1989 Legislative Session: 3rd

Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 7449 ]

CONTE NTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

AIDS needle-exchange programs. Mr. Perry

–– 7450

Open government. Mr. Perry –– 7450

Knight Street Pub investigation. Mr.

Sihota –– 7450

Young Offenders Act initiatives. Mrs. Gran

–– 7451

Effect of introduction of Bill 39 on

ambulance employees' negotiations.

Mr. Sihota –– 7452

Appointment of Dale Parker. Mr. Clark –– 7452

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism

and Provincial Secretary estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Reid)

On vote 70: minister's office –– 7452

Mr. Sihota

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Barnes

Mrs. Boone

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Williams

Mr. Kempf

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Clark

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education

estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 16: minister's office –– 7472

Ms. A. Hagen

TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1989

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. REID: In the House today we have a

very honoured

guest, a person who has worked hard on behalf of his employment

throughout the years. We are honoured, Mr. Speaker, to have with us

today Mr. Len Norris, editorial cartoonist of the Vancouver Sun

from 1950 to 1988, who was immortalized by his drawings of the politics

of British Columbia and the proceedings of this House.

Just recently, at the archives building, which comes under my

ministry, we were in receipt of some of Len Norris's originals, which

will warm the hearts of many members in this House, on both sides, if

they take some time to go over and look at some of Len's cartoons. Some

of the people here today are in some of his cartoons. He does a very

admirable job. I think this House would like to pay a special tribute

today to Len Norris and welcome him here.

MR. D'ARCY: Far away from Amblesnide and

Tiddly Cove, I would

like to welcome my constituency assistant from Fruitvale, British

Columbia, Shawn Melenka and her friend from Edmonton, Alberta, Anne

McIver.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, in your

gallery today are some

people from the United States of America — as a matter of fact, a

delegation from Washington State. These representatives are here to

share views and are looking at various issues regarding health care in

our province. They are: Mr. Joe King, Speaker of the House; Mr. Dennis

Braddock, state representative; Dr. Robert Crittenden, special

assistant for health in the office of the Governor; William Hagens,

senior research analyst in the office of program research, House of

Representatives; and Mr. Don Sloma, senior analyst in the health care

and corrections committee, Washington State Senate. Would this House

please make them welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

introduce to the House

today another member of the working press, Gordon Priestman, from

Salmon Arm. He has worked with the Salmon

Arm Observer for 22 years. I'd like the members of the

House to make him feel welcome today in the Legislature.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: On behalf of the

Minister of Education

and myself I'd like to introduce to the House a group of Peace River

farmers. Seated in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, are: Mr. Frank Breault,

Mrs. Jean Leahy, Mr. Richard Johnson, Mr. Horst David, Mr. Randal

Hadland and Mr. Jack McCray. These members of the National Farmers'

Union are here today meeting with the Ministry of Agriculture. Would

the House please make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sorry to see that the

member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) is not here, but on his behalf —

and I'm sure he will chuckle at this when he reads it in Hansard later on —

I'd like to introduce to the House an alderman from Merritt, a good

friend of mine both from a family point of view and otherwise, Mr.

Harry Lalli.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I have two

groups to

introduce to the House today. First of all, on behalf of the

Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) and myself, I would like to welcome

24 students and some of their parents from Aberdeen Elementary School,

along with their teacher Mr. Carl Gustafson. They are in the precincts,

if not in the gallery, at this moment. I'd like the House to make these

young people very welcome.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I have a group of senior systems people

from

the ministry over once again to see how this end of the democratic and

budgeting system works. I'd like the House to welcome Bev Murphy,

Debbie Malone, Helen Milledge, Diane Bell, Keith Laxton, Carol Rumley,

Manjit Grewal, Isabel Mapson and Pat Stroup to the Legislature.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, seated in the

members' gallery today

is a dear friend from the constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke. I would

ask all members of the House to please join me in making welcome Mr.

Gordon Priestman.

MS. PULLINGER: It is with a great deal of

pleasure today that

I introduce a longtime friend. She used to be a resident of Point Grey

and now lives in Scotland. Leslie Joy and her young son Duncan are with

us today in the members' gallery.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would like to make

this introduction on

behalf of my colleagues the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr.

Veitch) and the Minister of International Business and Immigration

(Hon. J. Jansen). In the precinct today are two employees of MIBI: Ray

Holland, who represents us very well in Korea and was our host while

the minister and I were there; and Russell Mark, who represents the

government of British Columbia equally well in Japan. We would like to

bid these two hard-working civil servants and dedicated British

Columbians a very warm welcome back to Canada and to the capital city.

MR. CLARK: Very briefly, I too, on behalf

of this side of the

House, would like to welcome Russell Mark here. When I was in Tokyo in

July of last year, Mr. Mark accompanied me in a briefing on the B.C.

government's involvement. I was most impressed by his abilities and his

representation of British Columbia in that city. We on this side of the

House would also like to commend the public servants we have working

for us abroad.

MR. BARNES: I would like to ask the House

to join me in

welcoming 15 Delta students from the Native Education Centre in my

constituency, along with their instructor, Mr. Ken Woodsworth. These

students are studying public administration, and they

[ Page 7450 ]

met over the lunch hour with me and

the member for

Atlin (Mr. Guno), the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) and the

second member for Boundary Similkameen (Mr. Barlee).

Oral Questions

AIDS NEEDLE-EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

MR. PERRY: A question for the Minister of

Health. Information

presented to the international AIDS conference in Montreal last week

showed that a number of jurisdictions are experiencing explosive growth

in the spread of the AIDS virus among intravenous drug users. Has the

minister's Advisory Committee on AIDS recommended provincial funding of

needle exchange programs to prevent this explosive growth in the

disease from occurring here?

[2:15]

HON. MR. DUECK: I understand that the city

of Vancouver has a

needle exchange program and that Victoria either has one in place or is

thinking of putting one in place. The provincial government has not at

this point gone in that direction. However, we are carefully monitoring

the success of that program.

MR. PERRY: A supplementary. The present

needle-exchange

programs in the lower mainland only cover about 12 percent of the

10,000 estimated intravenous drug abusers there. Given the minister's

failure to make public the recommendations of his own advisory

committee and his unfortunate comments on making condoms available in

schools, is he now prepared to make public all his advisory committee's

recommendations on dealing with the AIDS problem?

HON. MR. DUECK: My office does whatever it

deems necessary in

the pursuit of that particular ministry, and I will not take direction

from that member just because he thinks I'm a failure at doing a

certain thing or because in his opinion certain things should perhaps

be done a different way. When he becomes Health minister, he can do it

the way he wishes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

OPEN GOVERNMENT

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I thought the press

gallery party was tonight. I'm glad to see it has begun early.

Those were the minister's comments, not mine, but I'd like to

ask a

different question of the Premier. Is this another example of the open

government that the Premier referred to yesterday?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We as a government

take great pride in

the fact that the cabinet meets in various communities throughout the

province from time to time. We have a Cabinet Committee on Regional

Development which goes out and seeks input from local government on

various issues affecting the regions of the province. We have a social

services committee of cabinet that travels and seeks input and thereby

comes forth with good programs such as we saw announced today for day

care — a tremendous advance in the day care programming because we

received that input from the people. Our Minister of Health, with a

committee, is travelling through the province getting advice from

seniors on their various needs. We will react as we have done in the

past to ensure that we continue to have the best programs in the

province for providing for seniors. Transportation committees are

meeting in all parts of the province in order that people will have

input in their local regions with respect to transportation needs and

be able to prioritize those things.

We have the most open government this province has ever

enjoyed.

Furthermore, we're seeking the input from people, unlike the socialists

who would like to ram everything down everyone's throats.

KNIGHT STREET PUB INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the true test of

open government is

when the government is under scrutiny for matters that it's under

attack for. Keeping in mind those comments with respect to open

government, I know that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Hanson) met on

Friday with Mr. Doney. I'm sure that the Minister of Labour was mindful

of the question that he has taken on notice with respect to political

interference. Did he discuss the political interference with Mr. Doney?

And in keeping with the Premier's comments about open government, is he

now prepared to share with us what he learned when he asked Mr. Doney

the question that he took on notice?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. I have

two points of order that I wish to bring to the Speaker's attention.

First of all, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew gets up day after

day, knowing that he is out of order, but trying to secure a cheap

headline by repeatedly asking a question that the minister has taken on

notice. Mr. Speaker, I implore you to remind that member that he is out

of order.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the second member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) that he will never be Minister of

Health in this province.

MR. ROSE: Some of my colleagues have

suggested that I bite

his ankle, but I really am not that carnivorous today. Besides, have

you seen his ankle?

Seriously though, the business about whether or not some

person is

going to be a Minister of Health some day is speculation. It's really

future policy, so we won't discuss it.

But I would like to suggest that most of these points of order

should be dealt with afterwards so we don't use all the time up for

that, If he wishes to ask his question every day, he's entitled to ask

his question every day. If the minister is going to stonewall every

day, let him stonewall every day.

[ Page 7451 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I just want to point out

to that member

that he's the one eating into the time of question period, and I'm

entitled to get up on the same point of order every day.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of

Labour. Can the

Minister of Labour tell us who drafted the terms of reference for Mr.

Doney's internal report into the Knight Street Pub referendum? Was it

the minister or was it Mr. Doney?

HON. L. HANSON: I'm not sure I completely

understood the question, but I'll read Hansard later and

take the question on notice.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister tell this

House when Mr. Hick

told him about the phone call of political interference? Mr. Hick has

said some time in May. Was it before or after the terms of reference

were drafted by his ministry?

HON. L. HANSON: Was it before or after? I

guess the answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIHOTA: If this is open government, I

want to ask the minister if he will confirm that it was before. Is that

what he's saying?

HON. L. HANSON: I have already answered

that question. The answer was yes, was it before or after.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister clearly did not

understand the

question. A question to the Premier. He has now listened carefully to

the Minister of Labour's responses and has witnessed his attitude today

in the House. Is this the type of open government that the Premier

speaks so eloquently of? Is that what you expect from your ministers?

YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT INITIATIVES

MRS. GRAN: My question is to the

Attorney-General. It is

pressing and something that we deal with today. I wonder if the

Attorney-General could tell us, in a better way than the communiqué

that came out, what initiatives regarding the Young Offenders Act were

decided on and what British Columbia's position is.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I will presume the member

is referring to

the communiqué from the justice ministers' conference in Charlottetown

that was held last week and yes, indeed, the question of the Young

Offenders Act was on the agenda. It has been raised by a number of

people in British Columbia: law enforcement agencies, citizens and

people who are concerned about that particular issue and how we handle

it.

At that meeting we did address a number of suggestions that

had been made with respect to minimum sentencing. We addressed the

question of what ought to be the most important consideration with

respect to raising a young offender from youth court to adult court,

who ought to take that decision and where the onus for that ought to

rest.

I'm pleased to report to the House that the position that was

put to

the Minister of Justice for Canada was one that was accepted and

developed unanimously by the ministers of the provinces and the two

territories. We have requested that the justice minister for Canada

consider that we change the onus, that we make protection of society

the paramount consideration for raising a young offender from youth

court to adult court, particularly in matters involving murder. We do

not discard the onus of the consideration of the youth but we make

paramount consideration the protection of society.

