this contract produces -- being done by people respected in our community, people whose names I have put on the record today for this House.

The reason I have put these names on the record today was that I assured your colleague from Saanich that I would be bringing these names, what this contract is doing and the amount back to this House during estimates. Yesterday I also assured the Leader of the Opposition that I would be bringing them back to this House. I have brought back the answers to the questions that were put to me and I have brought back an admonition to the Liberal caucus: when they choose to malign and cast aspersions upon individuals by slop-

[ Page 1374 ]

pily putting them on fancy lists, which are intended to show up some political connection, they had better be more careful, because they are leaving themselves open not just to libel but to casting aspersions and maligning people who are trying to do their best as professionals in the British Columbia community.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister still fails to understand -- as has her whole government failed to understand -- the issue with patronage. In no way does the press release that was issued by this caucus yesterday state anywhere -- and I can quote from it line by line -- that we have any concern that these gentlemen are anything but forthright, good citizens. There is no comment to that whatsoever. The question is, and the issue is, the way in which and the process by which this government is granting contracts to its friends. To say that someone is a friend of the NDP I don't think maligns anyone.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, some people in the province might not vote the same way as they do, but to state that somebody is a friend of the NDP is certainly not to malign anyone's character. My father is a member of the NDP -- not a member, but he votes NDP. I disagree with him; I think he's wrong. I've now stood up in the House and said that my very own father votes NDP. Am I maligning his character? I think not.

If my father got a contract, however, from the Ministry of Tourism because he was an NDP member, then I would stand up in this House and go after the Minister of Tourism for granting that contract without tender. My father is retired, however, so he's not in line for a patronage appointment.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: He is a constituent of Saanich North and the Islands.

To state that somebody is a friend of the NDP government has nothing to do with slandering their character or libelling them in any way. This press release that was issued yesterday and the press release that we stand by, I might add, merely states that a contract was let to a company, the principal of which, according to the Ministry of Finance's own documents, is a failed NDP candidate who has been up for patronage appointments in the past. The prime gentleman working on this contract, as best we can tell, a Mr. Ball or Mr. Bill...

An Hon. Member: Bell.

G. Farrell-Collins: ...Mr. Bell -- sorry -- is a failed NDP nomination candidate. The legal fees of the corporation -- and I assume any future legal work done by this company with regard to its contract with the Ministry of Tourism -- are going to a law firm of which one of the senior partners is the president of the provincial New Democratic Party.

I'm not saying that these men did anything underhanded to secure this contract, other than being members of the New Democratic Party. The problem....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: No, it's not underhanded.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Okay, it's not underhanded. The only thing that we're bringing up is that these gentlemen are members of the NDP. They have strong ties to the NDP, and we're not casting any aspersions on these people or their qualifications.

What we are casting aspersions on with severe concern is the method by which the Minister of Tourism grants contracts -- as we know, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs grants contracts -- and that is: let's grant them; let's not put them out to public tender; let's slip them to our friends and insiders.

The minister still hasn't answered the question, and I find it intriguing that after my asking it three times, she still hasn't answered it. She either doesn't know the answer or she doesn't want to answer it. What other firms in this province would be equally qualified and able to do this audit?

Hon. D. Marzari: I'm sure there are a number of other firms qualified to do this audit. I'm sure a number of other firms would not be willing to sign an affidavit saying that they will not tender on the major $600,000 item, which is coming up soon. Many of the firms that operate in this province will be looking toward that larger $600,000 to $700,000 agency of record contract.

I will repeat: it was this contract that was helping us to develop our terms of reference to look at the existing efficiencies and effectiveness of the marketing division and to enable us to look for what we are looking for. The major contract, which will cost taxpayers more than $500,000, will help us to decide on that particular one. We are, as I said, now overextended on that contract, and the time is rapidly approaching when we must develop our terms of reference and tender that contract appropriately and fairly and openly and honestly -- a small contract enabling us to make the major decision down the road in a few months' time.

But let me go on. I wonder if the member has really ever owned or incorporated a business. The lawyers that incorporate your business, I don't know how much they make; I remember that when incorporating my business, it was not a major deal. I don't even know if I was in the lawyer's office, except perhaps to put my signature on the bottom line of a document and have it properly witnessed. I don't remember how much it cost when I set up my business, but it certainly was trivial compared to the later costs for professional services and accountants and inventory and all the rest of it.

Let me assure the member that we are not talking about maligning people personally. That's one thing, when you take on a person and you malign them personally. Carrying an NDP membership card is not something to be ashamed of in this province; nor, I 

[ Page 1375 ]

assume, a Liberal membership card, except that after some of this research, people in our community might be asking what kind of information they're getting out of the opposition.

I'm talking about professional reputation here. Let me quote from a letter from certain members of the board of the Working Opportunity Fund, written on May 7:

"Such allegations" -- of friends and insiders, as was thrown forward by your overzealous research department -- "do not only hurt the reputations of the people identified, but also the fund itself. Allegations regarding the quality or independence of the fund's directors and management could affect the fund's present efforts to raise additional capital in the marketplace. As a result" -- and this is the fund directors writing this -- "we are asking for an immediate publication of a retraction for the erroneous allegations.

"The Working Opportunity Fund is labour-sponsored, but has also drawn substantial support from the business community. It has business leaders on its board of directors and an advisory council....

"This type of unwarranted attack will make building these bridges between labour, business and government more difficult. When people volunteer to provide a public service at no charge, they should be commended, not become political targets."

David Levi put forward these thoughts on the aspersions cast not just upon him personally but on the fund itself and upon a government program which, as I recall, the opposition voted for.

I believe that when you're doing business in the community, aspersions cast upon you which pull in your business can harm your business. We have in this House rules about what becomes public, and private contracts do not become public in this House, because it would undermine the competitive process of tendering and doing business and because it might put somebody at a non-competitive advantage.

[12:00]

Now I'm suggesting, suggesting and suggesting that the Liberal opposition on this score -- with its list, flailing it about in the House, pointing to lines with little arrows everywhere.... I've seen it -- here, little lines and little arrows connecting somebody like Mr. Sabatino with the Pradinuk Advertising firm, and then saying that he is a principal in the company. It reflects a complete misunderstanding of how corporate papers get drawn up and confuses a business with the lawyers that the business does its incorporation with.

I'm saying that this is sloppy research. I'm saying that this is not credible. It doesn't wash in the minds of fair-minded people across this province.

I have put forward answers in this House to the questions that were asked of me. I have done my best to bring forward answers, and I have done that this morning in a timely and orderly fashion during the estimates process, three days before question period on Monday when I could have brought them forward. I would suggest to the member that he is being a bit of a blowhard standing up and speaking about the validity of his list, misunderstanding completely the nature of professional reputation, of the reputation of companies that have been dragged across the floor here today. I would ask him to think seriously about the apology and the form that apology should take to the companies and the individuals who have been maligned.

G. Farrell-Collins: Again, the minister fails to understand that the issue here is not.... She is the one who keeps bringing up the personalities and reputations of these poor people, when all the Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus has done is to illustrate the means and the process by which this government grants contracts: that is, these contracts are not tendered. Time after time, contracts are delivered to members who have strong New Democratic ties either as former failed candidates or former directors of the party or executive members of the party, and it seems that the money has a way of filtering to these people.

It's not beyond the duty of a diligent opposition to look at where the government is spending its money; is that money being spent wisely; and is it being done in a practical way that is fair-minded in the minds of the people? Money that is going untendered to friends and insiders of the New Democratic government is not the way the people of this province want to see money flow. They want to see money put to public tender. They want to see contracts let to the best person. I don't know why this NDP government has to go outside the province to find somebody to do an audit on the Ministry of Tourism, and set up a shell company here in British Columbia to do that audit. We don't even know the date yet of when this contract was let, and that is something I would be intrigued to find out also. Perhaps the minister can enlighten us as to the date this contract was let. That is the issue here. That is the concern the people of British Columbia have.

The minister has brought in another issue, which I'll be glad to comment on, since she brought it up. That is a letter by Ladner Downs with regard to the Working Opportunity Fund. There are a number of inaccuracies in this letter itself. One is where the letter states: "...that legislation requires that a majority of the board of directors be appointed by trade unions, associations or federations of trade unions." That's simply not the fact. If you read the act, and if the minister would do her research and read the actual act, the act states that at least 50 percent of the shares of the companies of this fund should be owned by trade unions, associations, etc. It mentions nothing about who has to be appointed to the board and who doesn't have to be appointed to the board.

I ask the minister to do her research before she stands up in the House on an issue that she knows very little about. It happens to be, in case the minister is curious and would like to have a member of her staff look it up for her, the Employee Investment Act, with the subsections on the employee investment regulation. She may wish to have her research people do some work on it and see if they can come up with something a little more substantive than what we've heard from her today.

The minister seems to keep dwelling on the aspersions the Liberal Party has cast on these poor people in British Columbia; these people we're driving into the ground and destroying their business. I would say that the minister and her colleagues are doing more in their 

[ Page 1376 ]

taxation policy to damage the businesses in this province than a whole fleet of these patronage appointments could possibly do.

I would ask the minister to look at the very press release she held up a moment ago and go through it line by line, and let's see what she's so concerned about. Where are the inaccuracies in this press release? Is not Mr. Bill Bell, a North Vancouver alderman, a failed NDP-nomination candidate and was he not an NDP media liaison worker during last fall's election campaign? Could she answer that question?

Hon. D. Marzari: I will come back to the House and let the member know whether or not those statements are true.

Would the member like to talk a bit about the second paragraph on the press release? "Another principal in Pradinuk is Paul Sabatino, who is also a partner in the law firm, as well as a failed NDP candidate in the 1972 provincial election." This sounds like McCarthy's list here. "Mr. Sabatino is not unfamiliar with the NDP patronage bandwagon." I'm talking '72. "In 1974 he received a patronage appointment from the Barrett government...." I would ask the member to stand up and talk about how Mr. Paul Sabatino is a principal in Pradinuk Advertising.

