1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 1986

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8713 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

South African food imports. Ms. Sanford –– 8713

Mr. Barnes

Ms. Brown

Mr. Williams

Mr. Michael

Mr. Rose

Riverview Hospital. Mr. Rose –– 8714

Fibreco Export Inc. Mr. Howard –– 8715

South African food imports. Ms. Sanford –– 8715

Private Members' Statements

Coal. Mr. Reid –– 8715

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Cocke

Pesticide control. Mrs. Wallace –– 8718

Hon. Mr. Pelton

Mount Pleasant neighbourhood. Mr. Barnes –– 8719

Hon. Mr. Smith

Mr. Cocke

Value-added tax. Mr. Nicolson –– 8721

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Mr. Cocke

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

On vote 71: ministry operations –– 8722

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Lauk

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mr. Skelly

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Hon. R. Fraser

Ms. Brown

Tabling Documents –– 8733

FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 1986

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would inform the House that I

have filed a notice of motion to restore vote 70, and it will be called

for debate next week.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery is Mr. George Williamson from Coquitlam. Would the House make him welcome.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: In the gallery this morning is a group of

young British Columbians who are visiting the Legislature today. I'm

sure they'll have an opportunity to see that former school teacher and

have a good game of hide-and-go-seek in the Legislature. I'd like to

give them all a good welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, also visiting with us this morning

are 48 grade 6 and grade 7 students and their chaperones and teacher

from Sacred Heart School in Delta. I would ask all members to give them

a warm welcome.

Oral Questions

SOUTH AFRICAN FOOD IMPORTS

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have a situation in South Africa in which a state of emergency has been declared and in which....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is your question to a minister?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair will

allow a

preamble to a question. It is only fair that a short

preamble

or a

preamble be allowed so that the question may be explained. The

member will continue without interruption.

MS. SANFORD: They're very edgy this morning, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We have a situation in

South Africa in which a state of emergency has been declared. We have

requests from around the world at this stage for an imposition of

sanctions against South Africa. What action has the minister taken to

ensure that no food products are imported into this province from South

Africa?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I haven't taken any such action, Mr. Speaker.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering at this stage whether or

not the minister is even aware of the situation. If so, does he intend to take

action against the products that are now being imported from South Africa into

this province?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member's talking about future policy of government, and I have no such plans.

MR. BARNES: To the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

on the same subject, could the minister indicate to the House the

government's policy with respect to stocking of South African products

in its liquor outlets?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Minister of

External Affairs for Canada does not deal with financial institutions

or liquor products in this province, I think I'll leave external

affairs up to him.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: Are you going to supplement it? He hasn't answered.

MR. BARNES: Quite frankly, I'm really just so shocked by the

government's attitude on this serious situation. It's been many, many

years. The difficulty that I have in trying to pose a question to that

side of the House is the lack of seriousness with which they take the

issue. I'd like to ask the minister this. This is a matter of

principle. As a personal view of the situation, does the minister not

have any concern whatsoever about the situation that is happening in

South Africa? Does the minister have nothing to say on behalf of the

government of British Columbia, notwithstanding the position of the

federal government?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of concern

about what's happening in South Africa. In fact, one of my very best

friends in the world lives right in that area of South Africa. I intend

to, as the government of British Columbia does, leave external affairs

better if the hon. member would do the same thing.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Consumer Affairs: the

minister is saying he will not boycott South African goods, no matter

what happens in South Africa. Is the minister buying other goods from

other liquor administrations in Canada where they have boycotted South

African goods?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, we import South African wines.

We import Russian vodka. We import a lot of things. We import Polish

products, even though the people in the government of Poland have

certainly mitigated against the citizens in that particular province.

I don't see the hon. member up standing and talking about those

things. The hon. member is asking for future policy, and I am not going

to offend the rules of the House.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the minister saying he is waiting for a bloodbath before he will do anything?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. WILLIAMS: No shame at all. None whatsoever. The shame is over....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 8714 ]

MR. MICHAEL: I have a question to the same minister. If

indeed the opposition wishes the minister to have a look at the

situation in South Africa, may I also ask that he have a look at the

situation in Hungary over the past years; the situation in

Czechoslovakia; the situation in Russia where tens of thousands of

people were slaughtered in previous years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. MICHAEL: Have a look at the situation in China, where millions were slaughtered through their revolutionary tactics.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MICHAEL: Have a look at the situation in East Germany, where legitimate protests were put down by that....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. member, when the Chair calls the member to order, take a seat. For heaven's sake, man!

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. ROSE: I had a supplementary, but I have been talking so I

haven't got it perhaps worded correctly. But I believe our federal

government has instituted certain kinds of sanctions against South

Africa and has asked for the cooperation of the provinces. In what

manner is British Columbia prepared to cooperate with the federal

government on this very serious racist matter?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would check

his facts, or perhaps he could talk to some of his colleagues in

Ottawa, he would find that wine is not included in those sanctions.

MR. ROSE: I know that imports and exports are a federal

matter, but wine isn't a particular concern of the federal government,

because wine is distributed provincially.

What are you going to do about it?

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: What are you going to do about it? No reply.

Has the minister decided to stop buying South African wines?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time we have

not decided to stop buying Polish vodka, we have not decided to stop

buying Russian vodka, and we have not decided to stop buying South

African wines.

[10:15]

RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL

MR. ROSE: I have a new question, a totally new question. It's

a question to the Minister of Health. There are ongoing discussions now

about a new mental health model for the province. It affects people all

over the province, but particularly concerned are government employees

working at Riverview in my riding. I want to know whether or not there

are any discussions between the department and the government

employees' union regarding the retraining of those who may be

considered redundant once the new model is implemented.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The question of modifications to Riverview,

whether it be by way of a new unit on site or perhaps units elsewhere

in the province, has been discussed with many, many groups, including

union representatives.

With respect to retraining, I would think that would be a matter for

the union and those with whom they negotiate in government to discuss,

to determine what process would be required to see that retraining

could take place. That's not an unusual aspect of a collective

agreement, to look at a retraining program for certain specific units.

That would be a matter for the union negotiators or their

representatives to discuss with the government negotiators or

representatives in reflection on their collective agreement.

MR. ROSE: The reason I asked the question is that the

ministers staff indicated that discussions are taking place. The union

says they aren't, so they're trying to get at the truth. I would like

to know, if they aren't, when will they begin? The union desires them.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The discussions have been going on for quite a period of time. This is not a recent development.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes. The unions have been involved in

earlier discussions. This has been going on for some time. If you're

speaking specifically of retraining, then perhaps those discussions

have not taken place. However, I would think it is not the Ministry of

Health officials who should be discussing the question of retraining;

it should be the public service aspect of the government in accordance

with the collective agreement. I don't think the ministry should be

independently negotiating with the employees' union for one aspect.

They would have input, of course, but I think the directive must come

from those responsible for the entire contract with the BCGEU. I'm not

suggesting for a moment that I would be opposed to that. Of course,

that is a normal part of collective agreements.

MR. ROSE: Has the minister decided to urge his officials to

begin discussions about retraining for those who may be considered

redundant or may be made redundant by any new model implemented?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would suggest that those employees would

have the same opportunity and rights under their collective agreement

as any other employee in government with respect to redundancy or

retraining. I have no problem in perhaps recommending that officials

within the ministry raise that matter with those people who have that

responsibility. I would consider that to be routine, normal and quite

proper.

[ Page 8715 ]

FIBRECO EXPORT INC.

MR. HOWARD: In the continued absence of the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), I'd like to ask the acting minister a

question relating to a decision on May 28 by the government to approve

the export of 300,000 bone-dry units of wood chips annually over a

ten-year period in the name of Fibreco Export Inc. Can I ask the

minister if he will confirm that this is the same company which entered

into negotiations with the B.C. Development Corporation for a $70

million loan to construct a pulp mill using wood chips?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'd be pleased to take that question as notice and pass it on to the Minister of Forests.

MR. HOWARD: A question to the acting minister then. Inasmuch

as the Chip Export Advisory Committee, which approved this export

proposal, consists of five representatives each from companies which

produce chips and companies which consume them and use them, could I

ask the minister whether there is any plan or whether the government

has decided to restructure that wood-chip advisory committee so that it

does not become self-serving, in serving its own self-interest?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'd be very happy to take that question as notice for the Minister of Forests.

SOUTH AFRICAN FOOD IMPORTS

MS. SANFORD: A report that has been submitted by the Eminent

Persons Group regarding South Africa — Mr. Speaker, this goes to the

Minister of Agriculture and Food — indicates that sanctions should be

taken against that country. Even the government of Prime Minister

Thatcher is reconsidering its position regarding sanctions against that

country at this time. Will the minister not undertake to ensure that

food that is produced in South Africa is prohibited from sale in

British Columbia?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's hardly the function of the Minister of Forests for the province of British Columbia to....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Forests?

MR. SPEAKER: Correction duly noted, hon. member. The bell terminates question period.

Private Members' Statements

COAL

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'll try to get through my comments early so I can go out and make my announcement.

It's quite appropriate that I rise today to speak on the subject of

coal, because coal comes from pits and as of last night I sure felt

like the pits. The other thing that's appropriate when we deal with

coal is that coal also comes from tunnels and yesterday I learned a

lesson about tunnels. But in the two years I've served as Whip in this

House I want to tell you that for the first time yesterday the trust

and confidence that I had experienced with the opposition in dealing

with hours of the day and business of the day.... I was lied to by the

acting Whip. I was lied to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order....

MR. REID: And it's appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that the reason I was lied....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver Centre is rising on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Surrey is using the guise of member's statements which....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I will ask the member for Mackenzie to come to order immediately.

MR. LAUK: He submitted titles or themes for his talk. It is

my submission, Your Honour, that hon. members who use members'

statements as a guise for attacking the credibility of other hon.

members in this House should be looked at with repugnance by the Chair.

It is like obtaining the floor of the House on a phony point of order

or point of privilege. If the hon. member feels aggrieved, he has an

opportunity to raise it as a point of privilege, and answers by other

members can be given. He is now giving a statement that was published

in the orders of the day, and he should stick to it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The

member for Surrey has risen in his place to make a private member's

statement. Orders of the Day indicated that the member's topic for his

statement was coal. I think it is presumptuous for any member of the

House to presume they know what his topic relative to coal is.

The member may make a statement on whichever subject he chooses. It

is only a matter of form that there is an indication on the order paper

as to what the topic is. The member's statement will not be determined

because of its subject content. The member has the right to make the

statement, and I think it is presumptuous for that member to presume

what the content of the statement may be.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, one moment, please. Order, please. I will have order or I will have an empty chamber.

Hon. members, the Chair is not now nor at any time going to

undertake what a member may or may not say in this chamber. That is the

prerogative of a member. The Chair will undertake, however, to ensure

that the rules under which we debate in this chamber are followed. When

a member reflects upon another member in one form or another, he's

doing something by one means which he cannot do by another. In that

respect, the point of order raised by the member, the second member for

Vancouver Centre, is in order.