MR. CLARK: Time!

HON. S.D. SMITH: While the second member

for Vancouver East

says, "Time," I must say he should be listening more thoroughly than

anyone to this discussion, because the questions that we were talking

about have absolute salutary application to the youth gang problem we

have in his riding in Vancouver.

After much discussion we also agreed that for a young person

who is

convicted of murder in adult court, the eligibility period for parole

ought to be left in the discretion of the judge within a range of a

minimum of five years and a maximum of ten years. The reason for doing

that is that it has been the practice in jurisdictions across this

country that judges will not allow the raising of a youth to adult

court because of the large minimum period of 20 to 25 years in the case

of murder. Frankly, this fact of youths not being able to be raised to

adult court, taken together with the minimum sentence, which we asked

to be raised, is being used as a major tool for recruitment by youth

gangs in the city of Vancouver and other major cities across this

country. We have to deal with this for the protection of society.

We also agreed that we should change the minimum sentence

period

from just three years to three years plus two and a half years of

mandatory supervision. In terms of assisting with the

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I hope this isn't

too much of a whimper for the Attorney-General, but on several

occasions now we've seen ministers being given advance notice of

questions and then coming up and giving what amounts to a ministerial

statement during question period. I think it ought to stop; it's an

abuse.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind

all members that

our own standing order 47A(

b) asks for questions and answers to be

brief, precise, without argument or opinion. I would ask the

Attorney-General to complete the answer.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in concluding

the answer, the

other point that we agreed to was that there ought to be expanded

temporary-release provisions for young offenders, because there are

times across Canada when they cannot take advantage of

[ Page 7452 ]

certain considerations that are made

available to them.

Finally, we agreed that the capping provisions that will cost

British Columbia $37 million over the next five years is something that

the federal government ought to reconsider, because it is an important

program, and there is a great need.

Interjections.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I want to say

to the cacophony

of noise coming from the other side that this is indeed an important

issue to British Columbia and is one that if they had any decency or

courage they would be concerned about.

EFFECT OF INTRODUCTION OF BILL 39

ON AMBULANCE EMPLOYEES' NEGOTIATIONS

MR. SIHOTA: I have another question on a

different issue to

the Minister of Labour. Yesterday the government introduced Bill 39. As

a consequence, negotiations today were broken off between provincial

ambulance employees and the provincial ambulance service. There of

course now is the possible disruption of ambulance service in this

province. Was the introduction of the bill a calculated attempt by the

government to provoke confrontation, or was it simply an oversight that

will or could possibly result in the disruption of ambulance service in

British Columbia? What was it, Mr. Minister?

[2:30]

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I guess the

answer to both those questions is no.

APPOINTMENT OF DALE PARKER

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of

Finance. B.C.

Bancorp has recently been found in violation of the spirit and intent

of the federal Bank Act by regulators as a result of a loan given to

the movie studio in North Van. In light of this, has the minister

decided to reconsider the appointment of Dale Parker, the CEO of

Bancorp, to the new position of czar in charge of regulating financial

institutions in British Columbia?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The government is

extremely pleased with

the calibre of Mr. Parker's reputation and the obviously meritorious

contribution he is going to make in regulating financial institutions

in the province.

Dealing with the issue of the superintendent Mr. Mackenzie's

comment

last weekend or early this week — I forget the exact date — I can tell

the House that I have been in telephone conversation with Mr. Mackenzie

on that point. I am satisfied that he and I are. ad idem on the issue

of the investment by B.C. Bancorp into a pretty well secured loan

situation. As a consequence of those discussions, I further understand

that Mr. Parker, acting as trustee for the shareholders of B.C. Bancorp

I am satisfied he acted in their best interests, and he acted upon

receipt of legal advice.

I am pleased to tell the House that the opinion of Mr.

Mackenzie and

myself jointly is that Mr. Parker's reputation for integrity, openness

and fair dealing is well known throughout the country, and the issue is

resolved satisfactorily. I am very pleased that, as a consequence of

these discussions, the industry will be the beneficiary.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

AND PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

On vote 70: minister's office, $260,357 (continued).

MR. SIHOTA: This morning I was asking the

Minister of Tourism

some questions with respect to Mr. Ahamed's contract. I am wondering if

over the break the minister has had an opportunity to secure that

contract and now can tell us how much the taxpayers paid for his

services.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, he was

receiving $2,000 a month.

MR. SIHOTA: What was the total amount paid

out? How many months did he work?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, his total

contract was nine months.

MR. SIHOTA: Then it is my understanding

that he received....

I'll assume, Mr. Speaker, unless the minister says something else, that

he indeed received $18,000. Could the minister tell the House when Mr.

Ahamed's contract was terminated?

This is not a difficult question. The minister said this

morning

that he was terminated, and that he went beyond the scope of his terms

of reference. Could he tell the House when the individual was

terminated, Mr. Chairman?

I have another question to the minister. Am I correct in

understanding from what the minister said this morning, that Mr. Ahamed

was fired because he went into areas that the contract did not expect

him to go into — in other words, areas of political advice to

government, when his job was otherwise? Could the minister confirm that

was the reason for his termination?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I'll read into

the record that

Zaher Meghji-Ahamed was retained on contract by the public affairs

bureau in October 1988 to work part-time as a media liaison adviser

with the ethnic media. His contract was renewed for six months,

effective April 1, 1989, at a monthly fee of $2,000. The public affairs

bureau undertook a review of branch responsibilities in May 1989, and

as an

[ Page 7453 ]

outcome, the work of media liaison was

turned over

to a public affairs branch member. Mr. Meghji was advised that his

services would be discontinued, effective June 30. Mr. Meghji's report

to the PAB did not cover the areas of his contracted services, and he

was advised his remarks were totally inappropriate.

This is his contract. You wanted a statement of his contract.

His contract says, under "services":

"The contractor will provide liaison for

the province with the multicultural media in British Columbia; arrange

interviews for cabinet ministers on an as-needed basis; submit regular

monthly reports to the executive director, including a short overview

and assessment of media coverage of government news and evaluation of

editorial comment; and maintain and provide to the executive director,

on request, an up-to-date list of the multicultural media in British

Columbia."

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the minister

for reading that into the record.

I want to ask the minister this question: was he terminated

after

the Vaughn Palmer

article was published? Is that when that notice of

termination, which you referred to, was directed to him?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: That's my question to the

minister — not to the Minister of Education, but to the Minister of

Tourism.

The minister this morning was well aware of the Vaughn Palmer

column. He made references to Mr. Palmer's column during the course of

discussion this morning, as I did, and as did my colleague from

Vancouver Centre. I want to know whether or not the notice of

termination predated that column, or was it as a consequence of that

column?

Is the minister prepared to concede that it really had nothing

to do

with the fact that he overstepped his boundaries, in terms of giving

the government advice on 16 swing seats? That wasn't what was wrong.

That fact was that it got into Mr. Palmer's hands; that's what was

wrong. Is it not true, Mr. Minister, that the reason the man was

terminated had nothing to do with what you said this morning, but

everything to do with the fact that Mr. Palmer received a copy of this

report, and the termination notice was delivered after the publication

of that column? Is that not true?

Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move on to another matter.

I'm

going to return to this in a few minutes. But I want a copy of that

column, and I know my colleague from Vancouver Centre has gone to get

it.

I see the Premier is here, and I want him to be mindful of the

way

in which his minister is refusing to answer this question. We'll be

back to revisit this issue in a moment.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister wants to make a

comment.

HON. MR. REID: I want to make it abundantly

clear that I read

into the record the status of the consultant. I want to make it

personally clear that it's a personnel matter beyond that, and I do not

interfere directly or indirectly with personnel matters within the

government.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not asking for the reasons

for termination; I

want to know the timing of the termination. The minister is already on

the record this morning giving us certain reasons. At that point, he

was not hesitant to talk about why Mr. Ahamed was let go. He himself

opened the box to those questions, and he explained why the individual

was terminated.

Now I have another thesis, and that is that it flowed from the

Palmer column. I'm asking the minister to confirm or deny that. The

easiest way to deny that is to provide proof to the House that it was

before the appearance of the Palmer column — which I see the minister

and his officials have. I just want to know from the minister whether

it was before or after. If it was before, then that certainly puts the

matter to rest; if it was after, it invites further question. I want to

know from the minister just when the government took that action.

While the minister is looking that over with his deputy, I

want to

move to another issue: the minister's statement this morning with

respect to the Komagata

Maru ,

which I read with some interest. I want to tell the minister that I

was, quite frankly and honestly, surprised at the response he gave me

in question period when I asked him about the Komagata Maru

several weeks ago. I know that since then the minister and the Premier

have received several bits of correspondence from Indo-Canadian groups

across the province. I know the Premier made certain assurances when he

was speaking in Surrey. I know the Premier also received correspondence

from the Khalsa Diwan Society, which has represented the Indo-Canadian

community in British Columbia since 1906.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How come you're

reading my mail?

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier wants to know why

I'm reading his

mail. It's because he doesn't read it. Groups often wonder why he takes

so long to respond. They send me copies and we respond.

We responded in that instance by raising in this House the

request

of the Indo-Canadian community to have a commemorative established in

British Columbia with respect to the Komagata Maru

incident. It wasn't a large request, and it wasn't a request for a

significant financial contribution. The minister said — and he

surprised me at the time — no, he would not provide any assistance to

the Indo-Canadian community in that regard. Later on in press reports,

he indicated that the reason he failed to do so was that no requests

had been made to government along those lines. Since that time I'm sure

the minister has been aware that a whole raft of correspondence making

such requests had been directed to the

[ Page 7454 ]

Premier and to him. That, of course,

blows out of the water the

argument the minister put forward at that time. Subsequently the

government had an opportunity to reconsider its determination to not

provide any level of assistance.

I want to let the minister know that the Komagata Maru

incident is a

flashpoint in terms of the Indo-Canadian community in British Columbia.

It is a dark day in Canadian history. It is a sad and tragic event that

occurred in waters just off the shore of Vancouver, when 376 British

subjects showed up to this British dominion and asked for the

opportunity to set up here. They were met with a deluge of bigotry,

racism and insensitivity. For two months they sat in that harbour

trying to assert their rights as British subjects. They lost the

battle, but fortunately they won the war, and ultimately individuals

from my family and others were able to settle here and, I believe, make

a first-class contribution to this nation.

[2:45]

I happen to stand as someone who represents that ethnic

community

because of my ethnic background, and I take some pleasure in the fact

that I am the first one from the Indo-Canadian community ever to be

elected to a Legislature in British Columbia. So it was not unexpected

that members of that community would let me be informed of their

request to government.

In light of the minister's response, it's not surprising that

they

also let me know of their outrage at the minister's statement. This is

an issue that in some ways has tremendous analogies to the Japanese

redress issue. In that instance, of course, there was compensation paid

to the Japanese; in this instance no compensation is expected or

requested. Am apology may be in order for what transpired in Vancouver

between May 23 and July 24, 1914, some 75 years ago. An official

apology is sought, I know, at all levels — municipal, federal and

provincial — but no compensation in that same fashion is requested.