G. Farrell-Collins: Once again the minister doesn't know. Who is in charge in that ministry? Who is running that ministry if you don't even know the people that you're letting contracts to? How are the people of this province supposed to have any confidence at all in this minister when she has absolutely no clue what is going on within her own ministry? I say, shame! Perhaps the Premier, if he would finally show up in this House sometime, would know what's going on within his own cabinet and would know that his ministers are totally incompetent because they don't know what's going on in their own ministries on a day-to-day basis.

In answer to the minister's question, I find it intriguing that the minister has to ask the opposition questions to get answers. I wonder where the information really is in this province and who exactly knows what's going on.

I have in front of me the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations' papers, and the sole principal is one.... The director's name is Paul Sabatino, and it gives his address. I assume she has these pages, because if she had done her research, she would. If we go on to the Company Act, and we look here, we see the listing of the shares, and we see: "I agree to take the number and kind of shares in the company set opposite my name." It is signed by Paul Sabatino.

I understand how companies are incorporated. I know that this gentleman is acting on behalf of Pradinuk, and he is the lawyer for this company in the incorporation. The question is not really who the director is. The question is: where does the money flow? The minster has unknowingly granted a contract to Pradinuk, who came from Manitoba, it seems, specifically to get this contract. The ongoing professional legal work, seeing as they've done the incorporation, is very likely to go to the firm that Mr. Sabatino is a practitioner with. There's the flow of money; that is what is concerning to the people of this province.

Hon. D. Marzari: I'll tell you what's concerning to the people of this province right at this moment, if anybody is bothering to watch: it's the slur that you managed to make between a lawyer who's incorporating a company and acting as a shelf director until the final signatures can be put onto a document, and the assumption that, because that lawyer is putting his or her name on a particular place on a document as a temporary or shelf director, as they call it, is in fact a principal of the company. That's where you're making your mistake, and that's where the people of this province, as they watch this debate, are going to understand the sloppiness of what you're doing.

I don't mind the sloppiness; there's a lot of sloppiness in this House, believe me. We've seen a lot of it in the last few weeks. But what you're doing while you're making these sloppy decisions and putting people's names on these funny little lists that you're compiling is making them look as if they are not behaving in a professional capacity and possibly hurting the nature of their business, which may well rely on being altogether non-political in the community. It may well be that people who have been listed by you could be personally and corporately hurt by their inclusion. Paul Sabatino is not an owner or a principal of Pradinuk Advertising B.C. Ltd. He was the incorporating solicitor.

You can say all you want about whether or not Paul Sabatino got $200 for incorporating a firm or about whether he might receive $400 or $1,500 down the line for doing a piece of work, and you can make those connections and assumptions. They are connections and assumptions based on faulty premises, which you were prepared to go to the press with and claim that Sabatino was a principal owner. He is listed as a director temporarily because all the paperwork for the company was not complete. This is normal.

As soon as the paperwork is complete, a company search will not show his name. He was a shelf director for the company. He has no financial interest and is not a shareholder in the company. He is not benefiting in any way from this $50,000 contract, which I did know about, for a task that I asked to have done, and it is being done properly and honestly. It will be done in order to set us up for the next go-round for the larger contract.

Sabatino did not know about the company's contract with the government until yesterday, when he was called by the media. Why was he called by the media? Because a list had come out connecting Sabatino's name and putting him on the board of directors of an advertising company. The man knows nothing about advertising. I'm saying that there is an apology due to Mr. Sabatino. There are apologies due to the Working Opportunity Fund board.

Consequently, the list you produced, being as faulty as it is, should not be used for public consumption and should not be released to the media or discussed further at any length, until you can work within your research ranks, with the failed NDPers who work for you in that 

[ Page 1377 ]

department, and come up with some positive things to say about what is going on here, and maybe even help out in the process rather than dragging names, willy-nilly, across the floor of this House to damage professional and corporate reputations.

G. Farrell-Collins: I find it intriguing that the minister assumes we have failed NDP candidates working on our research; in fact, we don't. We do have a good mix of people, though. We have a woman in our research department who worked for the NDP in Alberta. We have some people who have worked for the Social Credit Party, the Liberal Party....

The Chair: Excuse me, member. May I remind you of the standing orders regarding relevance in debate. At the moment we are debating the administrative actions of the Ministry of Tourism.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair. The minister made comments, and you did not rule her out of order. I assume that in the interest of fairness, which this government prides itself on, I will be entitled to respond to the statements that she made, and I intend to do so.

[12:15]

The minister talked about the staff working in our research department. We have a wide variety of staff. We picked the best people we could find, regardless of what their background was. That's how we intend to run government also.

As I've said numerous times, the minister does not understand the issue here. The issue is the flow of government funds and who gets government money and how they get it. The minister is simply not understanding that issue. It's becoming apparent in the administration of her own ministry that she is not aware of the flow of funds, who is getting the money or where it's going. I would ask her to explain to this House who in this ministry knows where this money is going. Is she not responsible for her ministry? We asked the minister a question a few minutes ago, and she had to admit once again that she does not know but will find out and come back to us. Again we see that she is perhaps not as prepared as she should be.

The minister talked a bit about the WOOF fund. She went on at some length, so I intend to do so also, in the interest of fairness. She talked about a letter that was sent to this caucus by the Working Opportunity Fund on a concern over whether or not their director appointments were patronage appointments. Somehow this terrible wrong had been done by the Liberals because they had included these people as possible patronage appointments or as people who were getting government money because of their close association with the NDP.

I find it very interesting that a legal firm -- eventually we got a letter from a legal firm -- would write to us and tell us how terribly they'd been damaged by being put in small print on the bottom of this very little list, when in January, months beforehand, Vaughn Palmer, a well-known columnist with the Vancouver Sun, wrote extensively about the patronage appointments at WOOF. There was another column in the business section of the Vancouver Sun in January on the extensive patronage involved in WOOF. Those weren't my words; those weren't the words of the Liberal opposition; those were the words of the independent media in this province who had done the research that the minister fails to do. Any damage that could possibly have been done in some imaginary way by having us associate these people with the NDP, any professional damage that the minister imagines in her mind, would have been done months before by the independent media in this province.

Do we expect that this same legal firm will write a letter to Vaughn Palmer and to the Vancouver Sun threatening to sue them for this terrible thing that they said about patronage? No. They're not going to go after the media. They're going after us, because we're starting to hit home. We're starting to really identify the priorities of this government: where this government is spending its money, and who is getting the money. We're starting to see how long the gravy train is.

That's why all of a sudden these legal letters are coming in to the Liberal caucus from people who are associated with the NDP. They are worried that we're starting to hit close to home. Somehow the NDP has gotten itself in trouble over this patronage issue, and they're pulling out all the stops. They're calling all their friends and insiders to write letters: "Get your lawyer friends to write letters, and let's see if we can scare the Liberals off this patronage issue."

I can tell the minister that the Liberal Party will watch vehemently, will watch daily, will watch meticulously the patronage appointments that this government is making and the contracts that it is letting without tender. We will continue to watch these patronage appointments. We will monitor them to the best of our ability. This will continue for the next four years, until finally the people of this province come to their senses and get rid of this government.

The minister talks about the reputation of the....

The Chair: Excuse me. A member rises on a point of order.

H. De Jong: Hon. Chairperson, I gather that there's not a quorum in the House. I note that there are only two members of the 51-member government in the House. I'm just wondering whether you might wish to call the bells to get more members in the House.

The Chair: Point well taken, member. I will ring the bell.

The Chair notes there is now a quorum. Debate will continue.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's really interesting to note the extreme seriousness with which the government takes these issues, when one cabinet member, who's the one answering the questions, and one backbencher out of 51 people are the only ones who decide to be in the House to engage in the debate.

The minister was talking at length about how terrible it was that these people had been associated 

[ Page 1378 ]

with the NDP by the Liberal Party, and how damaging that could possibly be to their reputation. I might let the minister know that the same people who released the letter, which had been sent to the Leader of the Opposition, at the same time issued a press release that says at the top, "Liberal News Release" -- they've actually pencilled the letterhead in as if it was our news release. It went out on fax machines to the newspeople of this province, and they picked it up and ran with it as if it was a story. They took that firm at its word, that this was some sort of news release. It was all over the press last night, today, and probably continues as we speak on the "Noon News," because of the sloppy research and the sloppy business practices of that legal firm. That is of concern. If anything is going to damage the reputation of this firm, it's going to be the way in which they've handled this issue. If anyone has any potential damage to be done to them, it's going to be the Liberal caucus because of this news release issued by this party.

We've gone at some length on this issue. The minister has failed to justify this contract at all, in any form whatsoever. I would like to ask the minister a very short question: when was this contract let to the firm?

Hon. D. Marzari: I can't help but comment on the member's readiness to back away from his own release. He now calls it a letter.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Marzari: You really are dissociated, therefore, from those aspersions and that suggestion and mistruth that Sabatino was a principal owner. You're dissociating yourself from your very own letter. You're dissociating yourself from your very own list. You're dissociating yourself from the facts.

G. Janssen: Point of order. I would ask the Chair to have the member of the opposition address his remarks through the Chair rather than to the minister directly.

The Chair: Point well taken, member. I would ask members on both sides of the House to address their remarks through the Chair and wait until they have been recognized by the Chair before they proceed. Debate will continue.

Hon. D. Marzari: Hon. Chair, I believe I have done my best to speak through you to the House on this issue from the beginning of this estimates procedure.