Also the statement by the Minister of Health is in order. A member has an obligation to follow the rules of debate in this

[ Page 8716 ]

chamber. The Chair, on the other hand, does not have an obligation to determine what a member may or may not say.

We have a wide-open statement on members' statements. The Chair is

not now nor ever going to undertake what that scope of debate will be.

The member will, however, follow the rules of the House.

Now I will ask the second member for Surrey to continue on the debate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, are we going to enter into a debate?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I just think the intervention could be subtracted from his time, so he may have his full time.

MR. ROSE: I reflect back, Mr. Speaker, on the intentions of

this particular new rule. The intention of the new rule was to give

private members an opportunity to talk about things relating to their

constituency, and an opportunity for the minister or whomever on the

other side to reply.

It was not — and I support the ruling of the Chair — for the purpose

of assuming the floor to discuss one topic, and then using that ruling

or that opportunity to speak to attack another member and suggest that

the other member has told some kind of an untruth.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, clearly the member is reflecting on

what the Chair has just stated, and I think I made very clear what the

rules are and what the obligation of the Chair is.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I think you

concurred with a remark made by the government House Leader. Having

worked long and very difficult hours, as did the hon. member, on these

rules, I cannot for the life of me see how, when a person puts down an

item for debate on Tuesday, they could have preconceived the events of

yesterday, and how that could possibly be in good faith and in the

spirit of the intention of these statements when obviously the member

did not expect the events of yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point, I would call members'

attention to the second matter on the order paper for debate. I would

ask the members to try to gauge the content of the second notice for

debate in this House, entitled "P.A. N. and the Dirty Dozen." I defy

members to try to inform the Chair what the context of that debate

would be.

For heaven's sakes, hon. members, let's behave as legislators. If we

have other matters that are pressing, then let us use the appropriate

forum and not invent a situation which is not called for at this time

in debate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, if my hearing was correct, I

understood the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) to refer to either

myself or the caucus Whip as liars. I don't think that term is

permissible in this House and I ask for a withdrawal.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair did not hear that statement; if it

had, it would have asked for a withdrawal. I ask the second member for

Surrey, if such a statement was made, to withdraw that statement.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the House, I did

make that statement. I do withdraw it, but I'll make it outside of the

House after.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, what a member does outside the

chamber is on the member's own conscience, but a categorical withdrawal

is necessary. I would ask the member to so withdraw.

MR. REID: I categorically withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. I will now ask the member for Mackenzie for the same withdrawal.

[10:30]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What did I say? I withdraw my withdrawal?

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member, the statement regarding the same reference that the member just withdrew.

MR. LOCKSTEAD About turning back odometers? I'm sorry, I can't

remember what statement it was.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you must........

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members.

Now, hon. members, with the greatest of respect, may we continue

under private members' statements, Friday only. Number one, entitled

"Coal, " the second member for Surrey.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, may I tie both first and second together? I can probably talk about the Dirty Dozen while I'm at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

Interjections.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I guess we're talking about how you

get tunnels. The subject that I intended to raise, starting last Monday

— I intend to follow through with it today — is coal. I guess it

relates to some trust and cooperation between countries, partners and

companies.

The northeast coal project was based on firm contracts with the

Japanese steel industries for 6.7 million tonnes of metallurgical coal,

which is used in the steel industry, and 1.3 million tonnes of thermal

coal, which is used for generating electricity. The metallurgical coal

contracts are for 15 years, extendible to 20 years. Sales of this coal

will generate about $650 million to $700 million per year, and $13

billion to $14 billion revenue over the next 20 years.

These firm contracts for long-term mine development are providing the regional economy with firm commitments to

[ Page 8717 ]

their ongoing needs for stability. In 1984, 4.7

million tonnes were shipped from the two mines in the north. Direct

northeast coal employment: Quintette Coal employs 1,520 people;

Bullmoose mine, 450. B.C. Rail, as a result of those developments,

employs an extra 60 people. CN Rail employs 250 people as a result of

that development. Ridley Terminals employs 100 people, and the tugboats

servicing those terminals employ 30 people. Total: 2,410 people

employed.

The construction phase of that project created 13,000 direct and

44,000 indirect man-years of employment. Annual estimated gross

salaries from direct operations employment are $96 million; annual

estimated royalty payments to the province, $16.5 million; annual

estimated surcharge to be collected, $23 million; annual estimated

payments to B.C. Rail, $53 million; annual estimated payments to CN

Rail, $106 million; annual estimated personal income tax payments, $74

million; annual estimated port charges payments, $28 million. There are

4,800 indirect jobs created in total, 7,200 in the area of Tumbler

Ridge and the two mine sites.

MR. PARKS: Where are all the NDPers?

MR. REID: I guess they've gone back to the tunnel. Speaking

of tunnels, I guess they've got to keep an eye on the tunnel that's

down here in Victoria.

The Greenhills and Balmer mines in the southeast, Mr. Speaker,

currently employ 1,400 people, but the interesting result of the

northeast coal is that it has had no effect on the sales and production

of the coal of the southeast. The same volume of coal was shipped from

the southeast during 1985 as was shipped in 1984: some 18.1 million

tonnes.

Mr. Speaker, the total shipments from both are generating fantastic

income to all areas of the province, including those areas which are

being serviced. The generation of $650 million in sales from the

southeast alone during 1985.... The company expenditures in those

mining communities alone would be in the millions and millions of

dollars. The personal income taxes as a result of that, Mr. Speaker,

are phenomenal. The unemployment insurance savings to the province and

last three years as a result of the 3.5 percent tax on the minehead

value: in 1983 the revenue was $8.9 million, in '84 it was $8.9

million, and in '85 it was $21.5 million.

Mr. Speaker, coal is a positive product of productivity and incentive in this province.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, without going over the

figures, which I think make a self-evident case for the value of the

coal developments in the province, I'd just like to respond briefly to

the member's statement. Yes, there's no question about the economic

benefits to the province, the direct and indirect revenues to the

people of British Columbia, the many jobs that were created, both

during the construction and during the continuing operation. Try to

tell some of those 3,500 people or whatever number that coal mining is

bad, as some of the members opposite have tried to present the case.

As the member has pointed out, during the recession, which was

pretty well worldwide, the coal development in British Columbia....

Sales remained up in the southeast as well as the northeast. I think

we've found in our coal development programs, in our mining development

program, that the different areas of the province complement each

other, and despite the efforts of some people to try to pit one area

against the other, both areas have succeeded, and the province and

Canada have benefited. So certainly our citizens have benefited and

will continue to benefit. There's a lot of coal there. The world will

keep using coal; the world is going to need energy. A lot of the

infrastructure is in place.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair]

There is no question about the present and continuing value of this

industry to British Columbia. Even though the Japanese are very tough

negotiators on contracts and on prices and that sort of thing, they are

honourable people, and they do not just willy-nilly throw away

contracts and throw away long-term planning. So I have complete faith

that as the negotiations go on tough and to making adjustments in

today's world prices, those people are not going to do what some other

people say they're going to do — abandon them. They try to modify

contracts, they negotiate very toughly, but they will certainly honour

their contracts, and I expect that to go on and I expect the province

to continue to benefit.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I wish he would deal

with what the members in the opposition have said right from the

outset. What the members of the opposition have said has been that the

northeast coal proposition has been a disaster.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep it in the ground.

MR. COCKE: Keep it in the ground, my foot! The fact of the

matter is that northeast coal has been a disaster for two reasons. One

is that very bad decisions have been made. I hope, for example, that

Denison isn't going to pull the pin. Denison is losing $50 million a

year. They've already written off a quarter....

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, can you tell me how much time the member has?

MR. COCKE: You're taking up my time. Sit down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Excuse me. The Chair will

extend the time, and the Chair will record the time, and the Chair will

tell the member when he's out of order. Standing orders are quite

clear, and if you refer to page 8, you can see how much time is

available for a reply. Three minutes are available in the reply. When

I'm advised by Hansard that that time is complete, then I will ask the

member to sit.

MR. REID: On a point of order, the proponent has three minutes in reply.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Any other member has up to a maximum of five minutes.

MR. REID: He must be speaking in the minister's reply within

that five-minute time limit. That's all he's got. I have three minutes

to respond.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's correct. You'll have time when it's available. The Speaker has some other business to

[ Page 8718 ]

attend to. I'm assisting in the chair, and will try to do the job appropriately.

MR. COCKE: The member is obviously not used to debating in the House, and therefore gets lost in the nuances.

Getting back to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources, he talks about the opposition's complaining and so on and so

forth. The fact of the matter is, the opposition is very concerned

about a real potential loser. As I said, when a company the size of

Denison writes off $250 million and goes on to say that they're losing

$50 million a year, how long can we expect them to go? Negotiations

with the Japanese are coming up within a year. If those negotiations go

the way negotiations often do when there's a great supply, then we have

great concerns. We've never heard answers from the minister.

MR. REID: I'd like to sum up by saying some positive things

about the northeast and the southeast, and about the positive responses

of effective companies who have come and invested millions of their

dollars to put mines on site in the northeast of the province and who

have hired, directly and indirectly, 4,800 people for the community in

the area. Those people are currently employed. The mines are working

full out, shipping 200 railcars of coal per day to the Ridley port. The

operations phase created 2,400 permanent and 4,800 indirect jobs.

Estimated annual gross salaries from direct employment are $96 million;

estimated annual royalty payments to the province are $16.5 million;

the estimated annual surcharge to be collected by us is $23 million;

the estimated annual payment to B.C. Rail is $53 million — much needed

support for a rail line that needed some industry in the north to help

pay its bills; it's getting an additional $53 million a year it wasn't

getting before. The estimated annual payment to CN Rail — surprise,

surprise — is another $106 million, as a result of the northeast coal

project. Estimated annual personal income tax payments are $74 million.

Estimated annual port charge payments are another $28 million. These

are all factual numbers, positive numbers, talking about a successful

project.

Whether or not Denison and Teck have some problems with their

financing, the project is still operating. If the NDP opposition had

their way, they'd close it down and put 7,400 people down on the

breadline in Vancouver. They'd love that. But this province is on the

move. Those projects are propping up this province. We want more of

them; we're proud of them; we're going to keep them here.

[10:45]

PESTICIDE CONTROL

MRS. WALLACE: I'm sorry that the Speaker who was in the chair earlier

is not here, because he indicated he didn't know what I was going to be

talking about. For his edification and that of the member for Surrey, PAN is

the acronym that stands for Pesticide Action Network. It's an international

organization, and its first founding meeting was held in 1981 in Malaysia. At

that time there were 16 countries involved, and they began to look at some of

the pesticides and herbicides used around the world that obviously had the greatest

danger, both human and environmental. They continued their meetings and their

growth continued. They are now up to 22 nations. In 1985 they identified 12

chemicals which they felt were the most harmful, and they termed them the Dirty

Dozen. During the past year they have really spearheaded and pinpointed their

campaign around the world to try to have those 12 pesticides banned.