Some signal from government that this type of issue will never

again

come upon us in Canadian society is what the Indo-Canadian community

wants. One of the ways to make sure that signal is maintained forever

is through some type of commemorative, recognizing that the event

occurred and committing that it will never happen again. It's not a

very expensive request, but it is a significant and meaningful one on

the part of that community, and it would be in order for the government

to recognize it with that in mind.

I know that the minister said this morning that some money

will be

put into a video to commemorate that incident, and I give him credit

for that. Obviously the government has embarked upon damage control

after the minister's initial comments, which in the ethnic press were

severely criticized, editorial after editorial. But it would be far

more appropriate for the minister — who in some ways insulted the

Indo-Canadian community in this province by what he said in this House

— to now revisit the issue and state in this House....

HON. MR. REID: Point of order. I think the

member is out of

order. I alluded to that subject this morning. He's going beyond the

bounds of the estimates. I have a letter that I'm going to bring

forward that I received from the Indo-Canadian community, which I'd

like to read into the record as soon as I can, and it may put to bed

some of the positions he's taking.

MR. SIHOTA: I have 66 letters I'd be happy

to read into the

record as well that reinforce what I'm saying. I'll give the minister

the benefit of the opportunity to read it into the record. I don't

think that it addresses the entirety of the issue; what would address

it is a statement now from the minister agreeing to make sure that a

commemorative is established in Vancouver by the province recognizing

this event — this sad day in Canadian history — and making a commitment

through that commemorative that this type of event would never happen

again. Is the minister now prepared to reverse himself and take that

step?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 70 pass?

MR. SIHOTA: The minister said he had a

letter. He said he

wanted to put something on the record. I'm at a loss to understand why,

given the opportunity, the minister is not prepared to say anything

further.

I will tell the minister this: I'll be quite happy to mail out

all of those groups that I did the initial mailing to after his

response in question period my comments on the record today as well as

his comments. I want to give him the opportunity to deal with this

rather significant component in British Columbia society and offer his

words to them. I'll make a commitment: I will mail out what I say and

also what he says. Is the minister now prepared to reverse himself and

make a commitment that his government will establish that commemorative?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: It's in Hansard ; it's

better than writing.

Could the minister explain why he's not prepared to answer

this very

basic question? I thought he had a letter. The minister can nod. I see

a letter has now arrived at his desk. I see him now opening the letter.

I see him now putting down the letter.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: It's in the mail. I want to let

the minister know

that this is not a trivial issue to that ethnic community. I'm not the

critic for multiculturalism and seldom do I stand up in the House and

talk about issues that relate to the ethnic community where I find my

roots, but this is one issue which not only I feel deeply about but

every individual of Indo-Canadian persuasion in this country feels very

passionately about.

[ Page 7455 ]

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Heckling from the Premier and

the silence of the

minister do nothing to give that community some comfort that the

government is now prepared to reconsider its earlier statement.

You've had correspondence that goes back months in this

regard. All

those contacts that the government makes with the Indo-Canadian

community are seen as showbiz if they aren't backed up with some type

of action. The community doesn't ask much in terms of action from

government. This happens to be one of the things that the Indo-Canadian

community has asked for.

I know the Premier most recently visited a temple in Surrey. I

remember the famous visit he made to the Sikh temple in Richmond during

the election campaign. I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) has as well. All those things don't matter one

iota if they're done simply as some type of show without any follow-up

action.

The follow-up action that the Indo-Canadian community is

asking for

is some type of commemorative dealing with the Komagata Maru

incident.

I want to ask the minister again, because I see his assistants have now

returned: is he prepared to reverse himself and to establish the

commemorative that the community has asked for? Is he now prepared to

reverse himself?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a comment to remind hon

members that they

have the right to ask any question they please, as long as it's in

order, but the minister is not compelled to respond. The member has

asked his question in three or four different ways, and perhaps it

might be time to go on to another subject.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, let the record

show that the

minister chose not to utter one word, chose not to make one commitment,

chose not to say one thing that would amount to even an ounce of

reconsideration on his part. Shame on the minister for that type of

arrogance!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sorry to

interrupt you again, but your time has expired under standing orders.

MR. CLARK: We were listening to the member,

so I'd like him to continue.

MR. SIHOTA: Let the record note that the

minister is not

prepared to utter one word. In 1914 the authorities sat silent in a

similar way while for two months that boat sat at Burrard Inlet. For

two months provincial politicians remained silent on the racism and

bigotry that was being demonstrated in British Columbia. When I

consider the silence of the minister, I can't help but reflect on the

comparisons.

The Chairman has asked me to move on to another topic. I'll

give the

minister one last chance to respond. If he doesn't, I'll move on. Is

the minister prepared to respond?

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

following manner.

My ministry is in receipt of ongoing reports and

recommendations

from the Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage. The committee is made

up of a cross-section of the ethnic community of the province of B.C.

Far be it from this government — this open government — to do and make

decisions in isolation from an advisory committee which is put in place

to do the very things this member is demanding. We're waiting for a

report and some recommendations back from that committee.

The Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage is made up of the

following members: Baldwin Ackermann from Richmond; Mark Ando from West

Vancouver; Steve Babakaiff from Grand Forks; Jacques Baillaut from

Vancouver; Betty Bautista from Prince Rupert; Tony Bevacqua from Fort

St. John; Celso Boscariol from Burnaby; Narinder Dhir from Burnaby;

Ranjit Diwana from Matsqui, Ed Eduljee from North Vancouver; Mike

Kennedy from Prince George; Riasat Khan from Vancouver; Kewal Khosla,

an Indo-Canadian from Surrey and chairman of the committee — there are

some Indo-Canadians on this list; Ben Lee from Kelowna; Bang Luu from

Vancouver; Isaac Moss from Vancouver; Irene Olljum from Vancouver;

Buncy Pagely, an Indo-Canadian from Victoria; Sylvia Posch from

Richmond; Rudy Spence from Burnaby; John Stashuk from Vancouver; Jan

Van Bruchern from Vancouver; K.T. Yue from Vancouver; Alan Yuen from

Victoria.

Mr. Member, these people represent an advisory committee to

this

minister. Anything beyond what has currently been agreed to will not be

advanced without advice from our cultural ethnic community advisers.

You may have a select group of people that you converse with, Mr.

Member, but we went throughout the province to select ideal people to

represent the community, including a large

section of the Indo-Canadian

community, which I'm proud are on this committee, including the

chairman. Far be It from me as the minister responsible to do anything

contrary to open government in relation to this committee.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've been sitting

here listening to the member from Esquimalt make all sorts of comments

about how he thinks that we somehow do not care about those who were

involved with the Komagata

Maru back 75 years ago, and I take great exception to that.

[3:00]

I happen to have a lot of Indo-Canadians in my constituency.,

Yes,

I do visit these Indo-Canadians during my time in the constituency and

not only during elections. I visit these temples and these people

during their other activities on numerous occasions. I have a good

rapport with those of East Indian descent in my constituency. For that

member to stand up and

suggest that something that happened before any of us in the House here

were born is an event that we must, as people here today, somehow

assume responsibility for, directly or other-

[ Page 7456 ]

wise, and we're somehow not concerned,

I would suggest is an insult

and simply an attempt by that member to make politics out of a very

serious issue. We all regret what happened 75 years ago, but no one

here was born at the time and had any control or can today correct what

occurred 75 years ago.

The member stands up in the House and is accusing us and

suggesting

we do not care. I can recall going to the temple in Surrey where we

were shown a video and where it was explained to us in some detail what

exactly occurred 75 years ago according to all of the documentation and

the video they had available at that particular event. A suggestion was

then made as well by someone there that perhaps maybe there could be

some recognition through us, meaning anyone in the Legislature,

participating in that day set aside this summer when they will remember

the event and, of course, express the regrets for it having happened.

There was no suggestion that we should somehow, as a

government, put

up the funds. Frankly, I think the Indo-Canadian community probably had

it in mind to do this themselves as their way of showing Canadians and

British Columbians that it was an event that should not be forgotten.

They weren't looking to government to see this done. Frankly, if they

came to me, as I hope you might if they came to you, I would probably

contribute personally, not suggest that somehow government must do

this. If you wish to make a sacrifice, Mr. Member, if you're as sincere

as you claim to be, if you're the only one who's right and cares

enough, if that's your suggestion, then perhaps instead of asking

government to do this, maybe you should set the example and personally

make that first contribution and then ask others to do likewise.

It's easy for you to stand up there and say that you're the

only one

who cares, that you're the only one who's right and that no one here

somehow in your opinion is right. You want to get this into the record,

I gather, so that you might distribute it to people in the

Indo-Canadian community in order to further emphasize that point — and

I know that's what you have in mind; I'm satisfied that's what you have

in mind. I would suggest that you're using your position, your heritage

and this assembly abusively. You ought to instead, if you're so

concerned, set the example, make the contribution, and not turn to

government but say: "I, as a British Columbian — never mind government

— wish to contribute something to see this happen because I care, and I

would ask British Columbians individually to join in and make that

contribution because they care."

You know, Mr. Member, that's hard for you NDPers to

understand, but

it's personal contributions that really count. It isn't always

government. It shouldn't always be government. And people, regardless

of their ethnic origin — and least of all, frankly, in my opinion, the

Indo-Canadians, because they are a wonderfully hard-working,

independent people who do not turn to government at every turn....

That's why I don't believe the majority of them are NDP, frankly. I

think very few are, only a few lost ones.

These people will, I'm sure, much more appreciate it when

there is that personal commitment and when it's not always government.

The minister cares and the minister was responsible for the

establishment of a multicultural committee, a committee that has the

opportunity and does take the time and really creates the opportunities

for people to come forth and make submissions to give us their views on

what we can do to assist the various cultural communities in our

province. It's working wonderfully well.

It was the minister's initiative, and the people from the

list, as

he suggested, are across the spectrum. There are a number of people

representing the Indo-Canadian community. The chairman certainly is one

I know extremely well and he is a wonderful, very committed, extremely

dedicated individual. They are all doing a good job and I'm sure that

this will continue. They care; the minister cares; we all care.

You are not the only one who somehow cares about all of this,

Mr.

Member. Just because your demands of government aren't always responded

to as you would have it, and just because I stand here today and say

that maybe you should consider setting the example by contributing

personally and asking others to do likewise, maybe you should rethink

what has been said. It doesn't mean you're the right one.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that the

member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is going to respond to the Premier directly. He

certainly needs no defence from me. I think the Premier is probably at

his sanctimonious best in standing here this after noon and telling the

House that some of us who were not born at the particular time of the

unfortunate incident with the Komagata

Maru should have no

responsibility or be insensitive to those historic events.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Just hang on a moment. I'll

tell you what you are saying. What you are implying....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: You seem to be impatient.

You're implying that if

you weren't born at the time, you have no responsibility or concern.