I cannot help but comment on the member's willingness and readiness to back away from his own research statistics at this point, and his own research results -- a list which carried a number of mistruths -- which could have damaging impact on individuals and corporations that were implicated in the sloppy list that was drawn up. The member has also alluded to the fact that I, the minister, was not aware of this project and of this proposal when, in fact, I had been asking for this project and this proposal to be done. The terms of reference were appropriate to my request. I did not write the terms of reference. The business of finding the appropriate company to do this precursor document before the major agency of record is selected was all perfectly appropriate.

The amount of the contract is before the House at this point. It is a $50,000 contract, which I have previously stated. I have previously, before the member came into the House today, talked to the principals involved in this particular research, as well as the principals involved in the company. The principals involved in this company -- and I will reiterate -- happen to include Mr. Ron Pradinuk, who's had over 20 years' experience in communications and marketing; and Mr. Bill Bell, whose political past I do not know about, I must confess, but I do know he is an experienced communicator, an award-winning managing editor of a community newspaper and responsible for publications, communications and public relations for Douglas College.

Another subcontractor on this piece of research is well known and well respected throughout the tourism community in British Columbia: Ms. Ann Pollock, with 17 years' experience in tourism-related projects in western Canada. She has done considerable work for the previous administration in tourism, and her work has been well respected. She has provided magnificent continuity into this administration and is working on this particular activity to look at the effectiveness and efficiency of our marketing department and marketing division.

You are also ignoring the fact that another principal in this activity is John Kalil, a senior management person, with major national and international accounts, handling international holiday marketing for Canadian Airlines. These are competent people who bring to the task at hand, which is to look at the terms of reference and the efficiency and effectiveness of the marketing division for decisions which must be made soon -- within the next few months -- to ensure that $10 million of taxpayers' money in '92 and '93 will be appropriately directed, properly spent and properly accounted for, so that we have some reasonable assurance that our tourism dollars are well spent....

An Hon. Member: What date?

Hon. D. Marzari: The date that the contract was signed was March 13.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I would then ask the minister: with which corporation was that contract signed?

Hon. D. Marzari: The initial letter for the contract and the contract were signed with Mr. William Bell on March 13.

An Hon. Member: Before Pradinuk...?

Hon. D. Marzari: Before the Pradinuk company, which exists at a national level, was officially incorporated within British Columbia. That is not untoward nor is it anything out of the ordinary. The contract was signed with one of the principals of this company, 

[ Page 1379 ]

which was in the process of being formed from a national company to a provincial company.

I have in my hand a letter of May 8, 1992, from Mr. Paul Sabatino to Mr. Gordon Wilson, Leader of the Opposition.

"I have in hand your press release entitled 'More Patronage Appointments Unveiled by Liberals'" -- a press release which the member has decided wasn't really a press release; he is backing away from the very information it contained -- "dated May 7, 1992, which contains the following statements:

"'Official opposition leader Gordon Wilson is condemning the Harcourt government for making yet another blatant patronage appointment for friends and insiders of the NDP.

"'Pradinuk Advertising was incorporated on April 10, 1992, and operates out of the same offices as the law firm of Turco Moscovich Sabatino and Aikenhead in Vancouver.

"'Another principal in Pradinuk is Paul Sabatino, who is also a partner in the law firm, as well as a failed NDP candidate in the 1972 provincial election. "Mr. Sabatino is not unfamiliar with the NDP patronage bandwagon," Wilson said. "In 1974 he received a patronage appointment from the Dave Barrett government to serve as chairman of the motor transport carrier commission. This government seems to only award government consulting contracts to their friends and insiders".'

"I'm very disappointed that you or your staff would publish such statements without checking the facts. I am not a principal of the company. I acted as its incorporating solicitor and, as is the practice in law firms across town, I am the subscriber and the company's initial director, who will hold office until the regular directors are appointed. Our firm's offices, Sabatino Moscovich and Aikenhead, are the registered and records office of the company, but it does not carry on business here, and I have no involvement in the business of the company except as incorporating solicitor. These facts could have been ascertained by a simple phone call to me. You have no business casting aspersions on a lawyer who is simply doing his job. I ask that you withdraw these statements and issue a public apology to me forthwith."

That is one of the letters I'm sure your office is receiving.

[12:30]

Now the member is saying that it wasn't really a press release, that it was simply a letter and simply a trial balloon flown out there to the winds, and that the Liberal opposition takes no responsibility for the letters and/or press releases -- not quite ready for prime-time press releases -- which they are willing to throw out to the media and to the public to cast aspersions on people's names. I understand why he's doing it. I would be ashamed of the research myself, were I in his position. But I'm afraid the cat has been belled here, as they say. I'm afraid that we've got a situation where the letter has the Liberal opposition's signature on it, the words have been uttered, and people's careers have been put on the line. I would suggest to the member that he think about the form and the way in which apologies are going to be extended to those people and those corporations that they have maligned to this point.

G. Farrell-Collins: A question to the minister. Can she advise this House who negotiated the contract with Mr. Bell?

Hon. D. Marzari: The appropriate procedures were followed in the ministry, and the deputy minister approved and negotiated the contract with the Pradinuk firm, as is appropriate and as is properly done in public administration worldwide.

If the member wants to further that line of questioning with "What do you expect when you have an NDP deputy minister?" let me just say that I have been answering to the critic for Tourism and Culture on these issues. I have spoken long and well, I believe, to the fact that the deputy minister who is presently in the employ of the Ministry of Tourism has done an excellent job and has excellent credentials and a superb background for this overview job which he has taken on in the Ministry of Tourism and Culture.

If the next question has to do with further smears and allegations about friends and insiders, I would suggest that he think twice, because once again he will stand up and start drawing connections and dotted lines on pieces of paper about who knew whom when, and when they talked. This is not an appropriate way to develop policy in government. It's not an appropriate way to cast aspersions on individuals who are in the public employ and doing jobs as deputy ministers or as members of the civil service in general. I would suggest that the member think twice before he starts drawing those black lines between people and their connections.

G. Farrell-Collins: As a side note, I might just mention that a call did go to Mr. Sabatino's office yesterday prior to the question being raised in the House. We requested the mailing address for Pradinuk Advertising, and we were told that all deliveries and correspondence should be sent to the legal firm. I would just like to clarify that for the minister, and perhaps for Mr. Pradinuk also.

It's interesting to note that this contract was given to Mr. Bell on March 13, nearly a month before the firm of Pradinuk was incorporated in British Columbia. This contract was let to an individual. In fact, this contract was not let to all those wonderful people who have such great credentials, as the minister just read to us for a second time. This contract was let to a Mr. Bell. That's a very interesting point. Perhaps members of the government are starting to get ashamed of themselves and leave the House.

I might also note that that very contract was negotiated by Mr. Walsh, who is the deputy minister to this minister. As listed in B.C. Politics and Policy, he was a secretary to two NDP Premiers: Howard Pawley in Manitoba -- there we have the Manitoba connection -- and Tony Penikett in the Yukon. He has been an adviser to the B.C. NDP caucus and the provincial party. The information that was given in the news release -- I assume Mr. Walsh was appointed -- listed a number of things. It has now been learned that he also played a major role in the 1981 Manitoba general election, which saw Pawley and his New Democrats defeat the Conservative government.

[ Page 1380 ]

We now have this deputy minister, who has admirable political skills and attributes, giving a contract to a defeated candidate for the New Democratic Party -- a person, not a company; not Pradinuk, but an individual who is a defeated NDP-nomination candidate leading up to this last election. This contract was not listed, as we now know. It was not given to this wonderful company from Manitoba that we see as being such a great company -- I admire the attributes of the members in that company. This contract was given to an individual British Columbian who is a member of the NDP and who attempted to achieve a nomination in a riding and was unsuccessful. That member subsequently entered into some agreement to incorporate a subsidiary company, Pradinuk Advertising B.C., less than a month later in British Columbia and bring in these other people to do the contract. That's an unusual way of granting contracts, and I would suggest that the minister, if that is the way her ministry is granting contracts, is very irresponsible and very incompetent in the method with which she's spending the public's money. That is the issue, hon. Chair.

The minister can say what she wants, do what she wants and try to turn these arrows back on the people who've let them fly, but the reality is that this minister does not have a grip on her ministry. She does not know the way in which contracts are being let. We now know that on March 13 her ministry gave a contract for $50,000 to an individual in this province with New Democratic ties, who on his own could not have done this job and who had to go outside the province to find a company with strong New Democratic ties to deal with the contract.

U. Dosanjh: Point of order. Hon. Chair, this member who was just speaking a moment ago has cast many aspersions on the characters of people who aren't able to defend themselves in this House, and he's done so based on improper information. He doesn't even know the basics of how lawyers practise in this province. He talks about a....

The Chair: Excuse me, member. What is your point of order?

U. Dosanjh: My point of order is that he should stop using information such as "The registered records office is a particular lawyer's office" -- that's always the case -- and using that to then cast aspersions on those lawyers who practise law honourably in this province. If this member continues to do so, perhaps he should go out of the House....

The Chair: Excuse me, member. Could you please....

The debate shall proceed.

G. Farrell-Collins: I welcome the intervention by actual backbenchers of the New Democratic Party in debate. That's highly unusual in this House. I think perhaps their seats are starting to get warm and their ears are starting to burn.

Talking about friends and insiders, I find it very interesting that the minister would stand up in this House and read a letter that was supposedly sent to the Leader of the Opposition before the Leader of the Opposition got the letter. The Leader of the Opposition just received this letter on his fax machine in our office. It's very interesting to note that the minister receives a letter before the person it's addressed to does. A wonderful example of the way this government is doing business and the way the people they are associated with are doing business -- including, I might add, the release that was issued last night in the name of the Liberal Party that had nothing to do with this Liberal Party at all.

I'm going to clarify for the minister, because she seems to be under some misunderstanding as to the release I'm talking about. The release I'm talking about is the one that was sent by the legal firm representing Mr. Levi, which has on here, "Liberal News Release Letterhead." The minister seems confused about that. I wholeheartedly stand by the news release that was issued on the real "Liberal News Release" letterhead yesterday. That is attributed to us, and we do agree with that.