I was fortunate enough to be able to attend their recent conference

in Ottawa, where they reported back on some of the things that had

happened around the world. It was a very fascinating and interesting

conference. As I say, there were delegates there from 22 countries. I

would say that they were probably divided equally between the so-called

developed and developing countries. There were delegates from, of

course, Canada and the U.S.; and delegates from Britain, Italy, New

Zealand, Brazil, Kenya, Indonesia and Ecuador. That's just a few, but

it gives you an idea of the range of people and the kind of expertise

that was there, and the broad base of information that came into that

conference.

Of the 12 chemicals which are included in the Dirty Dozen, five are

still registered for use in Canada. Parathion is one that is registered

for use. It's an organophosphate, and it has a very high rating as far

as a poison on the LD, the lethal dose.... A Very small amount of

parathion is...well, it means certain death. The delegate from Senegal,

I think it was, was a very dark-skinned man in a beautiful, long ivory

robe. He said he wanted to take us to his country and imagine a family

out working in the fields. The wife and mother was preparing the

evening meal over the little charcoal cooker. She puts the food in and

pours in some oil out of a bottle, prepares the food. The family comes

in and eats it. Within two hours they are vomiting. Within 24 hours the

family is dead, the reason being that that bottle that had the oil in

it had contained parathion.

We saw pictures taken — I think this was from Uganda on the shelf in

a store, a plastic bottle, and written in felt pen on it was "termite

control concentrate." There was nothing to say what it was or how to

use it. Those were some of the fascinating things that we learned. But

to know that parathion, such a deadly poison, is still registered in

Canada causes me a great deal of concern.

Also registered in Canada is Paraquat. Paraquat is a bipyridyl.

Again, it is very poisonous. Its acute poisoning........ Most severe

symptoms of paraquat poisoning come from ingestion and don't appear for

several days. Paraquat is the second one. Aldrin is another one. Aldrin

is an organochlorine; again this is a very hazardous poison. Lindane,

which is an organophosphate, I believe, and PCP, which is of course

high in dioxins and used very extensively here in British Columbia....

Those are the five chemicals that are still used in Canada that are

included on that Dirty Dozen list.

I think that really it's time that Canada moved to take some action.

We have had in B.C. In the last little while quite an outbreak of

incidents that involved illness and poisoning with chemicals. I am

making this statement in the hope that I can gain support for putting

pressure on the Canadian government through British Columbia to take

action to at least get rid of these five chemicals that are on the

Dirty Dozen list.

HON. MR. PELTON: Thanks to my opposition critic for the very

informative talk that she gave us. I could go into a lot of detail on

all of those chemicals which were included in that list known as the

Dirty Dozen, but I know that my time will not allow it. So perhaps I

could just remind the House once again of what my ministry's program is

with respect to pesticide control. I would tell you, to try to put it

as succinctly as possible, that the goal of the pesticide control

[ Page 8719 ]

program within the ministry is basically to protect

health and to maintain environmental quality by ensuring that

pesticides are used safely in British Columbia.

We try to achieve this goal in four different ways. I'll try to very

briefly cover each of them. The first one is by encouraging the prudent

use of pesticides according to label directions and regulations. This

is very important, Mr. Speaker. There are more than 500 pesticide

licences issued each year in British Columbia, and about 1,100 vendor

sites. These would be the various shops through which pesticides are

sold. There are 250 permit sites and there are 740 pest control service

sites, and all of these sites are inspected annually by the pesticide

control branch of the ministry.

The second way of trying to achieve this goal is by trying to

minimize the impact of pesticides on public health. To do this, we

maintain through the ministry direct liaison with other agencies who

not only monitor the use of pesticides but who also analyze the results

of such use. We have also become involved in the preparation of the

curricula which have developed for agricultural pesticide courses that

are given.

The third way that we try to control this is by minimizing the

impact of the pesticides on environmental quality. Pesticide residues

in water, soil, fish and marine organisms are monitored for a minimum

number of permit sites, and the pesticide program is involved in the

development of monitoring programs for what we refer to as non-point

sources of pollution. Approximately 150 pesticide-abuse complaints are

investigated annually.

The fourth and final way is that we try to improve the public

understanding of pesticide use in the province. To do this, about 200

inquiries from the public about pesticides are answered through the

program each year. Some 65 adult extension courses are offered every

year on the use and the handling of pesticides.

We certainly are aware — and unfortunately I wasn't able to attend

the same conference that the member attended — of the campaign that was

launched by the Pesticide Action Network, and certainly we applaud it.

We would be prepared to support these matters with the federal

government. As I said before, I have information of the 12 bad ones —

the Dirty Dozen, so-called — which I would be quite prepared to share

with anyone in the House. But I won't speak any further on that, except

to say that I think that in British Columbia pesticide use is carefully

controlled and very tightly monitored. Most problems that have arisen,

and I think maybe we all remember the famous cucumber one, have

involved the misuse of pesticides, people not reading what it says on

the label and how they are to be used.

Having said that, I would just say once again that the Ministry of

Environment tries very hard to ensure that all applications of

pesticides are consistent with the labelling, and that problems with

accidental use are, to say the least, minimized. I might finish by

saying that in my opinion British Columbia probably has one of the

toughest pesticide control systems in Canada.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I thank the minister for his comments. I think it has been a valuable discussion today.

I recognize that certainly in British Columbia we are far ahead of a

lot of places, but my concern is that the one thing we aren't doing,

and the one thing that the minister didn't mention because we are not

doing it, is research and development into alternatives. That was one

of the outstanding parts of this conference, where we were looking at

alternatives and came up with some excellent information relative to

alternatives. There still is a long way to go, though, particularly in

the commercial area, the large-scale area. But there are some things

there, and we need to start some kind of government programs to

encourage the agricultural community to use those alternatives. Maybe

it has to be some kind of crop insurance so that if they do happen to

lose a crop because of failure to use pesticide, they will still get

some reimbursement, because we have to encourage getting away from

those pesticides.

You talked about testing. I'll bet what you are finding in your

testing is that more and more chemicals are showing up in ground water.

Certainly in eastern Canada that is now the case. Pesticides are in

water. They are in the drinking water. They are in the water that you

are putting on your vegetables when you water your garden, so it is

into the food chain. Here in British Columbia we don't want that to get

any worse than it is.

I think just the one thing that I would like to conclude with is

another anecdote from the conference. This was the woman from Ecuador —

woman — and she told about what had happened in Ecuador. She said they

had built up a large lobbying group that was very representative of

lots of citizens in Ecuador over the years from 1981. So when they got

the list of the Dirty Dozen, it gave them something to work with. They

went and they lobbied their elected people, and they talked to the

President, who has the authority there. He banned not only the Dirty

Dozen but in total 23 chemicals, all chemicals that are banned in any

other country around the world. They've done it in Ecuador; I think we

can do it in Canada.

MOUNT PLEASANT NEIGHBOURHOOD

MR. BARNES: I am going to speak briefly on a subject of

concern in the riding of Vancouver Centre: it's the Mount Pleasant

community. I met two days ago with a number of concerned citizens in

the Mount Pleasant district who were wondering when some action was

going to be taken concerning a condition of disruption of serious

proportions in many parts of the area that has been highlighted

considerably in the media, as a result of congregations of people who

are involved in the sex trade. My comments, however, are not

specifically to do with the sex trade, although it's quite obvious that

in this particular instance that's believed to be the main reason that

the disruptions are taking place in the community.

[11:00]

In Mount Pleasant there are some 22,000 people, Mr. Speaker, and

about five geographical areas. The majority of the people who live in

that area are between the ages of 20 and 34. There is a trend toward

single individuals, as opposed to families. It's not an area that's as

well organized as some in terms of political power and decision-making,

in terms of influencing the decisions that affect their community and

their lives. Perhaps this is one of the reasons for me wanting to talk

about community rights.

In any event, when I met with these people, I wasn't sure if I could

say anything that was going to be new or different, or would help them

come away more enlightened. I have discussed the question of

prostitution, not only in the community but here in the Legislature

quite recently with the

[ Page 8720 ]

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith). I attempted to

describe the problem as one of general neglect and lack of services for

individuals, or cutbacks. All of the major policies of the government

have had a negative effect on the lives of the people, and therefore

many of them were turning to prostitution as a desperate attempt to

maintain some economic survival. I still believe that a great deal of

it has to do with that, but that debate is one that is not going to be

resolved.... At least no solutions are going to come from that debate

overnight.

One of the main things that we've got to look at is the duty of the

government, the local government and the federal government to ensure

that community integrity, safety and security are maintained. This is

the message that I got when I sat and talked for two and a half hours

with these people two days ago: what rights do the citizens have? The

Attorney-General and I were discussing this to the point that I wanted

to challenge the government to clarify its duty. The Attorney-General

stated quite clearly that although he respected my compassion and

sincerity and concern for the individuals, when it comes to community

rights, the integrity of the community, the government must act; I do

not challenge that.

But I would say. that so far the evidence of this being really a

successful approach to the problem has yet to be that convincing. For

instance, the new C49 bill, the federal bill dealing with the

apprehension of people who are causing a disturbance in the community,

is a very cumbersome one. It involved anywhere from three months or

more before you can have a trial, and quite often those are delayed due

to adjournments, etc. It's cumbersome. It's not an efficient system. In

the meantime, we have a community under siege.

My concern as a legislator and as a representative for that area is

that we protect people, we protect families, we protect businesses.

What is beginning to happen is that families are finding themselves

being offended, are finding that people are destroying their

neighbourhoods, keeping them up all night. In some cases you find

hypodermic needles in people's yards and on their property, condoms,

defecation, noise all night, and insults, bad language — the kinds of

things that could happen for reasons other than prostitution. It could

be just youths that are being neglected, like in Surrey. It's not

necessarily prostitution, but in this case this seems to be the

business that is taking place and causing the problem.

My concern is the Mount Pleasant residents, the taxpayers of the

community. I do believe that we have to begin to address this from the

standpoint of the rights of the residents in those communities and not

confuse that issue with the right to move about in the community. I

believe that's the other side. There has to be a two-pronged approach

to the solution. Good programs have to be in place; options,

alternatives, have to be made available for all parties involved. In

the meantime, I don't believe it is responsible for public officials to

turn their backs on people who are asking for help and asking for their

rights to be protected.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the statement from the member I

think is a good one. I'm delighted that he has had that meeting. I'm

having a similar meeting which I've been trying to arrange for a short

while.

The concerns he expresses are the same concerns that both our

members from that area of Little Mountain have expressed to me as well.

I know that the people of Mount Pleasant are most concerned with the

enforcement of the new Criminal Code provisions on prostitution. The

police are now, as a result of Mr. Justice McKay's decision, able to

enforce the law, I think in a swift and even way. Our prosecutors are

making strong representations to the courts. Wherever possible, of

course, the main targets are pimps, if you can get evidence against

them. The customer is number two and the prostitutes number three.