What is your point?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, it was

my understanding that in estimates the questions and answers are to be

relevant to the minister's estimates. I wonder how this discussion that

we're hearing right now in any way — by any stretch of the imagination

— could be considered relevant.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, if I'm incorrect,

then.... I'm sure the minister will correct himself

[ Page 7457 ]

later. We'll be reading the Blues to

see exactly what he meant by

saying that some of us weren't even born at the time. I think the

record speaks for itself.

Some of us weren't born when the Indian lands were cut off,

either.

That's another matter that we have to address. Some of us were not born

when the Japanese Canadians were interned, and that is another matter

we have addressed.

Notwithstanding any of that, all the member is saying is that

this

is a part of our history that we should address to the best of our

ability and in a sensitive way by showing some kind of gesture or

commemorative effort on behalf of government and of the people of the

province of British Columbia, in order to show some leadership and some

sensitivity I'm not suggesting that we can change history, but we must

recognize in an honest, forthright way that those unfortunate events

did occur. That's all this debate is about. You are trying to twist it

into ulterior motives and political posturing, which has nothing to do

with the situation. This is what you're very good at, Mr. Premier.

This is all I wanted to say, and I'm sure the member has no

need to

be concerned about the tactics you're using. But it's about time we

stopped to realize that things that were wrong in the past should be

recognized, and we shouldn't try to duck and dodge. This Premier is

trying to suggest that we should go to the individuals, and they should

be showing leadership. We're talking about the government; we are the

leaders. This is why we're talking about multiculturalism, because your

government has not taken the leadership and has not shown the

responsibility.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, the Premier and

the Provincial

Secretary have suggested that the multicultural advisory body of 24

individuals across this province are going to be consulted and depended

upon to make recommendations with respect to public policy on

multiculturalism. This will be the first time in the history of this

province that the government has taken the recommendations from any

advisory body and followed them. In the past you've been saying that

you never would do such a thing; now you're telling us that you're

going to follow this body. Well, it will be the first time. I say hear,

hear — if you're going to do it. Maybe democracy is finally arriving,

but we shall see.

I hope that you will be telling us when they will be holding

public

meetings and giving us an opportunity to make representation, and I

hope that you will be an open government and let us know what they

really think. I'm sure that they are going to be very interested in

this debate this afternoon.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, again I

have to respond

briefly to the member for Vancouver Centre, who is attributing motives

to what I said that obviously weren't there, and the record will show

this. But let me say again — and I wanted to emphasize this in my

comments — that if you really care, don't turn to government. Don't

say, "We want somebody else to give all of this recognition," because

that's so easy. It's so easy for you, the member for Vancouver Centre

and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, to stand up here and say: "I

care. The government should pay for something." Are you willing to

contribute something, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre? Do you care so

much that you think government should do it all? Or are you really

prepared to become involved personally? Is the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew prepared to become involved personally? Maybe he

will, if he's called upon now, but I didn't hear that suggestion

earlier. It was that government should do this; government must do

that. I say: care enough to become personally involved.

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

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member for Prince

George North

keeps interfering, Mr. Chairman. She keeps saying it's the minister's

estimates. I came here to listen to the minister's estimates, and

frankly, it has been all but that since we began. But maybe that will

change.

Again, Mr. Member, what I suggested was that if you cared so

much, help out personally. Do something yourself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the matter of

relevancy, which

was raised as a point of order... The relevancy in this particular

issue.... I suppose the Chair has at least accepted the fact that it is

relevant because the minister is responsible for this particular

subject. The Chair suggested some 25 minutes ago that the subject had

been very well canvassed and that perhaps it was time we moved along to

something else. I just bring that to your attention again. It has been

well canvassed. I have heard the same questions asked a number of

times....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would really appreciate it

if the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) would not interrupt

the Chair.

The debate continues.

MR. SIHOTA: I want the Premier to

understand, first of all,

that I am going to try to be very measured in my response, because my

gut is telling me to respond in a totally different way. I want him to

listen with care.

Does the Premier understand that he and I can't change

history, but

that he and I can show that we have learned from the lessons of history

and that we have all changed? That's what this debate is all about: to

show that as a consequence of something that

[ Page 7458 ]

occurred 75 years ago, we as a society

have come a long way and we

are now prepared to vow that those events that occurred then will never

be repeated. That's what this debate is all about. It's not about

personal contributions; it's all about lessons learned from history.

Is the Premier saying that the Canadian government was wrong

when it

apologized to the Japanese? Are you saying, Mr. Premier, that it was

wrong to take that action, to reflect on the errors of those who were

responsible for the internment of the Japanese, and to apologize today

and vow that it will never happen again? Is the Premier saying that the

Dutch were wrong in redressing their actions in Indonesia? What does

the Premier intend to say to the Chinese when they come to government,

as they inevitably will, and ask for some apology, both provincial and

federal, with respect to the Chinese head tax?

[3:15]

If you accept the Premier's comments, he would say that we

were

wrong to apologize as a nation to the Japanese, that the Dutch were

wrong in their redressing in Indonesia, and that he would not entertain

an apology to the Chinese on the basis that he wasn't in power then,

somebody else was, and that they should go back to those who have long

gone, to those who perpetrated the injustice.

I think those examples should get the Premier to reflect on

what he

has just had to say and to recognize that there are times for us — all

of us, because all of us have a multicultural heritage; all of us have

family who have come from different portions of the world — to think

that perhaps when groups make approaches to government and ask that the

errors of the past be commemorated, recognized and vowed not to be

repeated, that's exactly what should happen.

This is not a large request. The Premier is right; the

Indo-Canadian

community seldom comes to government and asks for financial assistance.

This is a symbolic request, in part an approach to government because

it was government — provincially, federally and municipally — that

perpetrated the type of bigotry we saw in this country 75 years ago.

They are saying: "Yes, we would like government to set the example

because it was they themselves that caused the injustice." Is it really

wrong for them to come to government and ask for a symbolic gesture? I

say no.

It's not a matter of personal contributions. I would be quite

happy

to talk to the Premier — not here today, but outside this chamber at

any other time — about my personal contributions to that community and

my personal involvement in this issue as well, which, I would venture

to say, far surpasses his. It's a matter of recognizing what happened

75 years ago and saying that it ought not happen again.

The Premier said during his comments that he would think that

the Indo-Canadian community would want to do it themselves and not come

to government. No doubt after they read what the Premier had to say —

the Premier's correct; these comments will be mailed out — they will be

sufficiently offended to choose to bypass this government in its

entirety.

The request for funds was made to the Premier in

correspondence that

he received and correspondence that I have, so for him to suggest that

no such request came forward is erroneous. The same request was made to

the advisory council that the Minister of Tourism talks about. I've

talked to the people on that council, and they are aware that this

request was made to them. Don't try to tell me today, Mr. Minister,

that they aren't seized of the matter, that they aren't aware of the

request — they are. They've been seized of it for quite some time.

It's interesting, Mr. Minister, to watch how your story

changes. On

the first day, it was that no request had been made. The Indo-Canadian

community wrote to the minister and the Premier requesting funds. On

the second day, this morning, the attitude was: "...this is an issue

why they turned down the application. The minister admits to knowing

history and, indeed, what history says about what British Columbia did.

When that wasn't good enough....

HON. MR. REID: Read the rest of it. You

weren't here, so read the rest of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair will

recognize individual members when it's time for them to speak.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister, who is unprepared

to respond to my questions...

HON. MR. REID: I did this morning and you

weren't here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SIHOTA: ... who is unprepared to rise

from his seat and

address the issue in the best traditions of the House, seems to have

all sorts of courage when he's sitting on his butt and can heckle back

and forth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I don't think

that that can be construed as parliamentary language. Perhaps you could

withdraw it.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll withdraw the reference to

the minister's butt.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Withdraw the whole

statement. Resign!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

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

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

rug?

[ Page 7459 ]

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

rake.

MR. SIHOTA: I want the Minister of State

for Vancouver Island

(Hon. Mr. Huberts), the Minister of Tourism, the Premier and the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) to understand that

there is a creeping anger in the Indo-Canadian community. Their

comments today in this Legislature have done nothing to arrest that

anger and in fact have served to inflame it. There will be a reaction

to this, and it's not one that the government is going to be proud of.

I want to give the minister one more chance.

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

it....

MR. SIHOTA:

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

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

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

MR. SIHOTA:

We're talking

about a racial injustice which occured in this province 75 years ago.

We're talking about saying as a society that we should put an end to

racism, and the minister makes that type of comment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

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

MR. SIHOTA:

The minister

suggests a motive on my part. I'll tell the minister what the motive

is: simply to get the government in this province to recognize that an

injustice occurred 75 years ago and to establish some type of

commemorative, swearing that it would never happen again. That's the

motive. There's no need for the government and its ministers to feel

defensive. There's no need for them to feel fear that they're being

lulled into some corner.

HON. MRS.

JOHNSTON: You're flattering yourself.

MR. SIHOTA:

Let Hansard

record that minister after minister — now the member for Surrey-Newton

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) — is choosing to heckle. They're very sensitive to

this issue. I'm going to give the minister a chance. Is the government

prepared to reverse itself and establish a commemorative in Vancouver

recognizing that this event occurred, and secondly, swearing that it

will never happen again? It's a very, very simple request. Is the

minister prepared to do so?

HON. MR. VANDER

ZALM: I

don't know how long this debate will continue, but I don't think I'm

alone. I think everyone in this House, whether they're down on the

floor or in the gallery, should be offended by the comments that have

been made by the member for Esquimalt. There is not anywhere in the

world a more charitable, a more generous, a more tolerant, a more

sympathetic people than British Columbians and Canadians. When I hear

the member from Esquimalt say that he will take out what's been said —

his words; he'll probably selectively clip them — and mail this to the

Indo-Canadian people.... He says, as a part of his message just a

moment ago, that they'll be down on government; they'll be mad; they'll

be upset; and it will create all sorts of furore. What are you trying

to do? What is your motive, I ask you? Are you part of this harmony

that British Columbia and Canada is noted for, or are you simply

attempting to incite a little bit of friction among the various

cultural groups in this province?

MR. CLARK:

On a point of

order, we've heard claptrap in here before, but this is offensive in

the extreme from the Premier. He should withdraw any motives imputed to

the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, and he should withdraw

uncategorically.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Certainly,

it's against the rules of the House to impute motives to any member. If

the Premier was imputing motives, perhaps he would withdraw.

HON. MR. VANDER

ZALM: What motives? I was questioning his motives, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Would hon. members take their seats. Did the second member for

Vancouver East want to rise on another point of order?

MR. CLARK:

Yes, on a point

of order. The Premier very clearly accused the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew of inciting racial hatred in this province. He

should withdraw that remark categorically.

HON. MR. REE:

The member for

Vancouver East made certain comments. I'm sure when he reads the Blues

tomorrow it will be otherwise. My ears distinctly heard the Premier ask

the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew what his motives were. He was

asking a question; he was not saying that his motives were adverse.

MR. SIHOTA:

The rule, as I

understand it, deals with imputing a motive. In the course of his

comments the Premier was clearly imputing a motive to me and suggesting

that somehow these comments were designed to incur some type of racial

backlash in this province.