F. Garden: Point of order. We are supposed to be discussing administrative estimates, and for the last few minutes I've heard the speaker on the floor talking about letters sent to the press from his caucus. This has absolutely nothing to do with questions on administrative estimates. I'm getting a little tired of it and would like him brought to order.

The Chair: We are discussing the administrative actions of the office of the Ministry of Tourism in this debate, and it is traditional in this House to allow a fairly wide-ranging debate. Thank you for raising the point.

G. Farrell-Collins: I might make known that it was the minister, actually, who raised these issues. I didn't raise them. In fact, I waited for the minister to raise these issues before I responded -- and she was the one who brought up the WOOF fund.

As I was clarifying for the minister, there was this release issued last night by the legal firm that represents Mr. Levi. It was a sort of make-believe Liberal news release to the press that we didn't even release. In fact, we refute everything that is on this piece of paper. It was not written by us, nor do we stand by this news release. We do stand by the one issued yesterday by the Liberal caucus on the proper paper, and we continue to stand by it. The minister, I think, is clear on that now.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

The minister is starting to get very upset, I see. We're starting to cause her a little bit of a problem, and her backbenchers are having to rush in and help her.

We asked the minister a number of things, and we have now learned that the deputy minister of her ministry, who has long New Democratic ties and was one of the prime patronage appointments given by this 

[ Page 1381 ]

government, negotiated a contract with an individual member of the New Democratic Party in this province -- not a corporation, not Pradinuk -- to do a contract, an audit of the ministry that that member himself alone was not able to do. That member then rushed out of the province, hooked up with Pradinuk in Manitoba -- which is the same place the deputy minister comes from, so I wonder if it was his advice that encouraged him to go to Manitoba -- talked to these people, came back to British Columbia and incorporated within a month a brand-new branch of this company, using the principals of that firm that the minister listed as being so competent and who are doing the audit. I wonder why this contract was let to an individual before they knew who was actually going to end up doing the audit. It shows sloppy governance and a sloppy use of the government's funds. The people of this province are tired of that, and they will not stand for it.

I wonder if the minister could tell the House if she intends to rectify that situation, and if she intends to instruct her deputy minister that that is not the proper way to go about letting contracts in this province and that it will not continue. Contracts should not be negotiated with people who cannot fulfil those contracts, and when no test has been given to the individual the contract is negotiated with to ensure that the contract can be fulfilled without having to go outside the province and bring in other people for support after the fact.

Hon. D. Marzari: I'm finding it difficult to follow the member's problem. There's a point in A Fish Called Wanda where the young heroine disabuses Oscar, I believe, of a number of notions he's got, such as the fact that the London Underground is not a revolutionary movement.

[12:45]

How can the contract be developed with a Manitoba firm if in fact Bill Bell, who lives here, signed the contract here? Bill Bell lives here, and you claim the contract was signed with a Manitoba firm. So get it straight.

The Pradinuk firm is in fact a British Columbia firm. The Pradinuk firm was going to be a British Columbia firm when the contract was signed. Mr. Bill Bell happened to be a signer obviously before the company was incorporated. It was incorporated by Mr. Sabatino. So let's figure it out. The contractor is the Pradinuk firm, and I have put that on the floor and stated that unequivocally. The deputy minister does not come from Manitoba. The deputy minister has had considerable experience around this country, including the Territories. He is not.... You have cast another aspersion; you are just right out there.

You're talking about me turning the arrows back from your little lists. These are not arrows I'm turning back, Mr. Member; these are boomerangs that are coming back to hit you in the back of the head.

Mr. Chairman, the member is talking about a contract that couldn't be fulfilled. Well, the contract can be fulfilled. It is in the process of being fulfilled, and I have promised the House a report on this contract before we select our agency of record. So I think the member is confused. He doesn't know which is a press release, which is a letter, who sent what from WOOF and who is sending what back.

He tells me that the Leader of the Opposition didn't receive this letter. Well, he received it five minutes after I did. His staff was just slower in getting it into this House than my staff was. I have my letter, and it's right here in front of me.

An Hon. Member: It's supposed to be confidential.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. Hon. members, do not speak from your chairs, please.

Hon. D. Marzari: I'm telling you, Mr. Chair, that we have a member here who seems somewhat confused and is backtracking from his own evidence on this matter, evidence which he seems to think has some weight, and I'm telling him and his caucus and his opposition members that it's time to apologize.

G. Farrell-Collins: I find it extremely interesting to note that this letter that was sent to Gordon Wilson, Leader of the Opposition, says on the top: "May 8, 1992. Personal and confidential. By courier." How did this letter happen to fall into the hands of the Minister of Tourism?

B. Simpson: I'd like to have leave of the House for an introduction of a very important group.

Leave not granted.

G. Farrell-Collins: I believe the matters before the House today are of such importance, and given that it's a Friday, that we should stick to the matters of the House.

My question was to the minister, and I rephrase the question again for her: how is it that this minister happened to come into possession of a letter -- and read that letter in the House, I might add -- which is listed as personal and confidential, to be delivered by courier to Gordon Wilson, leader of the official opposition, on May 8 -- this date -- 1992, and there is no "c.c." forwarding this letter to the Minister of Tourism? How is it that this minister came into possession of personal and confidential correspondence, and how is it that this minister rose with that personal and confidential correspondence in this House within minutes of the letter being sent?

Hon. D. Marzari: These facts could have been ascertained by a simple phone call to me. You have no business casting aspersions on a lawyer who is doing his job. I ask -- this is Paul Sabatino talking -- that you withdraw these statements and issue a public apology to me forthwith, letter signed and sent today.

I move this committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

[ Page 1382 ]

Motion approved on the following division:

B. Simpson: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, I am delighted this morning to introduce the students from Killarney Secondary School visiting the Legislature this afternoon. I had the opportunity of addressing them before they came in, and I noted that most of them are students of English-as-a-second-language classes. Many of them have come from countries where they don't experience democracy like in Canada. Many of them came from Iran, the Punjab, and various other countries. I'd like to have the House join me in welcoming them to the Legislature this afternoon.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

The Chair: Just before we begin, hon. members, I'd like to pass on a caution again from Hansard regarding the cross-talk and the chatter behind the microphones. Apparently it can be picked up in other areas. Just be cautious of your comments when the banks of microphones are on on either side.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

On vote 13: minister's office, $282,139 (continued).

R. Chisholm: I'd like to talk a bit about the Okanagan. I have a couple of questions. Education is the mandate of the provincial government, and research is the mandate of the federal government. How are these efforts coordinated? Is research funding adequate? The main question is: how are these coordinated between the two levels of government?

[11:15]

Hon. B. Barlee: We handle both those areas in several ways. One is that we are working with the federal government in shared programs. We almost always have a member on the committees, even if it is run by the federal government. The Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, of course, is a Crown corporation under our aegis. Significant moneys have been given to that particular Crown agency to carry on research and some education among the orchardists. We think it's the right method; we think that there should be upgrading of the education of the community up there; we think the OVTFA is the vehicle to do it with.

R. Chisholm: With education, what input does the federal government have? Do you coordinate this between the two of you? What agency is responsible?

Hon. B. Barlee: Our ministry is essentially responsible for most of that. The farm management program is probably our best program, and we have hundreds of thousands of dollars devoted to it. Farm management is very important because farming, like every other part of the economic sector, is part of the entrepreneurial process. Some of our farmers are well prepared, and I believe our rates of bankruptcy and of failure in loans are the lowest in the nation. Our farm management program is really quite efficient.

R. Chisholm: Chief areas of concern for the Okanagan growers are improved safety net programs and improved orchard improvement programs. Can you enlighten me as to how you see them developing in the future?

Hon. B. Barlee: Again, this is being handled primarily by the OVTFA. They will receive slightly over $4 million this year, and much of that will go into education of, and consultation with, the various orchardists -- that means the soft fruits, or the apples, and so on. It's an approach that we think will work well, 

[ Page 1383 ]

and I envision that it will work even better within the next few years.

R. Chisholm: That answered the question of improved orchards. What about the safety net programs themselves? Do you see those being enhanced or remaining the same?

Hon. B. Barlee: There are ongoing discussions concerning NTS -- the national tripartite stabilization plan -- and NISA is also being discussed at the national level with the federal government.

R. Chisholm: Can you enlighten us as to what exactly is being discussed and what areas you are trying to improve?

Hon. B. Barlee: We've had ongoing discussions with the federal minister -- both in the Okanagan and in Ottawa, as well as correspondence flowing to and from the two separate ministries -- on the best combination of safety nets. Some of that centres around NISA and other programs. The federal government, as well as the provincial government, is looking at long-term programs that enhance the industry, rather than short-term ad hoc stuff.

R. Chisholm: The farm home insurance program supports farmers by paying 50 percent of the difference between the cost of production and the returns on produce. When the range between production costs and returns is greater, the farmer suffers a greater net loss. Can you tell me if any of the programs are going to adjust this?

Hon. B. Barlee: These programs -- whether it's NISA, GRIP, NTS or various other programs -- all have different cost-sharing factors in them. These are, of course, shared between the producer, the federal government and the provincial government. It varies from program to program -- quite widely, in fact -- and that is a consolidated process between all three of the partners.

R. Chisholm: I will ask that question again, hon. minister. When the range between the cost of production and the return is great, the farmer suffers a greater net loss, and thus he suffers greatly. Will that be adjusted in these programs?

Hon. B. Barlee: That's what we're looking at right now. That's why there has been a cancellation of some of the old programs and a look at some of the new programs -- to protect the farmer in times of economic duress.