The major concern is to help that community; to allow people who

live in that community to enjoy the neighbourhood and their streets in

a tranquil way and not have it turned into some kind of a sexual

bazaar, as occurred in the West End. Only two years ago the West End

had between 300 and 400 prostitutes in about four city blocks, day and

night, with all the attendant problems that that brings. Those problems

involved young children who lived there being harassed on their way to

school; elderly people being pushed off the pavement; residents finding

that their parking bays were service areas; noises and screaming and

shouting and hectoring from pimps and from customers; screeching tires

from customers day and night. I'll tell you, it was just a disgrace.

Some of that has been also the burden of the Mount Pleasant residents.

We will enforce the criminal law with vigour and do everything we

can to give the community of Mount Pleasant the sort of support that

the member spoke of. Working with the two members from Little Mountain,

who have been very active in this regard as well, we'll do what we can.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted, as far as that goes,

with the answer from the Attorney-General, particularly with respect to

the priorizing; that is, priorizing the unfortunate prostitute last,

pimps first. They are an absolute drag on any community where they

exist. They're leeches, they're predators, everything nasty that you

can say about people. And the customers! In our town it's not too bad

at the moment, but still it's beginning to build in New Westminster

too. I have seen what the Attorney-General describes in the West End —

as a politician and a legislator I felt I should have a first-hand

glimpse — and it's just an absolutely shocking environment to expect

people to live in. And those customers are just dreadful in terms of

their behaviour: the way they drive their cars, the way they bully and

push people around. It's a very sad situation, and I'm pleased we're

going to do something. The problem has been, of course, that the

Attorney-General pushed them out of the West End and then they zipped

in to Little Mountain. I guess if you push them out of Little Mountain,

they're going to go somewhere else.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs. If we could just get those first

two groups, then maybe something can happen with respect to the future,

but it's a very sad and unfortunate situation. Sad for us this year

particularly, because we've got visitors coming from all over the

world. They take a look at something like that and say: "Wow!" Anyway,

I do hope this can be ameliorated and dealt with. I know it's an

ongoing problem, one that we're no doubt going to have for generations

to come, but at least to keep it under control is really what I think

should happen.

MR. BARNES: I want to thank the two previous speakers for

their contribution. I would just emphasize, however, that there is an

urgency in this matter. In other words, it is of emergent consequence

that something be done fairly soon to make this system work. Violence

is beginning to escalate. I do not intend to appear as an alarmist, but

it is my understanding that people are beginning to feel that they must

[ Page 8721 ]

become aggressive because many of them are of the

opinion that the authorities do not feel aggressive enough about

addressing the problem.

Police are beginning to have second thoughts about their ability to

do their jobs because of the cumbersomeness of the system. There are

suggestions that the Attorney-General should look into a method of

expediting the court process, in order to deal with the problem in a

much more effective, more broadly based way, so that there isn't the

long waiting period that is involved. I concur with those because I

believe right now we have something like 300 people who have been

charged, but the process involved in getting them through the court

system could take months. In the meantime, many of these people are

back on the streets doing the same thing. They are not under any

restraint. In most cases, they have a non-financial bail in the sense

that it's not that costly for them to appear back on the scene.

It's not sufficient just to say that we now have a law; that law has

to be given primacy somehow. There has to be some system whereby this

is a very special and unique problem, and it should not be treated in

the usual way that we may deal with other matters where the court is

involved.

I would like to make a point as well regarding the Ministry of Human

Resources. I believe that the Ministry of Human Resources has not been

as good a parent as it should be in this situation, especially where

young people are concerned. There are far too many young people who are

involved in this activity, and I think that the Ministry of Human

Resources is certainly not as credible as it should be in this. I would

like to see something done with that as well.

My final point is that the people are saying to me that they want an

injunction. Now I know the Attorney-General has said there was no law

in place prior to the injunction in the West End, but in Mount

Pleasant, now that there is a law, the injunction is not a

consideration. I do believe he should treat this as an emergent matter

and act in order to avoid the violence that seems to be building in

Mount Pleasant.

VALUE-ADDED TAX

MR. NICOLSON: The topic I've chosen today, I must confess, is

one that I don't know a great deal about, and I don't think Canadians

or the federal or provincial governments really know a great deal about

it. I would like to talk about the value-added tax or, in its more

recent incarnation, the business transfer tax — the VAT.

[11:15]

I think that the value-added tax has one purpose in mind, and that

is to raise more money than ever before and ultimately to lead to

bigger government, a bigger grab out of people's wallets. It's

attractive to governments. It's been very attractive in the European

Economic Community. It's been adopted by Mexico and other countries. It

is an invisible and insidious tax that is added on at every stage.

If you were to look at what might happen, for instance, in the

manufacture of a computer, one of the components of a computer would

probably be a power supply. Various parts for that power supply would

be purchased, mostly imported, although one or two things might be

manufactured in Canada. You would look at the cost of the goods

required to produce that product, and you would look at the selling

price and the value, take the difference, and that's the value added.

Then there would be a point difference. In Canada one point of

value-added tax is estimated to raise $2.5 billion. Depending on what

that tax rate might be, there will be a value extracted; a cost will be

added to the product. Then that product is taken and assembled, perhaps

into a computer as one of the component parts, along with other things.

The purchase price of it and other parts, such as the housing, the

board, the various chips, the disk drives, etc., again are recomputed,

and the cost there is recomputed as the base value. Then the selling

price is computed and then value-added tax is assessed.

It sounds very simple, except that products are not sold all at the

same price. Even the same product is not sold at the same price. If

there is a customer who buys them one unit at a time, in quantities of

one, they pay one price. If there's a customer who buys in larger

volume quantities, they pay a second price. You know who's going to pay

more tax, of course. Is it going to be the large-volume buyer? In terms

of, say, buying stereo parts, is it going to be A & B Sound? Or is

it going to be the small, independent retailer who's going to pay the

higher value-added — you know, in addition to everything else?

Currently that small retail dealer pays the same manufacturing tax as

the large-volume discount houses do. But under this system they're

going to have to pay more.

Mr. Speaker, it's not without good reason that people like John

Bulloch are concerned about this kind of a departure. This kind of tax

is going to lead, I believe, to more bureaucracy. When it is

introduced, there's the question of how far it's going to go. Is it

going to extend to services as well as manufactured goods? Are there

going to be changes and adjustments made in order to try to create some

kind of equity? Is that in itself not going to lead to more

bureaucracy, as has been the European experience? Is this really the

way that Canada wants to go? Is this the way that British Columbia

wants to go?

I think that because this is such an esoteric subject, we have

ignored it. And yet it is, I think, a very great threat to Canada and

to British Columbia, which is trying to undergo some economic recovery,

and yet we are being assailed by all kinds of ill-conceived political

notions. This one, which was being considered by the former Liberal

government and is now being considered by the present Conservative

government, do you know what it means, Mr. Speaker? It means that this

is the creation of a bureaucracy, and I want to tell you that, if I've

learned anything in 14 years, it is that when ideas are brought up

through the bureaucracy and put forward to government as good

solutions, it is something we have a responsibility as politicians to

look at very carefully. My purpose in bringing this up today is to try

to create some dialogue and debate on this matter which is just rolling

on rather inexorably.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wish to commend the member for raising

this matter. It is something which should be discussed in this chamber.

Frankly, I expected that it might have been raised in my estimates.

The proposition relative to value-added tax or its children has been

before us in my ministry for quite some time. Noticing Orders of the

Day, I pulled some material which has been in my file. Certainly since

early last year, 1985, I have expressed grave concern to the federal

Minister of Finance relative to the possibility of introducing

value-added tax in Canada.

[ Page 8722 ]

The member has made a telling point up to one point, and that is

I believe, however, that the elected officials in the federal

government are aware of its complication and ramifications. Let there

be no doubt that, on behalf of the government of British Columbia, I

have expressed on more than one occasion in writing, by telephone and

in meetings to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Wilson, and to others, my

opposition to any form of value-added tax or one of its emanations.

I did this in fact in March in a lengthy letter to Mr. Wilson March of this

year — indicating that, quite apart from any other consideration, i.e. higher

prices for a variety of goods, it could return us to the tax jungle which existed

in the 1930s. I think Mr. Wilson has been listening, not only to me — and I

take no more credit than as one provincial Minister of Finance, or treasurer.

Others have spoken in the same context in the same vein at meetings of the federal

and provincial ministers on more than one occasion.

There are several elements, quite apart from the additional cost

which Canadians would face, should VAT come into place. There is, from

our point of view, the very real risk of a loss of fiscal policy

autonomy. The member and the House will know, Mr. Speaker, that the

introduction of VAT would really interfere with, if not completely

neutralize, the social policy side of sales tax in British Columbia,

with all our exemptions. And it is not often mentioned by those who pay

sales tax that there are literally thousands of items which are exempt

from sales tax. All that would be gone. So a province — British

Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia, it matters not — would lose that fiscal

policy autonomy.

There is also the concern of the bias against primary producing

provinces, and the member alluded to that. That's a very real threat.

Multiple rates, exemptions difficult to resist, more and more

exemptions, but perhaps applied without an even hand, and a tendency to

increase a VAT rate — whatever percentage it might be — to generate

additional revenue.

I said quite candidly to Mr. Wilson on more than one occasion that

he should be addressing the complete cost of government rather than

seeking additional revenue sources. I think Mr. Wilson has, with his

cabinet colleagues in Ottawa, understood the complications and the

negatives associated with the introduction of VAT.

The business transfer tax is another matter. I cannot report to the

House at this moment as to where that stands with the federal

bureaucracy or indeed the executive council of Canada. But you can be

assured that it will be raised again one week today when Mr. Wilson and

our provincial counterparts meet in Victoria for one of a series of

meetings between federal and provincial ministers of finance.

I don't have the concern that I did about the possibility of VAT

being introduced in this country, but it may surface again in a

slightly different form. We must be vigilant. Certainly the government

of British Columbia will speak against it for the reasons I have

outlined and many others.

MR. COCKE: I'm delighted that there is an accord on this. The

Minister of Finance has indicated that he understands. One of the chief

arguments that I listened to from the member for Nelson-Creston was the

fact that it's dreadfully biased against small business vis-à-vis large

business. I think that in and of itself is sufficient reason; but as

the Minister of Finance pointed out, there are a lot of other reasons.

MR. NICOLSON: I very much welcome most of the remarks of the

minister, except that I would hope that the business transfer tax will

be seen for what it is. In the Globe and Mail on February 2,

1986, there is this quote: "Instead Mr. Wilson may introduce a business

transfer tax" — this was predicting the budget — "as an intermediate

step, giving the government substantially more tax revenue on the road

to a full value-added tax." I think that is the way in which the

business transfer tax has to be seen. That was by Christopher Waddell

in the Globe and Mail , and, of course, this thing is so tempting.