Mr. Chairman, first of all....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA:

I'm rising on a point of order here. I want the Premier, first of all,

to withdraw....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Is the member finished with his point of order?

MR. SIHOTA: No, I'm not; I'm just about finished. I want to

say this. First of all, I said during the text of

[ Page 7460 ]

my comments exactly what my motive

was. I put it on

the record what I was trying to do very clearly, in terms of saying I

was trying to get the government to fund some type of commemorative in

Vancouver. I made that very clear. Then there was heckling with respect

to my motive.

For the Premier, in light of that explanation, Mr. Chairman,

to make the statement that he has....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA:

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

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member has gone on at some length on this point of order. I

think his point has been made already.

MR. SIHOTA:

I'm asking the Premier to withdraw his statement.

HON. MR. VANDER

ZALM: Mr. Chairman, if there was anything that was

offensive in my comments, I withdraw them.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you.

[3:30]

HON. MR. VANDER

ZALM: Mr.

Chairman, as I said, without a doubt British Columbians and Canadians

are the most charitable and most tolerant people in the world. We are a

mix of people from all parts of the world. Many of us come from

countries where undoubtedly there have been frictions and there have

been very regrettable events between countries. I'm sure the Scots will

argue that the Brits should erect something for what might have been

done some many years back as they feuded. It has occurred between

different groups, and it's regrettable always. We certainly would hope

that such would never, ever occur again, and from what I see in our

society, our people would not stand for that sort of thing.

If it helps, I too will apologize for what the Canadian

government

at the time permitted to happen in Vancouver. It happened 75 years ago.

It was an immigration matter. It was a federal situation. If it helps,

I too will apologize, as I'm sure everyone in the gallery and elsewhere

would like to, for what occurred during those weeks and months 75 years

ago.

But I think that in this House, if we really want to serve the

Indo-Canadian community, the Dutch-Canadian community, the Scottish

Canadians, the French Canadians, it doesn't matter which, let's call

them all British Columbian Canadians.... If we really want to serve

those people, let's talk about the good things that are happening

today. Let's talk about how people in various groups are in fact

working together in order to establish a better relationship between

all of the people in the province.

I'm proud of what I see, I'm proud of British Columbia, and

I'm

proud of British Columbians, and I'll not be a party to stirring up and

attempting to divide between one group or the other. I can assure the

member from Esquimalt that I'll not be mailing out all of this

discussion that took place today to the various ethnic groups. I'll not

do that. I'll not attempt to use your comments to stir up ill feelings,

perhaps, between one or the other. I think we ought to instead be

talking about the many positive things that are happening and the good

relations between people of all races and all backgrounds in this

province. We have a lot to be proud of. We have without a doubt the

kindest, the most tolerant, the most charitable people anywhere in the

world right here in British Columbia.

HON. MR. REID:

To the member

who was absent this morning, I want to read into the record one more

time — because he selectively used only a couple of lines — the

position on the Komagata

Maru incident.

"It reminds us that immigration and the

changing face

of society touch very deep emotions" — and it's pretty obvious. "It

reminds us that if we are to have a society which is both diverse and

tolerant, we must work at it. All members here would subscribe to the

ideal of a society where British Columbians of all cultural backgrounds

work and live together harmoniously.

"There are things which we can do as a

society, but

there are equally important things we can do as individuals to help

achieve this ideal.

"The anniversary of this unh appy page in

our history

is a fitting occasion for all of us to re-examine our attitudes and to

rededicate ourselves to the ideal of a harmonious and tolerant society.

"I have been asked whether the province

is planning any memorial to the Komagata

Maru

incident, and I have indicated that...." We are not planning a memorial

"...first, because this is an issue which historically concerns only

should not be from the government but from the community itself.

"The Komagata

Maru

Foundation of Canada was recently formed by a representative group of

Indo-Canadians to promote racial harmony and to preserve the history of

Indo-Canadian people in Canada. They have approached me regarding the

funding for a historic and educational video on the incident, which

will be distributed to schools and libraries to ensure the widest

possible audience. This project will truly enable us to learn from the

past and to make contributions to our understanding of society today. I

believe that this will provide the best possible memorial, and

assistance will be made available to the foundation for this project.

"Finally, I would like to assure the

member from

Vancouver Centre" — and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew — that "I

personally regard this issue as being of the highest importance. How we

adjust to the changing composition of our society will have more to do

with our success in the twenty-first century than free trade or any

other issue before us."

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Just before I

recognize the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, I would like to tell

you all that when I sit up here and listen to what is said from both

sides very carefully, I think — and I

[ Page 7461 ]

suggest this to all hon. members —

that with the

best of motives from both sides we have embarked on a very rocky road.

I find that emotion is entering into the debate as opposed to reason,

and that things can be said, could be said or maybe have been said that

are really not appropriate. I think this whole matter has been very

well canvassed.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has made a great many

points.

He has been responded to by the Premier and by the minister. I do

believe that this is the time when we should move on to another subject

or when members should be prepared to speak on something else. If there

are those here who are not prepared to speak on anything but the

subject we have just covered for maybe the last hour and 20 minutes, I

think they should remain in their seats.

MR. SIHOTA:

I hope the

Premier is not about to leave this debate, in light of the comments

he's just made. In the course of his comments....

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

What a bunch of garbage!

MR. SIHOTA:

The Minister of Education calls this debate a bunch of garbage.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Obviously the

members didn't hear what I just said. I don't want to repeat it. Would

the member like to proceed, through the Chair.

MR. SIHOTA:

In his comments

the Premier referred to this as a tolerant and understanding province;

I agree with that. My regret is that this does not appear to be a

tolerant and understanding government. The essence of understanding....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members,

we're getting right back into the subject that I suggested had been

well canvassed. Has the member got something else he would like to

debate?

MR. SIHOTA:

I intend to

debate this issue, because the minister and the Premier made comments

in light of the comments I just made, Mr. Chairman. I think it's my

right as a member of this House to stand up and respond to what they

had to say.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA:

I don't think I should be foreclosed upon in terms of my right in this

chamber to deal with this very significant issue.

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

understanding government.

HON. MR. VEITCH:

On a point

of order, Mr. Chairman, I realize that the member is relatively new to

this House, but there are rules of debate in this House and in every

parliament that are time-honoured and time-tested. The Chairman has

made an appeal to all members of this House. It is the duty of each and

every member to obey the direction of the Chairman.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but this member is continually

flaunting those rules, and I would ask that you bring him to order.

MR. CLARK:

It seems to me

that the Chairman has made a suggestion, and we will attempt to follow

that suggestion; but he has not yet made a ruling. There are, it seems

to me, issues arising from the minister's previous statement on the

government's position on the Komagata

Maru

that are quite appropriate for us to continue to pursue. In fact, Mr.

Chairman, I might say that what we've seen exhibited on the government

side demonstrates the very point we've been trying to make: the

government's commitment to multiculturalism and issues like the Komagata Maru is

shallow and has no substance.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair

suggested that we move on to something else, rather than making a

ruling, under the impression that all hon. members are honourable,

would see the problems involved and would abide by that suggestion. If

you're not prepared to abide by that suggestion, then the Chair will

have to make a ruling.

I believe that the subject has been very well canvassed. It's

just

going to keep on. If the Chair recognizes someone on this side of the

House, they will speak, and then naturally someone from the other side

of the House will want to speak. I know I'm being repetitive, but I've

listened to this debate very carefully and have heard everything I

believe there is to be said. So I will now rule that we will move on to

another subject.

MR. CLARK:

On a

clarification of the ruling, I wonder if the Chairman is saying....

First of all, I'd like to know on what basis you have decided and what

rule you cite in respect to this issue; but more importantly, whether

your ruling is restricted to the question of the Komagata Maru or

deals with the whole question of multiculturalism.

HON. MR. VEITCH:

Mr.

Chairman, if the hon. member would check the standing orders of this

House, he would realize that the ruling of a Chairman or the Speaker is

not contestable except by substantive motion. I would ask that you

would so inform the member.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair

hasn't ruled out the discussion of multiculturalism; that's part of the

responsibilities of the minister. It's the particular subject we've been

dealing with that has been well dealt with. I think we should move on,

and I so rule. Under the orders of this House, the ruling of the Chair

is not questioned. That's the way it's got to be.

MR. SIHOTA:

Mr. Chairman, I take it that the subject of the Komagata Maru

is now foreclosed upon, as I understand your decision. I am seeking

clarification. If I'm correct, I'll move to a different topic. I want

to make it very clear from the beginning that

[ Page 7462 ]

my comments will deal with tolerance

and understanding in a multicultural society.

I'll go back to the comments that the Premier just made about

tolerance and understanding.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA:

The minister

groans. I intend to talk about this issue. I regret that this

government has not shown any tolerance and understanding. The Premier's

comments simply serve to reinforce that fact.

MR. R. FRASER:

You're absolutely wrong.

MR. SIHOTA:

We on this side

of the House used an example; there are others. The member for

Vancouver South made ill-timed and unfortunate comments that had an

effect on the Chinese community in this province, dealing with his

desire to....

HON. MR. VEITCH:

On a point

of order, it's the estimates for the Provincial Secretary and the

Minister of Tourism that are being debated here today. Character

assassination is never in order in this House, and I would ask you, Mr.

Chairman, to tell the hon. member which estimates we are debating. It's

not the estimates of the first member for Vancouver South.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I would remind

the hon. member, before he proceeds, that we also have a very important

rule in this House about personal allusions, and we might take that

into consideration.

Let me just tell you one other thing about the rules by which

this

House operates. The House imposed the rules upon itself, and they have

been developed over countless years through the joint efforts of

members of both sides. The rules are not imposed by the Chair; all the

Chair endeavours to do is to see that the rules imposed upon the House

by itself are obeyed. That's all the Chair is trying to do now.

[3:45]

If the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew would like to

continue, we

are dealing with vote 70, the Minister of Tourism and Provincial

Secretary, multiculturalism.

MR. SIHOTA:

A tolerant and

understanding government as it relates to multicultural issues would

favour the establishment in the province of a strong and meaningful

human rights commission. We don't have that in British Columbia. We

haven't seen this government take any steps to strengthen the human

rights commission in British Columbia. I didn't hear a peep from the

minister on it.

In light of what's happening in the streets of B.C. today, a

tolerant and understanding government would have an effective race

relations program. That's lacking in British Columbia. A tolerant and

understanding minister of multiculturalism would be quick to censure

the type of comments that the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R.

Fraser) made with respect to the Chinese community.

A tolerant and understanding government would go out of its

way to

provide ethnic communities in this province with some comfort on the

things that have happened in the past, be it the Chinese head tax, the

Japanese internment or the Komagata

Maru

incident — any one of those. A tolerant and undertanding government

would pay attention to those needs. A tolerant and understanding

Premier would understand the significance in a multicultural society of

events like the Japanese internment, the Komagata Maru and

the Chinese head tax. A tolerant and understanding Premier would be

supportive....

HON. MR. VEITCH:

On a point

of order, Mr. Chairman, you suggested, you ruled, and you explained

your ruling. This member is continually abusing the rules of this

House, and by so doing he offends all members. I would ask, Mr.