R. Chisholm: British Columbia fruit growers are at a disadvantage, compared to eastern Canada, in terms of freight costs. British Columbia fruit growers produce more pounds of fruit per acre than anywhere else in Canada; British Columbia fruit growers are progressive in marketing. We market to more foreign countries.... Negotiations with the federal government are important to ensure that B.C. fruit growers get the support they need to compete. British Columbia's average cost of freight is 6.5 cents per pound, compared to 1.5 cents per pound for Ontario. Ontarians live next door to the larger population centres; we live further away. Does the minister foresee any assistance to the Okanagan fruit growers in the transportation of their product?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think there is some middle ground there. The assistance historically given by the federal government to the fruit growers of British Columbia has been consistently higher than the assistance given to the fruit growers of Ontario or the Annapolis Valley. It probably more than makes up the difference between 6 cents and 1 cents.

R. Chisholm: I have to disagree with you on that one, Mr. Minister, and I think Mr. Hobson in the Okanagan will disagree with you too. What they're asking is whether you can take a look at this and speak to your federal counterparts in Agriculture Canada, to help reflect the needs of British Columbia. Mr. Hobson pointed out to me that all regions are not treated equally, citing the example of Newfoundland, where the waiting-period for UIC is shorter than it is here. We can go on, but I don't think it's worth the effort. All I'm asking, and all they're asking, I believe, is that you approach the federal minister and see if this imbalance can be rectified.

Hon. B. Barlee: I'll reiterate that. The extra aid given by the federal government is not in the millions, it's in the tens of millions of dollars. In fact, it would be much more if we compared the historic funding from the federal government and the provincial government to the orchardists of the Okanagan, the Creston area and the Similkameen; it would be tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars higher. In fact, it may exceed $50 million over the last ten years, which really quite dwarfs the transportation costs.

R. Chisholm: Mr. Minister, as farm incomes fall, the imbalance between net income and debt has increasingly exposed Canadian and British Columbian farmers -- primarily western farmers -- to financial risk. The average debt per Canadian farm and per British Columbia farm as of January 1990 was $91,000, compared to $72,500 in the U.S. Factors such as high interest rates, an overvalued dollar, low commodity prices and higher input costs have all contributed to higher relative capital values and farm debt in Canada. My question is: how do you foresee yourself assisting this situation, and in trying to rectify this problem, whom are you planning to talk to?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, our total percentage of debt compared to assets: for every $100,000 that the farmer has in assets, he only owes $17,000. Secondly, if you look at the bankruptcies in British Columbia as far as the farming community is concerned, it's staggeringly low. We have had the lowest bankruptcy rate in the country -- 23 farmers. Compare that to the restau-

[ Page 1384 ]

rant trade; compare that to virtually any other business in the province. It's really quite amazing. We had 23 in 1990 and 21 in 1991. Most other provinces would cheer to have rates like that.

R. Chisholm: You didn't answer the question, Mr. Minister. I am not particularly interested in how many bankruptcies we had. As I told you, the tenacity of the farmers, having them hang on in a lot of cases.... The question was: how do you foresee yourself helping these people, with the high interest rates, the debt-to-income ratio going up, the overvalued dollar, the low commodity prices, and so forth? Do you see yourself trying to talk to the federal government or to other agencies?

Hon. B. Barlee: Interest rates are at an almost historic low, and we are reasonably competitive with the Americans. Our percent of equity in British Columbia is among the best in the country; in fact, it is the best in the country. As I said before, our bankruptcy rate is abysmally low; it's really quite startling. British Columbia is the only one of the ten provinces that has consistently grown between 3 and 5 percent per year. Generally our farmers are doing quite well.

R. Chisholm: Today, more than ever, farmers and their spouses are obliged to find off-farm employment. This may partly cause the fact that you have such a low bankruptcy rate, hon. minister. Roughly 14 percent of all farmers have full-time jobs off the farm. Forty-nine percent of the women on small farms, 37 percent on mid-sized farms and 54 percent on large farms have off-farm jobs. Although most urban families also have two wage-earners, for farm families the pursuit of non-farm income has become an essential form of income support. The average farm family income in 1990 was $37,000, roughly the same as the average Canadian family income of approximately $42,000. However, about 58 percent, or $21,251, of farm family income is earned off the farm, and this subsidizes the farm.

It seems to be a great imbalance when one Canadian farmer feeds approximately 120 people but has to work off the farm. I don't know of any other business where one has to go into another business to support the initial business. What do you intend to do about the situation?

Hon. B. Barlee: It is a systemic problem in the industry, and I think everybody knows that. It's not unique to Canada, the United States, Europe or British Columbia. We have a number of programs that do help farmers, and they can take advantage of them. One is a capped interest rate program, which I think is quite important. For beginning farmers, we have a loan program as well. So I think the farmer tends to balance his unique lifestyle and is prepared to make some sacrifices in that respect.

R. Chisholm: I realize that the farmer is willing to make sacrifices. I'm just saying that maybe he should not have to, considering the vital job he does in society. Maybe your ministry, along with the federal ministry, should be looking into areas of support.

I'll go back to the Cloverdale market. I'm going to go over one small area of it that I've already hit on lightly. U.S. break-even cost of production is $5.62 a carton for 24 heads; this is a University of California quote. In 1991 the U.S. consistently sold lettuce into our market at $3 (U.S.) a carton. This also occurred with celery and cauliflower. The Cloverdale Lettuce and Vegetable Cooperative worked out an alternative to anti-dumping with a B.C. fruit wholesaler association. This alternative involved farmers and wholesalers working together. It was, however, not approved by the federal government. The vegetable cooperative filed an anti-dumping complaint for fresh iceberg lettuce with K.J. McPhail of Revenue Canada Customs and Excise in January 1992. This was revised and refiled on March 5, and again on April 4. Cauliflower anti-dumping complaints were filed on April 14.

[11:30]

What they are asking for, and what they need, is a preliminary determination in place by the start of growing season on June 1, but Revenue Canada is not moving. The federal government is not having them do their job. Jim Alcock, BCMAFF horticultural market specialist, says the complaint is the best-documented one he has ever seen.

This is a very serious issue. Without anti-dumping rulings, the farmers have no assurance that they will be able to meet their costs of production in the 1992 season. They need provincial and federal help, and they need pressure to speed up the process. It appears to be a deliberate stalling process. Will the minister use his office to attempt to speed up the process and have the federal government look into it with Revenue Canada?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think the member for Chilliwack realizes that this is a strictly federal jurisdiction. However, we have been pressuring the federal government consistently on the tendency of the Americans to dump into British Columbia. They're not just dumping here, but all the way across the country. We are drafting another letter to the Hon. Bill McKnight to underline the importance of this process, but it is a federal legal process; it's not easy.

However, we have managed to lighten the economic burden of some of those individuals. We've received about $6 million under the FSAM II allocation, strictly for vegetables -- beans, broccoli, cauliflower, celery, and so on -- with some of those groups receiving up to $4 million each. So we have managed to pressure the federal government to realize that we have a problem, and we're transferring some of that problem to them.

R. Chisholm: Is this the loan that was applied for approximately a year ago and is finally arriving?

Secondly, I realize that you are sending letters off to the federal government, but that is not quite good enough. If they have to have answers by June 1, before they plant....

The Chair: Order! Again, I'll draw the attention of the hon. members to standing order 61. The debate is 

[ Page 1385 ]

subject to the jurisdiction of the Agriculture minister's office. The minister mentioned that this is strictly the federal government's purview and direction. Would we bear that in mind.

R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Chair. But I think it's the minister's responsibility to negotiate with the federal government, so that comes under his domain. What I'm saying is that maybe it is time we pressured the federal government a little harder, because these people are running out of time and this problem is just going to continue. They will lose money this year; they won't gain their production costs back.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think I mentioned this the other day, and I'll mention it again. British Columbia farmers are in the best fiscal position of any farmers in the country. According to Agriculture Canada, there is a 20 to 25 percent increase in realized net production or income for 1992. In 1991 the average B.C. farmer increased their net income by 15 percent. Their net income level was nearly 33 percent above the 1986-90 average. So we're in the best shape in the country.

R. Chisholm: We may be in the best shape in the country, but the question I'm asking is.... They are not going to regain their production costs. That is a hole that we're digging deeper and deeper every year. It's time we addressed the problem. We won't gain any money this way.

Hon. B. Barlee: I hate to do this, but I should read some of these out. They are regaining almost all their production costs. Beans, $242,000; broccoli, $100,000; carrots, $99,000; cauliflower, $189,000; processing cauliflower, $55,000; celery, $86,000; corn, $237,000; lettuce, $391,000; onions, $79,000; parsnips, $23,000; processing peas, $254,000; potatoes, $3.545 million -- fresh and seed. This is a legal process. These cheques should be arriving by June. We have worked pretty hard with them.

R. Chisholm: The next question I have for you is from the B.C. beef cattle producers. They're already financially stressed by continually increasing costs of production and their cash flow problems. That was recently exacerbated by the receipt of water licence fees for 1992 from the water management division of your ministry. This is a letter that was sent to the hon. Minister of Environment. Their water licensing fee went up 35 to 55 percent, depending on which ranch we're talking about. This came without any prior discussion from the Ministry of Environment. My question to you is: was there any discussion between you and the Environment ministry? If so, why weren't there discussions with the B.C. Cattlemen's Association? The end result is hardship for them.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think we should examine this very closely. First of all, it is under the Ministry of Environment, not the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Secondly, there had not been an increase in water fees for a number of years -- maybe well over a decade. That increase, if I remember correctly -- and I haven't got the figures in front of me -- was about 15 percent. It doesn't help, but it wasn't draconian. As I say, this was not led by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I think that should be taken into consideration.

R. Chisholm: I realize this wasn't your ministry, hon. minister. But my question to you....

The Chair: Order, hon. member. The minister has indicated that this does not come under his jurisdiction. Could we restrict ourselves, as per standing order 61, to the purview and the administration of the minister's office.