The minister did make reference to letters and documents during his

speech, and I would hope that in a spirit where we might be able to

make some contribution — and we might be on side with the government to

some extent in its position — in order that we may be able to perhaps

use it in our MLAs' columns and things like that, so as to bring

people's attention to it, I would certainly appreciate it if the

minister could file those documents upon the conclusion of this debate.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

(continued)

On vote 71: ministry operations, $17,193,217.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I just rise to make a very few remarks

this morning on this second and final vote in my ministry. I notice the

member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam), who was so interested in my

estimates yesterday, is not in the House. But he may be in the

precincts hiding somewhere in a tunnel, so I wish that one of his

members would go out and find him and drag him into the House to hear

all this good stuff.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The Minister of

Tourism has been recognized. All other members will have their

opportunity to stand in debate.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That's a good idea.

Mr. Chairman, I'm quite certain that the members opposite are really

not interested in talking about tourism, as they indicated yesterday.

My estimates had just barely gotten underway when the vote to reduce my

salary came about — and not only my salary, but the operation of my

office. I really don't know what they have against the good people in

my office who work very hard to accomplish a task. As I said yesterday,

they're a very lean and efficient operation, and I can't for the life

of me understand why they are against the people in my office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. minister. The member for Nelson-Creston on a point of order.

[11:30]

[ Page 8723 ]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister is reflecting on a vote that has been duly passed and reported to the House unanimously.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good point of order. The minister continues.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I was really attempting to

reflect on the behaviour of the opposition yesterday, pointing out that

they were not in the least interested in the operations of the Ministry

of Tourism, which, I might add, has had probably the most successful

year in its history.

The member for Okanagan North contradicted himself, when in one

statement he said there was not enough money allocated to my ministry,

and then in the next breath made a motion to reduce the amount of money

allotted to my ministry. So I don't really think he knows where he

stands. He obviously....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. Minister of Tourism. It is

not relevant to reflect on a vote that has previously been taken in

committee, and if you would try to avoid such references to a vote, it

would be appreciated.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your

admonition, but I was reflecting on the behaviour of the member for

Okanagan North, where in one breath he says I don't have enough money

to carry out the business of the Ministry of Tourism and in the next

makes a motion to reduce the amount that's allocated to my ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, you have admonished the minister

twice. He continues to reflect upon the previous vote in committee.

He's in contempt of the rules of this House, and I ask the Chair to act

accordingly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. minister will refrain from discussing

the vote that was taken previously in committee, or any other vote

taken previously in committee.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I

didn't mention the vote in my last dissertation, I just mentioned the

comments of the member for Okanagan North, and he distinctly said that

I was not being given enough money to operate my ministry. We're on the

vote of ministry operations, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect. He

made the comment that I was not being given enough money to operate my

ministry, and here he was yesterday being so concerned about the

Ministry of Tourism, the third-largest generator of money in this

province, and today he's not in his place in this chamber. So then with

the help of his colleagues across the way he concocts a little scheme

where they hide behind garbage cans and in tunnels and in offices and

who knows where, to come in and, in a purely trumped up situation, try

to discredit my office and the staff in my office, and I take umbrage

with that.

So I will conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that the Ministry of Tourism, in

the busiest year in our history, is doing very well, thank you, not only in

'86, because of Expo, but post-'86, as I outlined yesterday, only nobody

over there was listening. We have tremendous plans for '87, '88 and

'89 and are very actively putting those plans in place, and the vote of

somewhat over $17 million that we are debating will enable us to do just that.

We have sufficient funds in this vote to carry on a very efficient Ministry

of Tourism for the balance of this year and up to the end of this fiscal year,

which happens March '87.

So I will close, because I am certain that the members opposite, by

their absence.... I see they have five members in the House today:

that's all they could muster to hear the very important....

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The rest may be in the precincts, Mr.

Chairman, in a tunnel somewhere, but they only have five members in the

House to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, so I am

certain they are not in the least interested in anything more I have to

say about this wonderful ministry.

MR. COCKE: I've been listening very carefully to the words of

wisdom from a non-minister. I'm surprised, as a matter of fact, that

they called vote 71. It's a vote that talks about ministry operations.

As a matter of fact, I'm surprised that the deputy wasn't speaking, as

opposed to this non-minister. In any event, it struck me as passing

strange that he should....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Tourism on a point of order.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I take exception to the term non-minister.

I may be working for less money than that member, but I'm still the

Minister of Tourism.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you're worth every dollar.

MR. COCKE: I agree he's worth every cent that we're paying

him — one dollar. With respect to his position, he is telling us, for

an example, that he's just so sad that there aren't more of us here to

debate his estimates. Who would have thought that anybody would have

brought this estimate forward? Naturally we weren't informed. Who would

have thought that they would have taken a second vote from the Ministry

of Tourism and put that forward?

MR. SKELLY: We could have voted on this yesterday if you had called a vote.

MR. COCKE: That's right. Mr. Chairman, we're only too

delighted. The member for North Okanagan is doing the business of the

caucus and the business of the people of his constituency. He

embarrassed the member for Kamloops yesterday beyond a shadow of a

doubt.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. SKELLY: Opening a highway in the Okanagan.

MR. COCKE: Right. What I gather from the fact that we're

discussing this vote is that the government House Leader has decided,

somehow or another, to slip this stuff through while the minister's

position is in doubt.

[ Page 8724 ]

I listened to the minister take a good deal of credit for his

operation, saying that it's the largest in the country and that they've

had a very successful year. Well, they have had a very successful year

and will go on having a successful year. It has cost us some

multi-millions of dollars in order to have it. I'm happy that Expo is

going along nicely, but I don't think that the minister can take all

the credit for something that happened even before he was a member, let

alone a minister.

MR. SKELLY: Jimmy Pattison, and he works for less than a buck.

MR. COCKE: Jimmy Pattison, as it's pointed out, works for a

dollar, and he put the thing together. He didn't have a motion of

confidence, or non-confidence, either.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, I'm not attacking old Jimmy; I think old Jimmy has done a good job.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, is he? Anyway, I would ask the minister to

tell us, in terms of vote 71, how much of this tourism marketing, the

dollars that he estimates for 1986-87 — it's up less than $1

million.... How come, if we're so intent upon marketing, there has been

a rise in the next year after Expo of an insignificant sum, a very

insignificant sum? It's going from $11.8 million to $12 million almost

flat. Now that's only a $200,000 increase in marketing. It strikes me

that if you want to build on Expo, the way to do that would be to

budget something more than that for next year, because I think we're

going to have to really do some heavy-duty marketing next year. Can the

minister tell me why the very insignificant increase? The minister is

not only incompetent, he's deaf. I asked him a question.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I like my mother.

How come a $200,000 increase, or slightly less? What are you going to be doing next year?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's difficult, after

the years I've watched that opposition in this House and outside, to

hear them talk as if they weren't attacking Expo, as if they've always

supported it. Yet at the one chance they have to give recognition in

the only vote, the minister's vote — and he is the government's

representative on the Expo corporation.... At the only chance they have

to show where they stand, they introduce a motion that votes clearly

against Expo. That's the one place that.... Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I

want to talk about Expo under this vote of administration. I want to

talk about....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Premier, on ministry operations. But no reflection should be made on a previous vote that has been taken.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Right, Mr. Chairman. Let me talk about the position on Expo.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm glad the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) calls me a has-been. I thought I dealt with that about....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. You will all have your opportunity to stand.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, those members are calling me a has-been. Those never-wases and never-will-bes are calling me....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, that's not only my opinion; it's the opinion of the voters.

If you want to talk about has-beens, just look down to the member's

left. Look at the resurrected has-been sitting just two seats down from

you, the member from Vancouver East.

Mr. Chairman, to very seriously talk about the history of Expo and

those who supported it and built it, quite frankly, I am offended when

the member for New Westminster talks about the great support....

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that Expo

comes under vote 70, not vote 71. This is purely ministry operations. Let me

enunciate: general administration, tourism marketing and tourism development.

As the minister responsible....

[11:45]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Nothing to do with it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It disturbed me when the member for New

Westminster.... I see his leader has left the House. The whole question

of Expo is embarrassing to him, having had his party oppose it, having

called it a circus, having had candidates for the New Democratic Party

show up and picket Expo meetings in communities around this province.

NDP candidates praise Jim Pattison today. When I went to meetings with

Jim Pattison to talk about Expo, your supporters were there with a

fence of signs directed against Jim Pattison, the chairman of Expo.

Your national leader has recommended that the people boycott Expo. The

federal member for Vancouver East has recommended on television that

the people boycott Expo. Your fellow-traveler, the would-be mayor of

Vancouver, Harry Rankin, says he will only go to Expo if it's an

official occasion. Your leader calls it a circus. Your members picketed

the meetings. You opposed all of the years of hard work of making Expo

a success. You opposed it, and like every other policy of this

government, once you find out it works and the people support it, you

say: "Oh, we supported it all along." Yet your every statement, your

every action, your very envy that some government that is positive,

that likes to get things done, can initiate and carry through over

eight years of political opposition the greatest international

exposition the world has ever seen....

Now at the last chance you have had to express support for it in a

real way, we have the events that have taken place around this

Legislature recently.

Interjections.

[ Page

8725 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm sometimes concerned by the childish

behaviour that takes place surrounding the Legislature. It reminds me that last

week I was home and watching some young people playing. The leader's name

was Bobby. He said: "What will we do today?" And the other children

said: "Let's play a game. Let's play hide and seek." So Bobby

took his friends and they all played hide and seek. They hid on their mothers

and their parents. The people wondered whether they were doing something useful.

When it came time for the decision to be made, they all came out of their hiding

places, and little Bobby said: "Surprise! We've been hiding!"

AN HON. MEMBER: Peek-a-boo!

HON. MR. BENNETT: What a game it was, because little Bobby

said: "This will impress all the people in the community. Although I do

not know what to do, nor do I have policies that will work, it

certainly shows that at games I'm very, very clever." I watched these

children play and laugh and sing and dance, Mr. Chairman, and it was

interesting to watch, because those of us who have grown older and....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. Premier. The member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, there are two people standing.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman has ruled, in relation to the comments

of the Minister of Tourism, not to reflect on a previous vote in this

committee. The Premier is now flaunting the rule of the Chair. If the

Chair will allow that kind of latitude, I expect the Chair will allow

that latitude to the members of the opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair might point out that it's having

great difficulty picking out any particular speech in this chamber this

morning, with the din and noise being carried on by all members. The

Chair would be able to listen to each member if the remainder would

remain silent. The only opportunity the Chair is having at the moment

is to recognize people standing. When someone else stands on a point of

order the Chair will recognize that person, but the Chair is having

trouble hearing.

If the hon. Premier would continue on vote 71 and others would

remain quiet, the Chair would then be able to understand if the Premier

is reflecting on another vote.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair's comments reflect on all members of the House — both sides — at the moment.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I was enjoying it, Mr. Chairman. It's not

often we really get to see the true side of the opposition. Quite often

they show their true selves when they're speaking from their seats;

therefore I was trying to give them every opportunity to give us an

indication of how they would conduct government, how they would act,

should they ever get the opportunity.