Chairman, that you enforce your ruling.

MR. HARCOURT:

Mr. Chairman,

the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has accepted your ruling. He is

now speaking about the broad issue of what a government that was

committed to the concept of multiculturalism would do. He has accepted

your position that we have canvassed the issue that you ruled on. We

are now looking at the broader issues, not that of the Komagata Maru

but of what a proper multicultural policy would be in this province. It

is clear from his remarks that he is referring to a number of other

instances in the past in this province that we should remember.

MR. G. HANSON:

I am very

distressed at what is occurring here today. The tradition in this house

when we're discussing a minister's own office estimates is that there

is latitude in those discussions. Even philosophical discussions can

occur under this particular vote. That has been the tradition of this

House. What these new political ministers on that side of the House

appear to be doing is shifting it to almost committee stage of

legislation.

I haven't heard that member from Esquimalt say anything that

was out

of order. He's perfectly within his rights to discuss race relations

under this particular minister's vote. That minister has a

responsibility for policy with respect to the various races that exist

within this province. It is entirely appropriate that members on this

side of the House can comment on the effectiveness or lack thereof of

his performance. We should not be subjected to political interference

by the political ministers. Let the line minister, who has the

responsibility for these things, look after it.

[ Page 7463 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if there's one

thing that has

been allowed during the debate on vote 70, it has been latitude —

probably more than enough latitude. Everyone seems to be well aware of

the ruling I made. The point is being missed with respect to the debate

from the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew: there is no question that

the vote under discussion includes multiculturalism, and therefore that

subject is open to debate in the conduct of these estimates.

However, I just repeat once again that allusions to other

members of

the House is not permitted and is not germane to the discussion,

because it's against the rules.

I would like to read one thing that I've read to the House

before.

It is from Sir Erskine May on page 429 of his nineteenth edition and

refers to allegations against members. You've all heard this; you

probably know it almost by heart; I know I do. It says: "Good temper

and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.

Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is

canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate."

Having said that, we'll continue.

HON. MR. REID: I want to make it abundantly

clear that this

government has put in place a committee of 24 well-respected,

cross-ethnic, cross-cultural representatives. They report back to me,

my ministry, my staff, with the representatives and with the cabinet

committee in relation to the issues which you continue to canvass. I

want to make it abundantly clear to that member, because he doesn't

seem to hear it, that this government is an open government and we deal

with the concerns and the recommendations and the issues that come from

this well-respected committee we have put in place,

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

If the member would like, I will read the names of the members

and

their total responsibility to the community and what they represent. I

think it's appropriate at this time to continue to remind those members

on the opposite side of the House that this government does care and

has put in place an advisory committee representing the whole spectrum

of the multicultural component of the province and every region

throughout the province, on a fair and equitable basis, as best

possible, across cultural and ethnic bounds.

That's the process of which my ministry bases its estimates

and its

funding towards the estimates, and it is towards advice and

consideration of questions raised by the Advisory Committee on Cultural

Heritage.

MR. SIHOTA: In terms of the comments that

the Chairman before

you made, I haven't raised my voice once in this thing. I have been

trying to be fairly temperate in my comments. I think it's important to

recognize that in terms of multicultural policy this government has

been a failure. Its multicultural policy is not a policy that

exemplifies or in any way meets the essence of tolerance and

understanding.

The debate today exposes the extent to which this government

simply

does not understand the needs of ethnic communities. It doesn't

understand that there are events in history which would affront ethnic

communities in this province — as you, Mr. Chairman, properly noted in

your introduction on May 23, 1989, in this House, and I give you credit

for that. The rest of this government does not seem to understand that

there are times in the history of ethnic communities in this province,

days which we remember, tragic days in this country, that ought to be

recognized and vowed never to be repeated. An understanding government

would go out of its way to show that things have changed.

Earlier on today I read into the record part of Mr. Palmer's

column,

which I think again exposes what the multicultural policy of this

government is all about. A report, which we paid $18,000 for, talks

about the ethnic vote and how it can affect 16 swing seats in

Vancouver. You're concerned about that kind of stuff, but when it comes

down to the concerns that grip multicultural communities in this

province, there's nothing there.

There's nothing in terms of second language. Take a look at

what

Ontario is offering in terms of second language. There's nothing in

terms of human rights or meaningful legislation. Take a look at what

Manitoba, Ontario and the federal government have offered in that

regard. There's nothing in terms of race relation programs. Take a look

at what's happening in Vancouver, and consider that the Civil Rights

Protection Act in British Columbia, which is designed in part to deal

with race relations, still has never been employed despite what my

colleague from Vancouver East raised with respect to the Aryan Nations

issue. It has never been employed. A tolerant and understanding

government would do that.

A tolerant and understanding government — if I may say as an

aside —

would remove an Attorney-General who says that he would not have

supported a Charter of Rights that gives people basic equality rights.

A tolerant and understanding policy on multiculturalism would

recognize....

Interjection.

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

this debate.

Interjection.

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

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

point.

MR. SIHOTA: The point is that you do not

have a tolerant and

understanding multicultural policy here in British Columbia. A tolerant

and understanding government would be prepared to bring in all of those

ancillary programs that ethnic communities in

[ Page 7464 ]

this province literally for years have

cried out about. I don't want

to go over the record and enumerate each one of them, as my colleague

from Vancouver Centre did.

I see the Premier now telling all of his colleagues: "Let's

go.

Let's get out of here." He doesn't want to listen to all of this. He

says that it's a waste listening to me. Let Hansard record

that. The

Premier feels a sting that this stuff will be mailed out. I want to

give the Premier assurance before he leaves that I'll mail out verbatim

his comments as well as mine and all of the debate that's gone on

today. You'll hear about it, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What are you trying

to stir up?

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not trying to stir up

anything. I'm letting people read the record and come to their own

conclusions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hansard is trying

to record it.

You're making my job difficult and making their job more difficult.

Just the member who is identified to speak at this time, please.

MR. SIHOTA: If the Premier wants to

respond, he has a chance

to respond. Let Hansard

record what's been said today, and let ethnic

communities across the province and in particular the Indo-Canadian

community make its own judgment, because I have enough faith that they

will make the appropriate judgment on what's been said today by the

Premier and by his colleagues in cabinet.

[4:00]

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, it's probably

timely that I read

into the record the statement of principles and objectives of the

Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage, so that the record, when it's

circulated by members of all sides of this House, circulating it to all

the communities of the province of British Columbia.... This is the

advisory committee — a very selective group of hard-working,

cross-cultural community representatives.

"The people of British Columbia have a

rich and

diverse cultural heritage. Pride in this heritage, in an atmosphere of

mutual respect and harmony, strengthens our province and enriches all

of us. Through a better understanding and a greater awareness of our

origins and our identities, we can better understand what it means to

be a Canadian and a British Columbian.

"The objectives of the Advisory Committee

on Cultural Heritage are to encourage groups and individuals of all

backgrounds to fully participate in the mainstream of Canadian and

British Columbia society; encourage all groups and individuals to

preserve and share their traditions, to express their cultural

heritage; foster a spirit of acceptance, tolerance and understanding of

cross-cultural differences; promote cross-cultural harmony while

working towards elimination of racism, discrimination and prejudice in

our province; support the principles of equitable access to public

services and opportunities by all British Columbians; recognize and

encourage volunteers and voluntary community organizations working to

preserve and develop our cultural heritage; to promote the enhancement

of artistic, historical and language resources by multicultural groups

in British Columbia; and encourage the Cabinet Committee on Cultural

Heritage to formulate a multicultural policy for the province."

The mandate of this organization:

"The province of British Columbia has

recognized the

importance of cultural heritage issues through the establishment of a

cabinet committee. The Cabinet Committee on Cultural Heritage brings

together a broad spectrum of key ministers and is a means of providing

leadership and policy direction to government on ethno cultural issues.

The cabinet committee has established the Advisory Committee on

Cultural Heritage to provide a broadly based forum to receive input

from the cultural communities, to develop advice to the cabinet

committee based on a regular review of issues of significance to the

ethno cultural communities" — would the record please show that the

member who raised this issue consistently is not paying attention while

the mandate and the objectives of the committee are being reviewed —

"and report to the cabinet committee advising government on its

policies and programs which affect the ethno cultural communities and

recommends initiatives that should be undertaken.

"The advisory committee on cultural

heritage is made

up of knowledgeable individuals broadly reflecting the province's

regions and cultural composition. Its overall goal is to enhance and

improve multiculturalism in British Columbia."

MRS. BOONE: Given the mandate that he just

read out, I'd like

to ask the minister a straightforward question on this. Has his

ministry or anybody from your committee made any representation to the

Ministry of Health's senior advisory group that is currently traveling

around the province? There has been a significant amount of information

raised in my region regarding multicultural seniors who come from

different backgrounds and have tremendous problems, in terms of their

cultural differences and how they relate to various services for

seniors — be it in health issues or in terms of getting pensions. They

often have language difficulties as well. There has been a good paper

put out by the federal government which addresses many of these issues.

My concern is that the Ministry of Health has not — from the

information from my region — had any contact with anybody from the

multicultural community on that issue. This is really of great

importance, because if we're going to be formulating policies around

seniors, we ought to be formulating policies that also take into

account the concerns of seniors who are having a lot of difficult

problems. They are unique problems. When a senior has to talk about an

illness and is unable to do so, or when they are perhaps culturally

different and don't feel proper talking to a male doctor — for example,

if they're female from a multicultural society.

Some of the things recommended have been in terms of providing

some

translators, making some moves to hire people at local levels to assist

them and

[ Page 7465 ]

trying to deal with this whole issue

on a provincewide basis. Can

the minister tell me what his ministry has done to make the concerns of

the multicultural community known to the Ministry of Health on that

issue?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, first of all,

we do not — as a

government or as a ministry — dictate to the cabinet committee on its

activities. But I have been advised by the committee that they have

established a subcommittee to deal with the questions of the family,

the youth and the women of the multicultural community.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I hadn't

planned to enter

the debate on this minister's estimates, but I feel that I have to set

the record straight in regard to some remarks made by the first member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) yesterday in this minister's

estimates. I couldn't let this opportunity go by. I'm pleased to see

that the member is now in the House, because that member has a habit of

making outrageous statements in the House that are picked up by the

press and believed by a lot of people. Then when we find out the facts,

there is very little substance to them. So when the member started

talking about the lottery building yesterday, I was quite certain in my

own mind that he was incorrect, and I said so. Rather than getting it

in the record and not being absolutely sure, as he would have done, I

decided to do a little bit of checking and found out that the innuendo

and the fact — according to him — that the people who owned the

building were members of the Social Credit executive in Kamloops were

absolutely untrue, absolutely without foundation.

MR. WILLIAMS: Were.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, they have never been

at any time, and

you can check the record, Mr. Member. You were wrong again, but it

doesn't bother you that you are wrong and that you virtually slandered

people from the sanctity of this House, which you do all the time. You

do it with regularity. You get up and make statements about people that

are untrue but it doesn't bother you.