R. Chisholm: Hon. minister, did you know of this ruling from the other ministry?

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, I did know of the ruling from the ministry. There were two other rulings as well, by the way. The beef-producing costs in British Columbia are at least comparable to the beef-producing costs in Alberta, which is our chief competitor in the Canadian market. There's no disadvantage in British Columbia, and the cattlemen are actually doing quite well. In fact, one of the presidents of the cattlemen up in the interior -- I think he spoke in Williams Lake last week -- said that he had made double the money in the last two years that he had in the two previous years, partly due to the good offices of our ministry.

R. Chisholm: If you knew of this, did you discuss with the Cattlemen's Association that this increase was coming?

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, they were quite aware of it.

H. De Jong: In the initial comments the minister made when he introduced the budget for this year, he made some reference to the federal government's off-loading. Now, I recognize that we've already talked about the ARDSA program and what the off-loading has been, but with the implementation of the NISA and GRIP programs, which I believe is a joint effort between the two provinces as well and is an additional program that was not in existence before, probably taking over something other than what had been anticipated.... Was there any other federal off-loading within the Ministry of Agriculture?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, the federal government has dropped its share of the GRIP program. They have cancelled ARDSA, which was a significant program, and have also moved into the crop insurance area and lowered that as well. They have made some significant incursions into areas where they have provided ample funds over the years. Some of those they've dropped completely.

H. De Jong: I'm pleased to hear the answer from the minister -- not that I'm pleased about what has been done. In fact, I think it's very discouraging. If the 

[ Page 1386 ]

minister or his staff would be so kind as to give me more of the details at some later date, I would be pleased to follow up on that and support him in his attempt to get a better deal for British Columbia farmers.

The other area that I have some concern about -- and I'm sure that we in this room all have -- is the fish catches in British Columbia, and allowing those to go to the U.S.A. for processing. I'm sure that we've all had visits from the fishermen's alliance and other groups: the processors as well as perhaps the fishermen themselves. I just wonder whether there are any negotiations on whether this policing can be stepped up from the federal side, or perhaps even if there is some cooperative effort in stepping up the collective policing of it by the province as well as by the federal government.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think we've done a fair amount here; I really do. I've concentrated on fisheries. For instance, I went up to Ucluelet about a month ago. I was the first Fisheries minister there in about 17 or 20 years. Other places, I've been the first Fisheries minister there ever. I think that's important, but we have achieved other results. For instance, hake: we got 6,000 tonnes of hake last year to process in British Columbia. The federal government has now promised us 25,000 tonnes, a little over four times as much. That will be processed in British Columbia and will add probably another 400 jobs, mostly on the east and west coast of the Island. We are making some strides there, I believe. The federal government is very aware that we want processing jobs to stay in British Columbia. Some have slipped across the line. We're starting to reverse that process.

H. De Jong: I should also indicate that in the four months that I was minister, I happened to visit quite a few of the fish plants along the coast, as well as other places. We may not have been at a place where a minister hadn't been for 15 years, and I accept that.

I would like to make a few comments before I sit down. I desperately seek the assistance of the ministry on the Workers' Compensation Board policing. There's been a strong indication by the agricultural community that they wish to do their own policing. The Minister of Labour sent out a news release last week stating very emphatically that he was going to have the WCB do the policing in the agricultural sector. I do not think it will be beneficial to the Workers' Compensation Board. As I see it, it will create havoc in the industry, where there are so many different types of farming. Who knows the safety aspects better than the farmer himself? If there should be some problem in a particular area, advice can be sought from the WCB. But I would hate to see the actual policing done by the Workers' Compensation Board. That will obviously drive up the price of coverage as well, because it will be more costly.

[11:45]

The other area -- and I've talked to the minister previously about this -- is the inability of people on the floodplain to get septic tank permits for farm health or for new farms that are being built on 20- or 30-acre parcels. The floodplain seems to be considered by "professionals" in the health industry to be an unsuitable place to have houses built. But these are not subdivisions. These are plain 30- or 40-acre parcels being developed into actual farms that may be a combination of parcels from a larger farm. I would certainly ask the minister for his assistance in that.

As a final comment, I would like to say that during the four months I was minister I enjoyed working with the ministry staff. I believe you have an excellent staff working with you. They certainly take the desires of the farming community and the existing problems very seriously. With the strength that you have in your personnel, the farming community in British Columbia.... If it should not be very profitable, I'm sure that your staff will do everything in their power to make it as good as possible, at least.

Even though there are lots of expectations, I don't think the farmers can expect everything from the ministry. They do seek advice and guidance. They need a little help once in a while, particularly in education. As I mentioned earlier, I believe it's essential that when new products are sought or new equipment is being introduced, the ministry should provide that essential help, so those things can be maximized to the limit and be most effective for the industry.

I certainly want to wish you and your staff well in the year ahead. You're approaching this year with a somewhat reduced budget, but I believe that the spirit of cooperation and assistance to the industry is there.

Hon. B. Barlee: I thank the hon. member for his kind words. He has always been rather generous of nature, and I appreciate it. My staff works extremely well for me. They work long hours, which they like. I've been told they like it, anyway. I think they're quite efficient, and the historic economic results indicate that.

Specific answers to two of the questions from the hon. member. First of all, concerning the Workers' Compensation Board, they are the lead ministry. In essence, it is under their aegis, or jurisdiction. We have had, however, ongoing discussions between the Workers' Compensation Board, the BCFA and the farm and ranch safety agency. They are working that out with the Workers' Compensation Board. I have also had individual conversations with the lead Minister of Labour. He's aware of our concerns there.

As for the septic tank system and the water system out in the Fraser, again this is not under the Ministry of Agriculture; it is under the Ministry of Health, as you alluded. We'll be making representations to that ministry to try to ease the problems in that area.

L. Reid: My questions relate directly to the agricultural concerns of my riding, Richmond East. I need to know what provisions are in place to guarantee the cranberry fields in that riding and any other information that pertains directly to cranberry harvests.

Hon. B. Barlee: Generally the cranberry industry has been one of the success stories of the agricultural ministry. Most of them are still in business, and they're in business because they're making quite a decent profit. I've been out touring some of the cranberry fields, not just in your area but in other areas as well. 

[ Page 1387 ]

There has been some federal help under FSAM 2. It is not one of our endangered groups. Out of 175 groups we probably have five or six that fit into that endangered area. Certainly cauliflower and lettuce and so on would fit into that, but this is not one of them.

L. Reid: The question I have is in terms of future plans for cranberry production in my riding. Certainly one of the biggest downsides, if you will, to them continuing to produce that product was the introduction of the Highway 91 connector, which dissected much of the cranberry production and certainly creates tremendous difficulty in terms of moving farm machinery across the highway. Do they have any assurance from this government that they are going to continue to be successful in their cranberry operations?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think we have a reasonable answer for the member. The cranberry growers just got $200,000 for research and development. That would certainly help ease some of their problems in that regard. We also have ongoing discussions with the Minister of Highways, and most of these problems are settled amicably between the various ministries.

L. Reid: The $200,000 for research and development does not address my question. It was: how are they going to continue to produce their product when in fact their land has been dissected into many parcels, making it improper and inadequate in terms of producing a product?

Hon. B. Barlee: I have instructed the Land Commission, under my aegis, to work with the Ministry of Highways, and they have in a number of areas of British Columbia. Virtually all of that land is under the agricultural land reserve, so that it is not endangered and it should not be cut to pieces, because we are very careful about taking anything out of the agricultural land reserve.

L. Reid: Perhaps I can direct your attention to the blueberry situation in my riding. Again similar difficulties: very small parcels of land are being dissected by rezoning difficulties. Any assurances that this government will stand behind blueberry growers in this province?

Hon. B. Barlee: I am aware that we grow some of the best blueberries in the world. Their prices have fluctuated; they go through cyclical highs and lows. But we managed to lever $1,260,000 out of the federal government, essentially to help the blueberry growers over the short term. Levering $1.25 million out of the federal government is not easy all the time, but we think it will certainly help. We also have another program, FII, which applies to blueberry growers as well, so they are fairly well shielded, even if they go through a cyclic low.

L. Reid: On a final note, my understanding of the difficulties surrounding both cranberries and blueberries is that it seems we don't have a commitment to farming in this province. To cite guarantees of the federal government, if you will, does not suggest to farmers, i.e. farmers in my riding, that in fact this government is committed to ensuring ongoing farming of blueberries or cranberries. Any comments on that?

Hon. B. Barlee: I'll very quickly go over the position of the farmers again. The member was not here, but we've had the lowest bankruptcy rate in Canada: 21 in 1990 among all the farmers in British Columbia, including the blueberry growers, the cranberry growers, the cattlemen and all of them -- all 175 groups. In 1990 it was 23. Also, according to the federal government, the farmers in British Columbia made more money per capita than any other farmer in any other part of the nation, and they are anticipating another 15 to 25 percent increase in the coming years. Their income has come up 33 percent over several years -- really quite staggering. There are groups in danger, but generally speaking the community is in very good shape.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I must confess that this is a new experience for me. This is my first opportunity to appear before Committee A. I am seizing the occasion because I am going to be away next week as well, and I wanted to put a few questions to the Minister of Agriculture; questions, I have to point out, more of a philosophical nature than specific or constituency-based.

I wanted to simply give the Minister of Agriculture an opportunity -- and I am sure he will welcome it -- to offer some comments and observations on the impact of agriculture on environment. As the minister knows, for some time I have been travelling around the province talking about the issue of environmental assessment. Environmental assessment, as we all know, is a forward-looking concept. It looks at new projects that are coming on stream and adjudicates whether those projects will have a sufficiently negative impact that they ought not to go ahead, or whether the impacts are mitigable and therefore acceptable, and the project is of necessity then acceptable.