I was talking about the benefits of Expo and how it's of benefit in

every community. Not only would young people enjoy it, but the little

children of this province would enjoy it and carry on the Expo

activities in each of the communities. Of course, to make that point I

was illustrating watching some little children play in my community

when I was home on the weekend and the games they played because of the

excitement of Expo, which is very positive for the people of the

province.

Let me tell you about Expo and what it will do for this province.

The critics who have opposed Expo all of these years, the same critics

who opposed this Minister of Tourism, the most outstanding Minister of

Tourism this province has ever seen, a minister who brought us Expo....

Despite the dire warnings that it was going to be a financial mess,

despite the dire warnings that we wouldn't get enough people, do you

know what the critics are saying today? "Oh, we're going to get too

many people at Expo. It's going to be too crowded. We're going to crowd

the parking in Vancouver. Oh, we'll never be able to handle the crowds"

— the same people who used to attack this poor little Minister of

Tourism, who stood alone against the onslaught of opposition from the

New Democrats and their fellow travelers all of these many years. He

said he would make Expo work, and he put together a team of volunteers,

starting with Jimmy Pattison and others.

I'd hate the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) to incorrectly

state the salary of the chairman of Expo. Quite frankly. the chairman

of Expo is not getting a dollar a year; he's getting nothing. The

trouble is, every time you say that, Jim Pattison sends us a bill for a

dollar. I want you to know he's getting nothing per year. It's just as

incorrect as when the member for Victoria, who should be supporting

tourism.... He has always opposed the greatest tourist event and

awareness that this province has ever had, and that is Expo. Expo is

making not only other Canadians, not only the people of the United

States, but people from around the world aware of Canada and aware of

British Columbia — not just Vancouver; it is helping Victoria and

Vancouver Island.

I have always been surprised that the second member for Victoria

(Mr. Blencoe) has in the past opposed Expo, along with his party. He is

certainly quick to try to stand up and take credit for some of the

benefits that Expo is bringing, not only to Vancouver but around this

province. It has been a long, difficult time for this Minister of

Tourism to fight off the doubters, to fight off the blind political

opposition. It has taken a lot to face the picketers in the various

communities who were politically inspired and picketed all of the Expo

meetings as late as early this year. They were identified, many of them

— in Williams Lake, as the candidate for the New Democratic Party. The

signs and the wording were offensive, offensive to Jim Pattison,

offensive to decent people in the communities in which those signs were

raised. Many of them were slanderous, but all of them were politically

inspired.

I find it then somewhat cynical that this opposition would play

childish games and attack the Minister of Tourism, who has fought off,

over many difficult times, that type of mindless partisan political

opposition. I find it somewhat cynical that you try to run from the

facts of history in which these people have been seen. They have acted,

the slogans were there, the opposition was there, statements in Hansard

over the eight years, there from the opposition. And to try to pretend

somehow that you've always been a supporter and that your party and

your people love Jim Pattison, and he's

[ Page 8726 ]

done a great job — well, it's just a little late. But you are always too late.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're right. I am retiring, and I am doing

that voluntarily. But let me tell you, in the next election those of

you over there who don't retire will be retired by the voters of the

province of British Columbia.

Irresponsible, cynical, childish: all of those words with which

people have described your actions and lack of policies, your lack of

alternatives, your opposition to anything positive.... Couldn't you

just once in this year of Expo 86 have got up during this minister's

estimates and said: "Yes, you've done a darn good job"? Do you always

have to be so silly and negative? You can't stop. You can never stop.

You oppose, you oppose. You attack the one area that everybody in

British Columbia now is proud of. They see success. Can't you get away

from the mindless opposition that drives every action and every speech

you make? Can't there be one time in this province of British Columbia

that the people say: "There is news today. The New Democratic Party was

positive about something that was taking place in British Columbia." If

you want to make headlines, that would make headlines because it would

be something that has never happened in this province before. The

headlines would say: "Today the New Democratic Party did not oppose

something that created jobs and building the future in British

Columbia." They would say: "Today the New Democratic Party did not

undertake a childish, political trick in the Legislature of British

Columbia." The headlines would....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

The Chair cannot recognize the member for Vancouver Centre if he is not rising on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: I want to speak on this vote. The red light was on. I'm entitled to take my place in debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The standing orders provide that a leader or

designated member may speak for 30 minutes in Committee of Supply. No

leader or designated speaker on the government side has spoken for 30

minutes, so the hon. Premier may continue if he wishes, although he

should have notified the Chair under practice order No. 9.

Is the hon. Premier going to be taking the 30-minute allowance? If not, it would be incumbent to give up the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, I'll take.... I didn't intend to speak but just a few minutes.

[12:00]

MR. LAUK: I think it would be....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Chair is having difficulty listening to those who have been recognized. Would you please maintain order.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the Premier will be speaking as long on

his own estimates, Mr. Chairman. Hit and run. Or as the Premier has

said in many days past, miss and run.

I'd like to get back to the former Tourism minister's estimates.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. LAUK: Here is that Whip with the steel-trap mind back

into the House. If he did his whipping duties as good as he shouts in

this House, Mr. Chairman....

I listened carefully to the Minister of Tourism's remarks and I'd

like to comment upon them, Mr. Chairman. Nothing I heard from the

Premier made any sense whatsoever in relation to these estimates. It

was full of rhetoric, self-apology. He says: "I'm retiring." We know

that he's been retired. He's been retired by the business community in

Vancouver who have forced him out of office because they knew he

couldn't win.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We are on the ministry operations estimates of the Ministry of Tourism.

MR. LAUK: Well, the suggestion has been made, Mr. Chairman,

about childish games. Let me point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that it

wasn't anybody on this side of the House that forced a leadership

convention on the Social Credit Party in the middle of a legislative

session, causing complete disarray on the part of the Socreds. The

proper forum to do it, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, you allowed latitude to the Premier. Why am I not given the same latitude? Is that not even-handedness?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you will come to order, hon. member, you

will have the same latitude. The hon. Premier was referring to tourism

and Expo, and...

MR. LAUK: And childish games.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...if the hon. member will do the same, it would be appreciated.

MR. LAUK: Thank you. In the middle of Expo, in the middle of

a legislative session, it was the absolute petulance and selfishness of

a certain member of this House that has caused the disarray that

resulted in the vote last day.

Now about Expo. We've heard the Minister of Tourism. Everybody

else.... They're congratulating themselves for Expo. They've been

congratulating themselves ever since. All they have done is cut

ribbons. All they have done is walk around, patting themselves on the

back. It is the people of this province with hard-earned taxpayers'

dollars who have paid for these megaprojects, who have invested in

these things. They never give credit to the ordinary people of British

Columbia for their Expo. They take all the credit themselves. And boy,

they reluctantly give credit to Jim Pattison for the organization of

the thing — very reluctantly.

[ Page 8727 ]

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Oh, how the tiny have fallen, Mr. Chairman.

Let's do a little history on Expo. Here we have the Provincial

Secretary, as she then was and is now, and the former mayor of

Vancouver, Mr. Volrich, appointed to a trade and convention centre

project. They were so disastrous that they had to be removed

immediately. It would never have succeeded. And the Premier appoints

certain people to start Expo — a total disaster. They had to be removed

from office. They had to get somebody to save the day. Expo is a

success because of the people of British Columbia, and it's a success

in spite of the Premier of British Columbia and in spite of this

government. And everybody knows it. That's why he's being forced from

public office. He's being thrown out of public office.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, just leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Another insulting comment from the lady down here, I'm sure, Mr. Chairman. I'll make my introduction.

In the galleries this afternoon we have a number of students from

Gleneagles Elementary School in West Vancouver who I hope won't take

the debate that's been going on here in this House for the last few

minutes as what normally happens here. I think, to explain it to the

students, what's been going on here in the last few hours is more like

how they feel on the last day of school. I wish the House would make

all these students welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm pleased to rise and speak on the

estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, and first of all in regards to

the operations of the ministry and how it relates to Expo. If the

opposition stopped and thought for a minute about the total success of

Expo and the dedication of the ministry staff — right from the minister

to the minister's office staff and through the ministry — and how

they've all worked together as a team with the Expo officials to ensure

that this world's fair will be the greatest world's fair ever

experienced in this century....

Taking the leadership of the Premier of this province, who is

retiring, and working from his initiative to achieve the success of

Expo, which, if we all look back and try to evaluate how successful it

is, not just with the activity in the pavilions and the tourism, but

starting at day one when we decided to go with Expo.... I think in 1978

a decision was made to go with Expo. Remember, those were good times.

In 1978 inflation was going, everybody was getting an increase every

time they turned around. Things were great; things were rosy. We made a

decision to go with Expo because we were proud of British Columbia,

Canada, and we wanted to invite the world to show them what we had to

offer in this province and in this country. The initiative was there to

prove to the world that British Columbia was a great place to live, a

great place to invest. But times changed, and in 1982, when the economy

went down and there was high unemployment, has anybody on that side of

the House ever thought of the number of workers who had a job and

received a paycheque because of the decision that was made by the

leader of the government to go with Expo back that far?

Those members, to a man, opposed Expo. They will deny it now because

they can see that it gains them no favour with the public. They

wouldn't dare stand up and say they were against Expo or are against

Expo. Not now, but in the first days when the tough decisions had to be

made, the leader of this party made them and gave guidance to the

directorship, the chairmanship of Expo. It was the leader of this

government who will go down in history as the greatest Premier this

province has ever known.

If you take those employees who are working, and you take the

opportunity for investment by people coming to British Columbia to meet

with government officials and business officials, and you take the

opportunity for us to export offshore our products to generate further

activity, and you take SkyTrain, which gives transportation from New

Westminster into downtown Vancouver.... That member for New Westminster

didn't want Expo; he wanted rail lines running across intersections, he

wanted buses, he wanted street cars. He is so far behind the scenes

he's still thinking the 1930s. I haven't heard him get up and say what

benefit to his constituents Expo has been. Because of Expo, the

catalyst that brought together SkyTrain at this time, opened up a new

transportation corridor called the Coquihalla, B.C. Place........ On

top of that, because we have a number of members in the opposition from

Vancouver, think for a minute about the rehabilitation of False Creek.

Think about False Creek and how it was — derelict warehouses, dirty, a

terrible mess — and how because of Expo False Creek is renovated

21st-century within a city: park, residential properties, commercial

properties in the future. You were all against it. You should all

resign.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, just for a moment. The Chair

keeps hearing what sounds like a broken record. I don't know if

something could be done about it, but with all the voices the Chair

does hear it sounds like we'll be here for the next three months on

this vote. Possibly, to allow a member to speak, those that stand....