I just want to set the record straight. The building was owned

Trelco Enterprises, which has three shareholders who happen to be

brothers. They are Gary, Wayne and Ron Cooper, who are not now, nor

have they ever been, on the Social Credit executive in Kamloops. I

think it is only fair to them to clear up the record and once again

point out that the first member for Vancouver East will say things

within the sanctity of this House that he wouldn't repeat outside. But

he gets his headline. Oh yes, you get your headline, but you don't have

the decency to stand up and apologize when you're wrong. Never once

have I heard you stand up and apologize when you've been proven wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's only fair to those people and to

others

that when that member makes those kinds of outrageous statements, we

have a chance to get up and prove that he's wrong, as he has been so

many times. I ask him, in the name of all decency, to stand up and

admit that he was wrong. Go and check it out. Stand up in all

decency.... You made allegations that were untrue that somehow we were

benefiting friends of ours — the executive of our party — and you're

totally wrong. Stand up and admit that you were wrong. I'll sit down so

you can stand up and say: "I was wrong, and I apologize to the three

Cooper brothers."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps before I hear from

the member I would

explain to the government House Leader that what we have been trying to

do with the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), with some

difficulty.... Nonetheless, what the Chair has been trying to do has

obviously been lost on the government benches. The Chair is the servant

of this House, but the rules are here for us all to obey. When you

question the motives of other members, there are other ways of doing

what you wish to accomplish.

I think that will have said it, but I am sure that the member

for

Vancouver East, who will have the ability to respond to this and who

has some sense of humour, may handle it in a diplomatic way.

MR. WILLIAMS: Indeed I....

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

MR. WILLIAMS: No, not at all. I think it's

intriguing that

the government House Leader has trouble understanding the rules of the

House, but then it's a fairly amateurish group over there in terms of

running the government. One would expect it in terms of handling the

House itself; we have certainly seen that throughout this session.

I find it especially intriguing that the member for Kamloops

finds

it outrageous and scandalous to name anybody on the executive of the

Social Credit Party in Kamloops. I can understand the concern. If our

party had that standing in the polls today, I suppose I might share the

concern, but that's something you people will be discussing tomorrow

evening. I know, Mr. Chairman, that this isn't a tourism issue.

I think it's incumbent upon the minister to give us the list

of the

Social Credit executives in Kamloops for the last decade so we can

satisfy ourselves in that regard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would also be out of

order. Perhaps we

will adjourn one day and the Chair will walk everyone through Sir

Erskine May from start to finish. Does the government House Leader

stand to speak on this issue?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, I ain't eatin' a

ham sandwich, I can

tell you that. [Laughter.] That's the kind of remark that, with all due

respect, some of the remarks I just heard precipitate. I find it a

little hard to take when I make a serious statement that the member for

Vancouver East, as usual, has tried to tie

[ Page 7466 ]

in party executives with favours done

by this government.

It was nothing to do with anybody being ashamed of being on

the

executive. If you read Hansard

from yesterday, you will see that he

made some very serious allegations that this government bought a

building because certain people were members of the executive of the

Social Credit Party. I'm just pointing out that that is wrong, wrong,

wrong. Three brothers, three wrongs, and he hasn't the decency to say:

"I'm sorry, I was wrong." I'll prove it to him, if that's what it takes.

I also find it a little hard to equate trying to set the

record

straight with some of the comments made by the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. He preaches tolerance, and I think this House

has been more than tolerant on many occasions with that member, who

goes too far on almost every subject that he speaks on in this House.

He is not interested in the facts. When the minister got up to give him

the facts on the multicultural commission, he walked out of the House.

He wasn't interested at all, as the first member for Vancouver East is

not interested in facts. It's innuendo. Let's get a cheap headline;

let's go as far as we can to get the headline, and then ignore the

facts. We see it day after day. I don't need a lecture from that member

on the rules of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the member standing is

the second member for Vancouver Centre, even if he wasn't the first

member standing.

MR. BARNES: I just wanted to ask the

minister if he would

respond to the questions that were being asked by the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. He was talking about the ethnic media adviser

who was terminated for cause, and he had asked the minister what the

date of the termination was. I merely want to have that matter

concluded. Was it before or after May 16? Just a simple question, yes

or no, and then that's all I have to ask. Was Mr. Ahamed terminated

before or after May 16?

[4:15]

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, in answer to

that member, that's a personnel matter within the personnel department.

MR. BARNES: Well, Mr. Chairman, it may be a

personnel matter

within the department, but was it not a document that you read from

that department with respect to the contractual arrangements with Mr.

Ahamed? You read the contract. You told us what the terms were, and the

fact that he didn't live up to those terms and that that's why he was

terminated. In other words, he let the cat out of the bag, or whatever

he did, and he was terminated. What I'm asking is: what was the date of

that contract and what was the duration? Then perhaps I can do my own

figures. You said he worked for nine months; he was paid $2,000 a

month. What was the date he started to work? If he worked for nine

months, I guess I could do my own mathematics and draw my own

conclusions. What was the date of the contract? When did he start

working?

MR. KEMPF: I've been waiting patiently. And

what with the

wide-ranging debate that has gone on in these estimates this afternoon,

I shouldn't have any trouble at all in canvassing the material that I

wish to canvass.

I want to go back to the minister's responsibility for

tourism. It's

unfortunate that we've driven the Premier from the House, because

perhaps it would be much easier and much faster to get a response with

respect to the question that I'm asking of the minister with the

Premier here, because I don't for one minute believe that it was the

minister who made the decision to go this route. When the Premier was

intervention, and that's specifically what I am talking about when

asking the question that I've done several times.

It's not the only question I'm going to ask, because the

minister

advised me this morning that I should go do some more research, which I

did over the dinner hour. And the more I research this whole matter of

the Tourism Advisory Council and the ministry's involvement in the

same, and all that which has to do not really with the Ministry of

Tourism but perhaps with another ministry headed by that minister of

everything over there in the corner, I find that it's utter chaos.

Utter chaos, Mr. Chairman, this whole matter. I wish in the time that's

left this afternoon to get into that chaos, because I've taken the

advice of the minister, and I've done some more research, and I find a

whole lot of questions that I didn't have prior to the lunch hour that

I wish answered.

This whole thing has been going on for quite a long time.

There has

been quite an argument between the ministry and the advisory council

and those associations out there which heretofore.... Oh, the minister

shakes his head. Wait until he hears what I have to say, before he

shakes his head.

HON. MR. REID: Resign!

MR. KEMPF: You'd like that, wouldn't you?

You'd like that.

It's the only way you're going to get rid of me — if I do resign. The

minister chatters away, but he won't chatter when he hears what I found

after doing my research. There's information that dates back to June of

last year in which the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council — of which

he speaks so highly — spoke of some very real concerns, and I have to

ask the minister what he thinks of some of the things they said.

They formed subcommittees, and this subcommittee of the

Provincial

Tourism Advisory Council wrote on June 5, 1988: "In examining the

situation, the PTAC subcommittee identified three options." They're

talking about options with respect to the changes in tourism boundaries

in British Columbia. One of those options — and it doesn't really sound

like an option — is: "Option 1, leave existing tourism

[ Page 7467 ]

boundaries as is. This is, of course,

the obvious option that we

should all like to see. The feeling of the subcommittee, however, is

that we are very unlikely to be successful in proposing this option,

and the end result may be that the Premier" — that's what I was talking

about this morning — "simply states that the regions be modified to

correlate exactly with the economic regions." Is that why he went ahead

with changing the boundaries to coincide with the ministry-of-state

boundaries in British Columbia, and not because of marketing, as he

suggested yesterday, or a whole bunch of other convoluted reasons? Is

it because he was directed by someone else to follow this path? And is

that why, after a whole year — June 5, 1988, to June 8, 1989 — there is

still chaos? No one knows out there.

The minister for everything chatters away, and I've got some

questions that will relate to his ministry where it overlaps the

Ministry of Tourism as well I hope he stays in the House.

The question arises: who then...? Certainly it wasn't the

ministry

— I have information here — that wanted to see the boundaries changed,

and it wasn't the Tourism Advisory Council, of which the minister

speaks so highly. Then the question begs answering: who made the

decision? Where did that edict come from? I could tell by the look on

the minister's face over the last couple of days that he didn't make

the decision. Oh, no, Mr. Minister, not so; you didn't make it all. But

I want to find out so that I can tell the people in the northern half

of British Columbia who made the decision and who is going to force —

again I say that we've heard about open government and less government

intervention — or stuff this policy down the throats of the people who

occupy more than half of the land base of this province. Who made that

decision? Is it the same person...?

Let's get into some other questions. As the member for

everything

said earlier, the member should have a list of questions so that when

he gets up he can answer them all. Well, let's have some more.

Was it DPA Consulting that made the decision? Did they

recommend to

the minister that this kind of boundary change be made? And while we're

on the question of DPA Consulting, let's have the minister tell the

members of this House how much it cost to have that work done by DPA

Consulting. I'll even tell the minister what they came up with. Of

course, being consultants, they suggested.... Now we've got some

discussion going on; I don't want to interrupt this very interesting

discussion over there, Mr. Chairman. DPA consultants suggested that we

hire some more consultants, and while the minister is telling me how

much it cost for the DPA study, I want him to tell me how much it's

going to cost for the eight more studies that DPA has suggested, one

for each of the eight projected areas.

The minister is conferring. I don't want to mix him up, so

I'll go

on to the second option put forward by the Provincial Tourism Advisory

Council way back in June — June 5, 1988, to be exact — which was to

modify tourism boundaries to correlate exactly with the development

boundaries. Under that heading they say: "This, of course, would make

absolutely no sense from a tourism marketing standpoint." We talked a

lot yesterday and this morning about tourism marketing and the changes

we need for marketing our tourism in British Columbia. I again quote

your Provincial Tourism Advisory Council: "Option 2. To modify the

tourism boundaries to correlate exactly with the development

boundaries. This, of course, would make absolutely no sense from a

tourism marketing standpoint." After so many years of developing a

regional image, this option would have disastrous results, yet we forge

on.

I wasn't sure from earlier debate whether the minister made

that

decision and they're going ahead, or whether they're seeking input,

through the advisory council, from the people of British Columbia. But

if the decision has been made.... From the look of the minister's head,

which is bobbing up and down, I guess the answer is yes. Oh, it's going

the other way now. Oh, well. I guess the question to be answered is:

who made the decision? Did you make it against the will of this

advisory council? If so, another question arises. I hope you're making

a list of all these questions, Mr. Minister.

You know, we talk a lot about advisory councils. We are

advising our

province to death with advisory councils. Why, if your advisory council

said no, that "it would be disastrous," are we one year later still

following that route? That's all I want to know on behalf of the people

of British Columbia. Why, when that advisory council made up of

political appointees said it would be disastrous to go that route, are

we still doing it?

I had hoped that during the lunch hour and the caucus meeting

that

ensued over in the northeast corner of the building, those ministers

from the north that I mentioned on the record this morning would

perhaps have talked to the Premier and the minister and would have

changed the direction. I've given the minister several questions, and I

expect some answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would like to draw

the attention of

the second member for Delta to Sir Erskine May, page 440 of the

twentieth edition, about the reading of newspapers in the House. I

shall send the member a copy of the citation.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairman, this is the

Vancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun ,

and I'm sure they don't qualify.