As the minister knows, the existing legislation in British Columbia deals directly with energy development, mine application and then this other rather broad, catch-all category called major projects. The difficulty we have -- and this is a position that has come to our committee again and again and again -- is that despite all of government's good intentions, there appear to be a number of areas that fall through the proverbial cracks.

One of those questions, needless to say, has to do with agriculture. Given that agriculture is certainly one of the largest single users of pesticides, and given that we have lots of concerns not only about immediate impacts but about cumulative and indirect impacts when we talk about environment and environmental assessment, I'm wondering if the minister might share something in the way of information about what his ministry thinks about this rather important subject, and 

[ Page 1388 ]

whether there is in fact any move at the moment to introduce new measures or to expand current legislation. I'm wondering if the minister would be willing to share with me some thoughts on this difficult matter.

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, we're quite aware of it. We are working with the other ministries. We work very closely with the Ministry of Environment. We also work closely with the Ministry of Health. Some of the moves we've made in the last year are really on the leading edge of controlling pesticides.

In the Okanagan, for instance, we have embarked upon the sterile insect release program, which is perhaps the finest program in the world. In other words, this will enable us to eliminate about 50 percent of the insecticides and sprays in the Okanagan Valley. That will essentially be carried out under the aegis of the federal and provincial governments -- both of us realize that -- spending about $7 million on this particular facility. It has been tried before, so it's not guesswork. We feel it will give us a significant advantage over our immediate competitors south of the line in Wenatchee and Yakima, and over all competitors all around the world, because no one has this particular program, which was tested in the 1970s. This is one of the major moves we've made as far as environmental controls are concerned.

We support the BCFA as well, and we're consulting with them closely all the time. The BCFA is the umbrella organization for virtually all the farmers in British Columbia. We also have instituted an environmental code of practice which is very important. We've done that in a number of languages. For instance, we have a number of individuals who are not familiar with English, and they may have another language as their first language. We have made sure that that is passed on to them as well.

We're working on integrated pest management; a weed control program that is really quite advanced. We also have biological controls in various areas. In conjunction with the other ministries who are concerned about it, we are probably leading the nation in many of these areas.

[12:00]

D. Lovick: Thanks to the minister for that answer. I appreciate the information provided.

I'm wondering if I might just ask a somewhat more specific question about the ministry's response to the proposition that agriculture and major projects in agriculture -- for example, a decision to combat a particular pest or problem -- and those kinds of initiatives ought to be subject to an environmental assessment process separate and distinct from existing permit and monitoring processes currently undertaken by your ministry, Mr. Minister, or through joint projects and joint endeavors through the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture.

I ask the question largely because it is one of the concerns brought to my attention and that of other people travelling with me in this environmental assessment consultation project. So many people will look at what we are doing or proposing to do and say: "The predicament with your intentions, however good they may be, is that they don't go far enough. There are too many things that aren't covered by or captured under that proposal." The one example that comes inevitably and predictably is agriculture. I ask the question, Mr. Minister, to see if you can give me some indication of what the ministry's thoughts are on that subject.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think the hon. Member for Nanaimo may be worried about projects such as the spraying for the Asian gypsy moth. I think this is the latest one. First of all, we had a significant amount of information on that, most of which did not reach the press. For instance, the Asian gypsy moth is a close cousin to the European gypsy moth. The European gypsy moth in 1991 devastated 10 million acres in the eastern part of the United States. Where they did not spray for the European gypsy moth, they found the results were much worse than in areas where they had sprayed.

For instance, in Pennsylvania -- and I recall these figures quite accurately, I think -- they didn't spray in certain areas, and 25 to 40 percent of the elementary school children there had to be treated with systemic steroids. They had inflammations, shortness of breath, inflamed eyelids and so on. It went on and on. We then went back to Portland, Oregon, another jurisdiction that had sprayed for the European gypsy moth in 1985-86. They had sprayed in an area that covered 120,000 people. The U.S. Department of Health systematically went over the 120,000 people, and they found that 55 may have been affected. They did further extensive tests on these 55, and they found that it hadn't been 55 but it had been 3 who had possibly been affected. Out of 3, one was an HIV drug user and one had a long history of problems with shortness of breath. So really out of the 120,000 virtually no one had been affected.

The spray that we used, Btk, has been used by ordinary gardeners for about 30 years. It has a history of being what we call a natural spray. We confer with a number of other ministries. The Ministry of Health, of course, is one of the lead ministries. We also confer with the Ministry of Environment and our ministry itself. We realize that the public is concerned about these areas. I think we could have done that program better.

The Americans were very innovative when they were spraying for the Asian gypsy moth in Oregon. All they did was show a pan view of a marvellous stand of trees before the European gypsy moth got to it and showed what would happen. There was virtually no public outcry there. I think we have to be proactive in this rather than reactive. I think we were reactive then, not through our fault. Our ministry was ready. I released it to several of the radio stations, but they only played it once.

D. Lovick: If anybody knows about media and how it should be done, the Minister of Agriculture has that familiarity. I have to say that I appreciate that answer very much, and it's one that I must confess I am familiar with. I'm sorry if my question appeared to be oblique and suggestive of something. I was not really 

[ Page 1389 ]

asking for information about the Asian gypsy moth, so let me see if I can't narrow it down to the very specific question I want to pose.

Oh, I hope that heckling is allowed in this chamber as well as the other. What I have missed in not being in the House is that delightful repartee that goes back and forth. I'm hoping that the official opposition is capable of it. I think the jury's still out, but we will find out.

An Hon. Member: Get to the question.

D. Lovick: The question I really wanted to ask is just this: can the minister give members of the Legislature and indeed the people of the province....

Interjections.

D. Lovick: No. This is a surprise question, by the by. ...some assurance that the status quo, vis-�-vis environment and agricultural practices, is acceptable, and that there isn't a need for agricultural practices to come under the aegis of specifically defined environmental assessment legislation?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, there is ongoing and close consultation with the Ministry of Environment -- and not only the Ministry of Environment. We look at any potential impact to see if it will have a negative environmental or any other impact. We have a number of agencies under the umbrella of the ministry and under the umbrella of the BCFA, as well. We are in consultation with the Ministry of Environment and quite often sit on the same committees. We're in consultation with the Ministry of Health, as well. I think we've become increasingly concerned that we have this kind of cross-jurisdictional problem that impacts not just our ministry, but other ministries as well. That's why the consultative process is continuing.

K. Jones: I really appreciate that the hon. member for Nanaimo brought up this question of environmental assessment, because it's a very important one. Certainly in this area, with both agriculture and fisheries being involved in this ministry, it's very appropriate that we should be addressing this.

To the minister: what criteria are being used to determine when an environmental assessment would be done on any project? Is it the size of the project, outcry from the public, or your ministerial direction that determines when the public would have the opportunity to see a true assessment of the ramifications of a decision made by your ministry, or by other ministries in conjunction with your ministry, that perhaps places the people or the environment of this province in jeopardy?

Hon. B. Barlee: There are two answers. First of all, the Waste Management Act under the Ministry of Environment is essentially responsible for that. We have, as I mentioned to the member for Nanaimo, ongoing consultation with them. We are continually monitoring various insecticides and sprays, along with the federal government. A number of those have been withdrawn over the last few years. That process continues, and it continues to be reviewed both with the federal government and with various individuals in my ministry. This is a problem that the public is rightly concerned about; it's a problem that I believe we're on top of. Certainly that process continues with other ministries, such as Health and Environment.

K. Jones: What is the defining point between a federal environmental assessment decision and a provincial environmental assessment decision? Who decides when it's done by one or the other?

Hon. B. Barlee: It is an environmental issue, as you mentioned, so it is not, unfortunately, under our jurisdiction. It is under the Ministry of Environment, not my ministry.

K. Jones: Does that mean that you have no involvement in the decision, that it's totally a decision of the Minister of Environment and that your responsibilities for the care and husbandry of the fishery and for food and agricultural processes give you no say in deciding whether there's an assessment made?

Hon. B. Barlee: I'll answer that the third time. I mentioned to the member for Nanaimo, and again to the member prior to this question, that we do have a consultative process with the Ministry of Environment, but it's under their lead. They consult with us, but they are the lead agency.

K. Jones: Does that mean that you or your people or the community that brings an issue of concern to you are unable to initiate an environmental assessment?

The Chair: Order, hon. member. The question has just been answered again, for the third time. This area has been extensively canvassed. I suggest you help us and come with a new question restricted to the purview and the areas under the minister's control.

K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Chair. Actually, I am specifically dealing with a question about the ministry which was more general: how a study may be initiated. That hasn't been answered. Can the ministry itself initiate?

Hon. B. Barlee: If we think there's an area of concern, we would flag it with the appropriate ministry, which in this case would be Environment.

K. Jones: Hon. minister, in view of the news today that in the review of the Kemano completion project, the call for a re-examination of the environmental assessment review on that project has been turned down, is your ministry going to undertake a review on behalf of the fish-stock interests identified as being impacted by this cutback of the flow of the water into the Nechako-Fraser system? Is your ministry going to establish its own review or recommend to the Ministry of Environment that the government undertake an 

[ Page 1390 ]

environmental assessment to review this major project in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Barlee: Again, that is a Ministry of Environment area, coupled with the federal government. Our own ministry would have consultation. The federal government is the lead agency there, and the lead ministry here is again the Ministry of Environment.

K. Jones: I just explained to you that the federal government has abrogated its responsibility in this regard. Therefore the fishery, which you're responsible for, is now in jeopardy, according to many people in the communities along that river network. It is now your responsibility to initiate some action, if you feel that their concerns are valid. You have to take the decision now to call for an environmental impact study. You can't blame it on somebody else; it's now your responsibility. Are you prepared to do that? The people up there want some protection. They feel that the Kemano completion project can very seriously affect the Fraser and Nechako fisheries.