Any others that wish to speak will have their opportunity to stand also

at that time without speaking from their chairs. Would the hon.

minister continue.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Just to finally comment on Expo, we, under

the guidance of the man who is retiring, have to give a legacy from

Expo, not just to Vancouver and the lower mainland with regards to

SkyTrain and to B.C. Place. We want to touch everybody in the province

with the legacy; and under the Premier's guidance we developed the Expo

legacy fund. There will be parks, recreation facilities, aquatic

centres, museums etc. built throughout this province. Some are being

built right now from the Expo legacy fund so that we can remember for

years to come that Expo was a success and Expo welcomed the world to

British Columbia, and gave us world stature as a province and as a

country. The member over here — the little member, the little mouse

from Victoria, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

[ Page 8728 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just called him a mouse.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: When you hear those unparliamentary references, get in the game.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. When the hon. member, who wishes

to rise on a point of order.... The Chair is trying to maintain order,

but it is up to the members to conduct themselves in an orderly manner.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if I got up

and down to call attention to every unparliamentary reference by that

member, I'd have cramps in my thighs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And if the Chair interrupted every person who's making noise around here, no one else would have a chance to speak.

Now would the hon. member continue, and would the other members conduct themselves in an orderly manner.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out, with

regard to Victoria and the remarks that the member for Victoria made,

that the largest Expo legacy application, which was approved for

$7,275,000, is in downtown Victoria: a convention centre which is going

to benefit this community that sends two opposition members to this

House. The Expo legacy fund and the government recognized the need for

a convention centre to attract tourism and to attract conventions to

this city, Mr. Chairman, and yet all those members across the way

opposed Expo from day one, and then they jumped on the bandwagon when

they found out they couldn't win with that argument.

Mr. Chairman, before I sit down, let me say that the vote that we

are on, dealing with the ministry operations, the promotion of tourism

for this province, which basically I think is almost getting to the

point of being the number one industry as we go into the twenty-first

century, because we were blessed with the mountains, the lakes, the

oceans, the weather.... We were blessed in British Columbia with this,

so we should promote it and have people enjoy it. The Ministry of

Tourism has that challenge to ensure that we promote our product. Yet

not only do they attack Expo, but they attack the ministry itself.

I'm not going to reflect on a previous vote, Mr. Chairman, but I

would say that their actions....They attack the one industry that gives

us the greatest opportunities in the next decade for promoting this

province and gaining jobs for our people, and revenue from our taxation

in the area of sales tax, etc., which will generate revenue for social

programs, for education, for social assistance, for health, because the

economy is what pays for those things. Yet they're down on the Tourism

portfolio, and as a result they don't want to pay the staff. They're

opposed to its operation, the promotion of the province. As the Premier

said, just for once this side of the House would hope that the NDP

wouldn't be so negative and so opposed and impact on such a good year

for British Columbia — 1986.

Mr. Chairman, we have a great Tourism ministry, and in spite of the NDP it will achieve greater success as the years go on.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear to the

House that the NDP plans to support this vote. We think the staff of

the Ministry of Tourism is doing a terrific job, and that they are

doing it much better now that they don't have this minister in charge.

I'm also interested in the fact that the two people who have stood up

to speak in defence of this minister are people whose names do not

appear in the list of those who voted in favour of this minister's

salary yesterday.

[12:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair appreciates your not reflecting on a vote of yesterday. That wouldn't come from the opposition side.

MR. SKELLY: I don't know how appropriate that comment is, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Leader of the Opposition will continue.

MR. SKELLY: ...from a neutral Chairman. I don't think that's an appropriate comment. I'm just reading from the Blues,

Mr. Chairman, that the two people who have just spoken were not here to

express their confidence in the minister yesterday, and had they been,

the outcome would have been different.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Education on a point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The Leader of the Opposition, in his weak

defence, is reflecting on a vote that was taken in this House. Would

you bring him to order?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Education brings up a valid point of order. Would the hon. Leader of the Opposition...?

MR. SKELLY: That's fine.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak in support of this vote. The operation of the Ministry of Tourism....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Young man, you will have a chance if you

wish to stand up to speak, but I am quiet when you speak — which is

infrequently, I agree.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a couple of points. We have

a schizophrenic opposition. That's really what we have in this

Legislature with respect to tourism because they speak against it....

It is actually a pattern of the NDP. Others pointed out not too many

days ago that a former member of the opposition caucus, when he was

Minister of Highways for the province, didn't want tourists in British

Columbia. He said it. He said: "Go home." That is an underlying theme

with many of the members opposite. They do not like tourism, and that

will be their downfall. It has been their downfall thus far, Mr.

Chairman, and will continue to be their downfall.

[ Page 8729 ]

I would venture to say that it is entirely possible that a Ministry

of Tourism would have disappeared if the NDP had remained in power. It

would have disappeared gradually, slowly — not in a direct fashion but

gradually. And there would have been no Expo.

Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I have spoken about the Harcourt telex

in this chamber. I was sent pre-Expo, when it was still called Transpo, by the

government to the Paris headquarters of the International Bureau of Expositions,

a very prestigious organization — a mini-UN, if you wish, with representatives

from around the world. In the interests of tourism, the vote before us now,

we were attempting to gain sanction by the BIE for what is now Expo, which is

now such a great success, thanks to this minister and this ministry. In all

my years of elected office, I have never felt so embarrassed, so off guard,

so humiliated as a British Columbian and as a Canadian as I did when the Harcourt

telex arrived in the care of the BIE, saying: "We don't want it."

We had a small delegation. We had prepared for months. We had the support of

the majority of people in British Columbia who, in the interests of tourism,

not just that year but in succeeding years and into the next century, wanted

a world-class exposition sanctioned by the BIE.

Mr. Chairman, what a terrible thing to do! What a careless,

thoughtless, damaging thing to do! This was a man who now wants to sit

in this chamber on behalf of the people of B.C., and may indeed want to

be the leader. That was a black day for the NDP. What did they say? It

wasn't just one man sending a telex. That sort of telex can be sent by

all sorts of individuals. The telex actually....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Member, I got sunburned last weekend — that's what happened.

Mr. Chairman, the reference....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: And that member can also take her place, if she chooses, instead of chirping from her seat as she always does.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I concur. Order, please. The Chair has many

times reflected on the noise level in this chamber, which is such that

the Chair can not even hear the member who has been recognized. If all

members would remain silent in their seats, they will have an

opportunity to stand and speak in the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to conclude, the Harcourt

telex alluded to members of Vancouver city council of that day. He sent

it as an alderman of the city of Vancouver. It also referred

specifically, without any doubt whatsoever, to opposition NDP members

in this chamber, saying that both organizations were opposed to what

has become Expo. That's a black mark the NDP will have to live with for

many, many years. You were against it. You remain against it. You say

all sorts of things outside, but we know you're unhappy that it has

proven to be the great success it is.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I take great delight in hearing

history being made on the floor of this chamber. We remember the

beginning. As a matter of fact, the beginning happened long before the

present minister whose estimates we're supposed to be reviewing.

Transpo was the original proposition. One of the problems that Transpo

had was the fact that disorganization was the name of the game. They

couldn't quite make up their minds whether they were going to be small,

large or somewhere in between.

One of the problems that the Minister of Finance has....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just one moment, hon. member. The Chair had to

intercede to maintain order when the Minister of Finance was up. Would

the Minister of Finance and others on that side extend the same

courtesy when members of the opposition are up on their feet.

Would you please carry on, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, one of the problems the Minister of

Finance has.... I believe he has been here long enough that he should

understand the duty of the loyal opposition. The duty of the loyal

opposition is to oppose. Opposition means oppose.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Just a minute. I happen to have been a minister of

the government that preceded yours. I remember very much the opposition

of that day, so don't give us this holier-than-thou stuff. The fact is,

a critic in the British parliamentary system is supposed to criticize,

to bring the best out of the government. Unfortunately, this government

has very little best to bring out anywhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you still opposed to Expo? Yes or no.

MR. COCKE: I'm not opposed to Expo. That's stupidity. Once

something.... I perceived yesterday a part of the government House

Leader that I suspected was there, but I really saw it yesterday. In

defeat he went to pieces, and he's doing it today. In defeat he just

flew apart. I've never seen anything like it in all of my life.

That's just to conclude my remarks about the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). Getting back to this

Expo proposition, I sincerely believe that had it not been for an

opposition that would keep this government on its toes, keep this

government really looking towards producing something....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I can't understand what they're talking about, Mr. Chairman. I never ever said to cancel it.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: That's right. The hon. Premier of this province,

taking advice, changed his mind two or three times and finally decided

to go ahead. I remember conversations that I've had with a number of

people involved in Expo. There was a tremendous amount of doubt in

everybody's mind. Everybody was worried about another New Orleans.

[ Page 8730 ]

Anyway, the Minister of Tourism knows so much about everything. But

the fact of the matter is, it's there. The proposition is there.

AN HON. MEMBER: With no help from you.

MR. COCKE: There is no place for an opposition to be helpful

in these sorts of things. I will say this, Mr. Chairman, with respect:

these people very shortly will be sitting in the opposition, and I will

be watching them from afar. But I will be watching, and I will be

wondering the very first time that they are going to give any support

to the NDP government, which is actually going to happen whether you

like it or not. The fact of the matter is, it has happened already.

There is nothing you can do now, with a leadership contest or anything

else, to stop the tide that has happened in British Columbia. British

Columbia wants you out, with or without Expo, with or without SkyTrain,

with or without anything. They want you out. The person who knows that

best of all is the person who's leaving the sinking ship. The Premier

of this province is taking off. He's abandoning the ship. He's leaving

the Titanic. He's leaving the Lusitania. He's leaving because he knows

that they are finished, with or without SkyTrain or with or without

Expo.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on vote 71, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: I am getting very tired of listening to this

historical comment that's being made from minister to minister to

minister. The fact of the matter is, there is no question in my mind

that an opposition's duty.... Nobody knows that better, the duty of the

opposition, than when the Minister of Finance was there.... I can

remember having conversations with him, a holier-than-thou....

Everything that occurred then was opposed. This little "not a dime

without debate" stuff went around the province and went on and on.

Anyway, let's just see how we do with Expo. I'm going to give you a

couple of thoughts that occur to me. In Victoria there was a tremendous

increase in rates for certain facilities. I find those facilities

anything but full. I've talked to people in Vancouver, Gastown, down 10

to 30 percent, because people are going to Expo. No question.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'm not blaming anything. I'm just saying that it

is not the great tourism attraction that is going to set our economy

straight.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Allow the member for New Westminster to proceed uninterrupted.

[12:30]

MR. COCKE: The fact of the matter is that the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the House Leader of the

Social Credit Party, makes a lot of noise and not very much sense. Why

are people saying their business is down? There is no question that

there are people coming to this province, and there is no question that

they're going to Expo. Who's denying that? I'm just saying that it is

not the great adjunct that we had hoped it would be.

In and of itself, it's drawing great crowds. In Vancouver they are

drawing great crowds to their hotels and motels and all the rest of it.

In New Westminster, of course.... New Westminster is the gateway to

Expo because of the SkyTrain. I have not talked to the business

community about how they're doing, except those that are very close to

the SkyTrain — whether or not businesses elsewhere are gaining. I do

know that it is not the end of the world.

All of this blustering and all of this hollering about what Expo is

doing is just great, but don't expect that an opposition member is

going to get up and make every mistake that the government makes look

good. That's not our job. Our job is to pick out your mistakes — and

you make lots of them; mostly with your mouths, but you make lots of

them — and to notify the people of British Columbia precisely what

you're doing and how you're doing it. Now if you don't like that, if

you're thin-skinned like the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who

can take no criticism.... Yet he was one of those marvellous ones, when

we were government.... Oh, I'll tell you, he was so holier-than-thou....

MRS. JOHNSTON: What are we on, Mr. Chairman?

MR. COCKE: I'm giving you some history under vote 71. It's a

vote, Mr. Chairman, that's obviously open to history and parliamentary

procedure.

Anyway, I am delighted that we have drawn attention and I want you

to remember this — to the fact that this ministry, whether it's the

fault of their operations or not, has not done what the statute called

for. That statute said that there has to be a financial accounting, and

there never has been one word of financial accounting from Expo. And

that's what it has all been about. That's still what it's about.

They're not even governed by their own statutes. If we were remiss

enough to let a government get away with that, then we should be

booted. But it's not going to be us. It's going to be the Socreds —

booted right out of power, to disassemble and never again emerge.

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to support

vote 71, and I'll tell you why. How much time have I got? Have I got a

lot of time here? Good.

Interjection.

HON. R. FRASER: No, he has only 25 minutes.

When we come to Expo, and the great job the minister has done.... I

wasn't here at the beginning of Expo either. But I remember, as a

private citizen, the kind of criticism the government was getting at

the time, and the hard work that was done, and all the totally

misleading information that was coming out. I remember all that.

Actually, of all the Expo sights I've seen — and there are a lot of

beautiful sights there and a lot of beautiful expositions and pavilions

and a lot of beautiful people — one of the most beautiful I saw was the

leader of the national NDP and the leader of the provincial NDP getting

VIP treatment at one of the pavilions, going around the entire lineup

getting in the special VIP door one day after the federal leader of the

NDP said: "We should boycott it." Well, this little leader here

actually told him he was wrong. That's one of the right things you have

done; you told your national leader that he was wrong. One day after.

Actually, it took him longer than it should have. He should have done

it in the next 20 minutes.

[ Page 8731 ]

And then the federal leader went down with Mr. Pattison because he liked it all of a sudden.

You are right, the people of British Columbia did build Expo. They

built it because this government had the will and the resources and the

thought to go ahead with it. That's why they had the work at all. They

had leadership. They had vision. The government has courage, and now

the people have work. All those 54 countries like Russia and China and

the USA and the other 5 I nations that came — the biggest one in

history — and General Motors and Canadian Pacific and the other 38

corporate sponsors of Expo have spent at least $1.2 billion or $1.3

billion in the province of British Columbia that would never have been

spent here otherwise. Yes, we did very well with that decision, and if

there is a shortfall, which is predicted, it will come out of lottery

money — the gamblers' money, not the taxpayers' money. It is just going

to be wonderful. But can you believe it — the leader of the NDP here

and the leader of the NDP getting VIP treatment, going around all the

people? And all those jobs and all the millions of dollars in income

that they earned and all the families that that money supported.

Now we talk about little things afterwards; what after Expo? How

about the cruise ships which will probably bring in about $200 million

a year in the province of B.C. which would not have happened? You know

that little mayor of Vancouver, the beautiful city with the little

mayor, honestly, who said: "No, we don't want a convention centre. We

want no part of it." So once again the provincial government stepped in

and took over the cruise facility. That's courage, that's vision. Oh,

the chances they have had to do something, and they won't because they

can't think big enough. They've got tunnel minds, tunnel vision, tunnel

hearing, tunnel everything. It's unbelievable. And now what about after

Expo? We couldn't have an after Expo unless there was an Expo, correct?

Now after Expo, what do we get? We get Whistler convention centres and

B.C. convention centres and Victoria convention centres and Okanagan

convention centres, all coordinated, all different sizes, a huge

program for tourism. The restaurateurs will be happy, the hotel people

will be happy, the taxi drivers will be happy, the store owners will be

happy. Everybody will be happy, because we're bringing hundreds of

thousands of people here who would not have come unless we had the

facilities, and we do have them.

What about B.C. Place? What a fantastic opportunity. The development

of the lands of Coquitlam, the development of the lands of Vancouver,

the development of the lands in Victoria — hundreds of thousands of

jobs all over the province. You know, when we talk about cutting off

people, who does the cutting off but the members over there, because

they can't think big enough. They never can do it, never. It's

unbelievable.

I tell you, Mr. Chairman, when you really want something to happen,

if you're just a minute ahead of the opposition, they can't come along.

The member over there says it's the job of the opposition to oppose.

It's the job of every MLA to represent his riding, which is what every

member on this side of the House does, and that's why we're here. It's

the job of every MLA to create jobs, and that's why we're here. We're

here to help you in every way we can. But no. I came along in '83. I

was one of the lucky ones who will always sit on this side of the

House. I came along Johnny-come-lately, and I remember the opposition

to Expo that you created out there which almost caused it to go down;

and if it hadn't been for the courage of the government, it might have.

But there was courage there, so it's there.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's leadership.

HON. R. FRASER: Leadership. Oh, and after Expo, that

beautiful site. When you think about B.C. Place, when you think about

the opportunity of that B. C. Place Corporation — hundreds of housing

units, thousands of housing units, retail stores, accommodation for

those who need help, waterfront opportunities and waterfront

development. When you think of it, Mr. Chairman, it goes on and on and

on, and the major thing, what you have to get across, is that Expo is

not the end. Expo is the beginning of a tremendous tourist trade. We're

going to bring thousands of people to British Columbia from here on,

people who have never been here. And they're all smiling. Have you see

them all smiling out there, everybody at Expo, everybody going around

the streets, all those licence plates from other places, all....

Interjection.

HON. R. FRASER: Right. You know that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) will have his opportunity to stand.

HON. R. FRASER: Oh, yes, that tourist business, Mr. Chairman.

Oh my, I could go on and on forever, but I want to give everybody else

in the room another chance.

MS. BROWN: I don't know whether anyone else in the House

knows or not, but today is Friday the thirteenth. It's wonderful to

watch that dying, gasping breath from that bunch over there who

yesterday deliberately stayed out of this House to orchestrate and

design the defeat of that minister, deliberately did that, and come in

here today on Friday the thirteenth....

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, I think the member is reflecting on a vote. We are dealing with ministry operations, vote 71.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. minister, but I don't think we

can presume a member's comments until the member has made the comments,

and I'm quite confident the hon. member would not reflect on a previous

vote.

MS. BROWN: Not at all. To quote the words of the Premier —

the soon to be ex-Premier — when he was speaking and reflecting on the

behaviour of the members, those members who deliberately stayed out of

the House, who, aided and abetted by their incompetent Whip, were the

architects of the defeat of that little minister whom they're now

rushing to defend....

HON. R. FRASER: On a point of order, I think the member is straying far too far from the vote and should be brought to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds on vote 71.

[ Page 8732 ]

MS. BROWN: On vote 71, the operations of the Ministry of

Tourism, which we almost did not have an opportunity to debate as a

direct result of the deliberate actions of that minister's colleagues,

who deliberately stayed out of this House, aided and abetted by their

incompetent Whip, and engineered the defeat of that government

yesterday.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, the hon. member is

reflecting upon deliberate actions. The deliberate action was the

people that stayed in the tunnel. That's another vote.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With all due respect to the Chair, the member who has just taken her seat is clearly reflecting on a vote yesterday.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The ineffectual Leader of the Opposition

interrupts. I have been speaking about tourism, vote 71, and I intend

to do so again in a few moments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds on vote 71.

MS. BROWN: That's right. We cannot debate vote 70, because

the deliberate actions of the ministers and other members over there

engineered the defeat of that government yesterday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're referring to actions which took place yesterday, not today.

[12:45]

MS. BROWN: I'm quoting the Premier. You permitted him to say

that he was reflecting on the actions of the members. I am merely

quoting a statement which you ruled earlier was in order; that's all

I'm doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It was brought to the attention of the Premier also that no reflection should be made on a previous vote.

MS. BROWN: Sure. And like the Premier, I will not reflect on

the vote. I'm merely saying that I'm grateful, Mr. Chairman, for the

opportunity to discuss the operations of this ministry; that I was

afraid I would not have that opportunity as a direct result of the

defeat of this government, which it engineered itself yesterday when it

deliberately stayed out of this House, aided and abetted by its

incompetent Whip. It resulted in the defeat of the Minister of Tourism,

and just about the defeat of the entire ministry.

I see the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch), who believes that South Africa is exactly the same as Poland....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, this member is continually

abusing the rules of this committee in reflecting upon a vote. I ask

that you bring her to order, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair draws to the attention of all hon.

members a

section on Committee of Supply in Sir Erskine May, sixteenth

edition, page 739: "A member cannot discuss a grant on which the

committee have resolved or a grant not yet brought forward." Would the

hon. member confine her remarks to vote 71, not any action which took

place on a preceding day.

MS. BROWN: I will confine my comments to what is happening on

Friday the thirteenth. Because the government is unwilling and unable

to deal with this particular vote, I would like to move that the

committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

Cocke

Skelly

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Williams

D'Arcy

Brown

Barnes

Wallace

Blencoe

NAYS — 26

Brummet

Waterland

McClelland

Segarty

Kempf

Veitch

Richmond

Pelton

R. Fraser

Michael

Davis

Mowat

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Ritchie

Hewitt

Rogers

Chabot

Reid

Johnston

Parks

Reynolds

HON. MR. CURTIS: I was interested in the remarks made by the

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), the former Minister of Health,

who, when it's convenient in debate, reaches back into history, but

does not like others to reach back into history. It was a convoluted

argument at best, because he referred, speaking of tourism, to New

Orleans. He may — I didn't hear — have referred to Knoxville as well.

Mr. Chairman, he has his history out of whack in terms of Expo 86, the

most important thing to have happened in tourism in the history of this

province, and he has forgotten certain other things. With regard to

Expo, then called Transpo, he has forgotten that it was in 1980 —

before Knoxville, before New Orleans, well before those two fairs —

that the opposition was raised. It was in 1980 that the Harcourt telex

was sent. In fact, it was just....

MR. BLENCOE: Are you back on that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for Victoria chirps that I'm back

on that. Yes, I'm back on that because it is a source of continuing

embarrassment to the NDP. Just over six years ago, the Harcourt telex —

I can tell that they're upset because they're chirping — of June 6,

1980, said, "Please stop Expo," then called Transpo. But it went on

further. I have a Harcourt press release when he was seeking the

mayoralty. May I first, Mr. Government House Leader, tell you that this

is dated October 20, 1980 — before New Orleans, before Knoxville — and

what does it say? It speaks about a number of Vancouver issues which

are not relevant to discussing vote 71, but I think this is relevant:

"On the topic of Transpo '86, there should be little doubt as to Mike

Harcourt's position. The well-publicized telegram and accompanying

message he sent to the Bureau of International

[ Page 8733 ]

Expositions in Paris was n