[4:30]

HON. MR. REID: First of all, in answer to a

couple of

questions by the member opposite, I want to make it abundantly clear

that North-By-Northwest may represent half of B.C.'s land mass, but it

only represents 4.7 percent of our total provincial tourism volume and

6.6 percent of the total provincial tourism revenue. Because it

represents a large mass, it does not represent the democracy we require

within the organizations who dictate how this government should deal

with the questions of tourism regions. I

[ Page 7468 ]

want to read into the record a letter

dated June 13 from the Council of Tourism Associations of British

Columbia:

The Honourable William Reid,

Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary,

Parliament Buildings,

Victoria, B.C.

Dear Mr. Reid:

As you know, I am the chairman of

the Council of Regional Tourism Associations of British Columbia. The

regional tourism associations met in Vancouver on May 30, 1989, to

discuss the matter of reducing the number of tourism regions to eight

from nine, and the related subject of realignment of boundaries. I am

pleased to advise you that after deliberation the council has agreed to

a proposal to achieve those ends. I will have the proposal in your

hands within one week.

Council of Tourism Associations of

British Columbia,

Jean Anderson, Chairman

MR. CHAIRMAN: Members of the committee,

you're advised that

this subject is offending the three rules of becoming tedious,

repetitious and boring, and I would ask that the members introduce new

material or move on to another subject.

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

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a ruling from the Chair.

The subject has been canvassed extensively and the Chair's ruling

cannot be challenged.

MR. KEMPF: No, I asked several new

questions. I knew that the

minister, not having written them down, would forget to answer them

when he got on his feet, so perhaps we're going to have to ask them all

again.

There's one question that begs answering after the minister's

last

response. If that's so, if in fact what you just said by reading that

letter into the record is so, why was there a refusal at the recent

meeting — that of May 30 here in Victoria — to discuss those proposed

boundaries? Members of that committee, which you say were

democratically there, wanted to discuss that matter, wanted to put

their feelings forward with respect to proposed boundary changes. That

was refused on a number of occasions. If everybody was in agreement

with the minister's direction respecting the change of tourism

boundaries, why was that subject not allowed to be discussed at that

meeting?

HON. MR. REID: If you want him on your

side, you can have him.

MR. KEMPF: It's not up to you; it's not up

them; it's not up to anyone except the people of Omineca as to where I

am in this House.

HON. MR. REID: You don't know where Omineca

is; you haven't been there for so long.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Personal attacks are not in

order. I know we've

gone through this already today with my predecessor in the chair, but I

would remind the minister about the business of good order and decorum

and would expect that the members of the executive council would set an

example that others may wish to follow.

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

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to be

relevant, and I'm a

very patient individual. I too wish that the members of the executive

council would set an example for the people of British Columbia. I too

wish that from the bottom of my heart. Unfortunately, they don't, Mr.

Chairman, in many respects.

Don't tell me that I don't know where my own constituency is,

Mr.

Minister of Tourism, or we will get into a shouting match. We'll find

out whether it's your friends on the Social Credit executive in Omineca

that have their way or whether its the people of Omineca that have

their way in the next election. Where Omineca is represented in the

next election is not up to you; it is up to no one but them, and I'm

sure they'll make the right decision.

HON. MR. REID: We hope so.

MR. KEMPF: If you had your way, if your

leader had your way, you wouldn't even have this place anymore.

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

MR. KEMPF: Let's talk about democracy. I

wrote the minister

some time ago with respect to the travel industry development

subsidiary agreement. I want to know what he thinks of a program that

is there supposedly to assist those in the tourism industry in British

Columbia and what he thinks of the administration of that which surely

he should be administering being under another minister. Because he

writes me on March 8, 1989, and I quote from the letter...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member is

aware of the

requirements for debate in committee, and one of the items not suitable

for debate in committee is to discuss from which department a

minister's responsibilities should be derived. I'll read you that

section; it's in the little green book in your desk if you'd like to

review it.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you very much for that

direction, Mr. Chairman. This is called the travel

[ Page 7469 ]

industry development subsidiary

agreement. Does that not have

something to do with tourism? Does that not affect the tourist industry

in British Columbia? What was the agreement set up to do if it wasn't

to assist? Shall I tell my constituents — surely not, Mr. Chairman —

that this has nothing to do with the tourist industry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I will send you a

copy of Sir

Erskine May's specific wording on this issue. While TIDSA may have

something to do with the tourism industry, when you discuss — as you

were in your line of questioning — whether or not that is the

responsibility of a particular ministry, the standing orders prohibit

us from discussing that at this time. They prohibit us from discussing

under which member of the executive council's estimates a particular

expenditure should take place. I'll find the member the particular

wording.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman, for that

direction. I'll go back to my original question then, because that

relates to tourism. The minister hasn't answered it. Has the decision

been made? I can tell the people who inhabit the northern half of

British Columbia — although they make up a very small percentage of the

overall tourism dollar in British Columbia — that because they make up

a very small percentage of that, they should have no say at all in what

the government does with respect to tourism boundaries and how those

boundaries should be located and that they don't know what is better

for their own area as far as tourism is concerned.

I want to ask the minister once again: has the decision been

made to

change the tourism boundaries in British Columbia to coincide with the

boundaries of the ministries of state? Has that decision been made or

not? I've gone back and forth on it with the minister. He said several

different times that it has or it hasn't. Has that decision been made?

Who made it? Did the minister make it, or did the Premier make it? Who

made that decision?

Fine. If the minister is going to stonewall on that, as he has

for

two days, we'll ask some more questions. Is the minister aware that the

regional boards such as North-By-Northwest were elected by the private

sector? Is that the problem the government is having with those

particular organizations? Is the government having a problem with them

because they have no control over them? It would seem that this

administration has to have control over everything that moves. Is that

why the decision is being crammed down the throats of northern British

Columbians? "My way or the highway; you change the boundaries to my

liking, or you get cut off of funding."

It isn't a politically appointed group; these people were

elected by

the private sector. Is that the problem you're facing, Mr. Minister,

with respect to the changes in boundaries for tourism in British

Columbia?

I might remind you that these regional tourism associations

are

registered and accountable as societies. They're not a rag-tag bunch

out there running around not knowing what they're doing. They've been

there for 15 years, and they know what they're doing, Mr. Minister.

They know what they're telling you when they say they don't want any

part of boundary changes that would coincide with the ministries of

state in British Columbia.

After all this, my question is: does the minister still intend

to go

ahead with changing the boundaries to coincide with the boundaries of

the ministries of state? I've read into the record letters from across

northern British Columbia, from municipal councils, regional districts,

chambers of commerce and interested business people. They do not want

it.

Is it this government's intention — this government that

doesn't

believe in government intervention — to proceed? The people of northern

British Columbia have a right to know, not after the fact but before it

happens. Does this government intend, through that minister and that

ministry, to go ahead with this boundary change against the collective

will of the people of northern British Columbia — over half the land

mass of this province, from whence, I might remind you, comes the

wealth of this province?

[4:45]

Is that what the government is saying — they're going to

proceed?

They want to take over the world — is that the sign that the minister

is making? Yes, I can believe that. From what I've heard in these

estimates, I can believe it. But I want the minister to say it. Have

guts enough to say it: "Yes, we are going to make those changes against

the will of the duly elected representatives of the northern half of

this province."

MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't have the impression

the minister was going to continue. Maybe the member for Omineca can

ask his question again.

Now for something completely different. I take it that as

Provincial

Secretary the minister contributes to musical groups of different kinds

around the province, maybe for traveling and that sort of thing. Is

that the case? Some grants within the grant system of the Provincial

Secretary's office?

HON. MR. REID: More indirectly than

directly, because the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mrs.

Johnston) distributes that portion of lottery funds allocated to her

ministry, which is $25.2 million. In that is the cultural component

called arts and culture.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister will

clarify it, and he'll

shut me up right away. I'd really like to talk a little bit about rock

and roll. I don't think you people do much in that area.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, just rock and roll. It's

a significant, growing area of expertise and, I think,

[ Page 7470 ]

talent in this province. I'm using the

broad term rock and roll. I'm talking about young musicians in the

province.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Bill Haley is a little dated

now, but that's okay.

I think we've generated a great deal of talent in this area,

and we

basically aren't doing any funding of new musical groups, unlike

Alberta, Quebec and some of the other provinces. I don't mean

symphonies and that sort of thing, but the stuff that young people

enjoy and which is part of the North American music scene.

Vancouver is very much a significant new player in North

American

music. We have k.d. lang, who is probably destined to become one of

Canada's greatest artists; she now lives in Vancouver. Her work in

"Shadowland" with Owen Bradley from Nashville and so on is of

world-scale calibre.

I think we've got all kinds of other musicians operating in

warehouses around False Creek, where they actually live, where they

have video studios and sound studios jointly. The Provincial Secretary

and the Lottery Fund, it seems to me, could play a significant role

there. We've now developed sound studios in Vancouver that are the

equal of anything on the continent. They're very significant.

The music industry, the recording industry and so on, is a

major

industry. I don't think we have developed a strategy. The Albertans

take this seriously — k.d. lang came from Alberta. She chose British

Columbia, but along the way she got a lot of help from the province of

Alberta, because they recognized the need to help young talent. We

should be funding their touring across the country and to Quebec. The

Quebeckers do that. They have been concerned about building these kinds

of talents on their home turf.

There are other groups here that are extraordinary. Spirit of

the

West is a Celtic rock group from the North Shore of greater Vancouver

that sings songs of social conscience about British Columbia. They are

currently touring Finland, and they were invited to the Baltic states —

Estonia, Latvia and so on. That's extraordinary.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: The second member for Delta

(Mr. Davidson) says k.d. lang is okay, and I don't think there's much

doubt about that.

MR. CLARK: He doesn't like Spirit of the

West because they're political.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, Spirit is political.

We'll see who shows up at benefits in the next election, won't we? But

that's another matter.

There are groups that have moved up the ladder. Currently

54-40 and Grapes of Wrath are extraordinary. Grapes of Wrath actually

came from Kelowna to the....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, 54-40 from the east

side. They've really

had a hard time in their initial years. It's extraordinarily hard work

that has kept them going and got them to that threshold. But there are

other groups that have slipped and not made it.

I wonder if the minister might consider establishing some kind

committee that might advise them, say, relative to the lottery fund in

this particular area. This is an area that I, believe it or not, know a

little bit about, although my kids know a lot more than I do. There are

groups like Nyetz that are very interesting talents. There are the Hard

Rock Miners, the Jazzmanian Devils and the Scramblers, and there are

ethnic groups and other Celtic groups like Stephen Fearing's.

It's very significant. I think we're talking about modest seed

capital to help them out. It would be exciting stuff for everybody

involved. There are producers around. We have probably one of the best

record producers in North America based in Vancouver: Bruce Fairbairn,

who did the Bon Jovi record — the last one that sold $30 million to $40

million worth or something like that. This is extraordinary talent, and

we might tap some of it and think about a conscious policy around the

question of new music and rock and roll and some of our gro