[12:15]

Hon. B. Barlee: Again, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the mandate to ensure salmon production in that area. It is certainly not under my ministry. We really have no area of jurisdiction there.

K. Jones: I'm having some difficulty understanding where your jurisdiction comes then. Do you not have jurisdiction...?

The Chair: Order, hon. member. If this question is directed at the previous question and the previous answer, and the previous question and the previous answer, the area has been extensively canvassed. Standing order 61 requires that we remain on the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The question has been answered three times now. Could you proceed with a new question, please.

K. Jones: My question is about the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Fisheries with regard to fisheries in the province, with a specific question about the Fraser River network.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think I can put that in a more lucid way. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has about 1,200 to 1,300 employees. We have 42 in our fisheries branch. It is the lead ministry for salmon in the province. That includes the Fraser River, its tributaries and estuaries, and so on. Essentially, that is under their jurisdiction. Again, under our jurisdiction, the lead ministry is the Ministry of Environment, which we do consult.

K. Jones: I'll try once more to get an answer to the question I asked as to the jurisdiction of your ministry with regard to fisheries.

The Chair: The question is subject to standing order 43, where it refers to tedious and repetitive questions. If you could please proceed with a new question to the Minister of Agriculture, hon. member, it would aid the Chair and the proceedings tremendously.

K. Jones: Is it the policy of your ministry to make all ministry purchases of equipment from British Columbia suppliers?

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, it is.

K. Jones: Is the minister aware that a $7,000 Texas-made tiller was purchased for the B.C. Agriculture ministry's soil conservation branch?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, it wasn't Texas-made; it was designed in England, and it was licensed to some American producers. Secondly, this purchase was not made through our ministry -- not this year. It was made under a separate agency called the Cloverdale Soil Conservation Group, which is a third party. So it is the wrong year; it was made in the spring of last year -- I think April 10. It's the wrong question; it's the wrong ministry; and it's the wrong year.

K. Jones: I'm glad you're well primed. At least some members of your ministry have been reading the papers.

The dairy farmers are very concerned about the lack of support they're getting from British Columbia's Ministry of Agriculture in their competition with the producers of milk and cheese in Washington State. Can you give them some assurance that there will be some changes made this year to their situation vis-�-vis the competition with Washington State?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think most of the dairy farmers are very pleased with the lead by the ministry. Part of the problem is the GATT negotiations, which are perhaps coming to a close.

We have led all other provincial governments in defending the supply management system, most of which is under the aegis of the dairy farmers, with some of the feather trade as well. They are aware they are facing some harsh competition from across the U.S. border, and that competition costs us about $120 million to $150 million per year. However, they are doing quite well. The hierarchy and the average dairy farmer will support us. I have been on a number of programs -- the "Bill Good Show," TV and radio -- defending the supply management system. I think our Buy B.C. program will also help.

K. Jones: I'd like to bring to the minister's attention the real impact that dairy farmers have in our community. This comes from a director of member services from the Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Cooperative. It's been drawn to our attention that 188 families in the Comox Valley are dependent on only 26 dairy farms for their income. This is a 7 to 1 spinoff, not 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 as many statisticians have been indicating. This is strictly the employment generated by the farms and the 

[ Page 1391 ]

processing plant. It does not include employment in any of the supply and service sectors that naturally transcend from any business enterprise.

The people in the dairy industry are really looking for much better support in getting this message out. Have you any plans in this year's budget to increase the advertising budget for the promotion of dairy products and a Buy B.C. program?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, we're aware of the spinoffs in the agricultural community. We provide indirectly and directly -- actually directly, when we consider food in the overall package -- 208,000 or 209,000 jobs. I may be out 1,000; that's all. Our projected Buy B.C. program, which the first minister of this government alluded to on April 13 on the "Bill Good program," will make it very obvious to the public what advantages we have in keeping this money flowing through the supply management system, which adds up to about $450 million in British Columbia alone. That's about 42 percent of our receipts, so it's very important.

K. Jones: With specific reference to the dairy people, is the ministry prepared to match the type of full-page advertising that the dairy farmers are prepared to do themselves, in trying to promote this as an industry that needs to be promoted? In fact, we need to take the focus off coffee-drinking and start putting it on milk-drinking in our province. People should be getting a second glass of milk free, not a second cup of coffee. The same, I would suggest, should also go for our fruit juices which are generated within the province. We should be encouraging the restaurateurs and the various servers of these products to offer a second one free for those products that are produced in British Columbia. Do you have any comment in regard to a promotion like that?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, we've been working on this for about three months. I don't think the member was here, so I'll explain this again. We have all the stakeholders at the table, right from the processors through to the retailers, the wholesalers, the packaging industry, the producers. Everybody's there, including some of the mayors of greater Vancouver, which is rather interesting. So we've had ongoing discussions to launch a campaign.

The Premier is behind it publicly. We think it has to be done in consultation with everyone who is a stakeholder. In other words, we think that it can be driven by the provincial government, but to be successful.... I mentioned this the other day when the member was not here. We have studied five jurisdictions. Ontario, New Brunswick and Alberta tried what we call a pull strategy for buying produce in their own provinces; it did not work. Washington's works reasonably well; Oregon was away ahead. We are concentrating on the Oregon plan through a number of contractors right now. I think their plan is light-years ahead of everyone else's. We will use the money they have expended to work on our program.

K. Jones: It's good to see that that type of program is going to go ahead. We're going to see some real promotion of the suppliers in the restaurants and the dining rooms out there, promoting our product over the foreign imported product. I hope so. A healthier province will result from it.

I'd like to look briefly into the areas of golf courses and ALR decisions. I'd like to explore your plans with regard to helping people who have really gone to a lot of expense. I'm not talking about the promoter-or developer-type person; I'm talking about the person who is a serious farmer and who thought that they had the opportunity for a golf course as a legitimate use under the ALR when the land was marginal as farmland. What kind of support...? You've proposed legislation under the Expropriation Act to not provide any compensation. Is it possible that your ministry would have some funding to help these farmers stay viable in the farm industry?

Hon. B. Barlee: While the member could describe that individual as a serious farmer.... If he is a serious farmer, why would he want to turn his land into a golf course? That's a good question. Most of the serious farmers I know are concentrating on farming. If one crop does not work, they are quite capable of going into another crop. I have explained at length that the farmers in British Columbia are not an endangered species. They are doing extremely well -- better than farmers in any province in the dominion.

[12:30]

K. Jones: I'm not a real expert in entomology. Perhaps you or your ministry could assist us and tell us what a wireworm infestation is. How does it affect the ability of a farm to continue to operate?

Hon. B. Barlee: I haven't any idea what a wireworm is. I know the word, but I don't know the particular species. My expert, Tony Kluge, is not here. I would have to contact him to see exactly what a wireworm is, and what damage they do. I know the worm is a pest, but I can't give you a lot more information.

K. Jones: Would it be possible to bring that back to the next sitting of these estimates, so we can further elaborate on it? I don't know whether you need to know what the wireworm is, but do you know what impact it has on the ability to grow crops? Can you grow crops, and can you identify for me what crops could be grown on ground that has wireworm infestation?

Hon. B. Barlee: Rather than waste the committee's time, we will provide you with a direct answer via letter. You may then wish to ask another question on it, but we'll have Tony Kluge do that.

K. Jones: That's making progress; that's excellent. The persons that have this problem really do want to find some alternatives. I understand that is the responsibility of the Agricultural Land Commission: to continue to make farms a viable entity, particularly when 

[ Page 1392 ]

they are no longer allowing them to become golf courses; they've taken that capability away from them. According to the actual objectives of the Agricultural Land Commission, maintaining the viability of a farm within farmland is one of their mandates. What action are you and the ALC going to take to assist this person or others in similar situations to continue to be economically viable?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, economic viability is not one of the criteria of the Agricultural Land Commission. There are farmers side by side and in the same type of land, and one farmer does extremely well but the other may not. Economic viability does not come into it. Land class does, however, if it's class 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. But certainly economic viability is not one of their criteria.

K. Jones: Does the land class change with the ability of the land to sustain a particular crop? For example, what if it has an infestation of some pest that prevents crops from being grown on it?

Hon. B. Barlee: No, it doesn't. It is still classified as land; what class it is doesn't change. There's the golden nematode in this area. That does not change the value or class of that land, which is primarily 2 and 3, for instance, in this area.

K. Jones: If the land class doesn't change, and if there's a pest that prevents growing crops on that land, what means of income is that farm supposed to use to pay its taxes, mortgage and the operating costs of its staff and family?

Hon. B. Barlee: Perhaps the member would be more forthright. I assume he is referring to Hillside farms, which he dwelled upon the other day. Is that correct?

K. Jones: That is one of several that have similar problems. I'm speaking with fair knowledge of that one, but I'm also speaking of some others that have similar difficulties and are very concerned about the situation they now find themselves in. They really don't seem to find any alternatives. It was clearly understood previously that the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission was to sustain farming in the province. Are you removing that mandate now and just going to decide whether municipalities have passed third reading in making a decision approving golf course applications?

The Chair: Order, hon. member. The application and the extension of the Agricultural Land Commission, and the purview, the rules and the decision-making process, have been extensively canvassed under these estimates. Please proceed, hon. member, and stay within new questions, as per standing order 43.

K. Jones: It's very difficult, since we are using a divided House at this time -- two committees operating simultaneously -- for all of us to be fully cognizant of every factor going on in the House.

The Chair: Order, hon. member. The caution from the Chair is not debatable. Please restrict your comments to the area of influence of the minister's office.

Hon. B. Barlee: One brief answer, perhaps: first of all, viability is not under the aegis of the ALC; viability is understood to be under the aegis of the agricultural land reserve. However, I think I've extensively answered that. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 12:38 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada