1988 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

FRIDAY, MAY 6, 1988

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4309 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Pacific Rim Scholarship winners. Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 4309

Mr. Rose

Tabling Documents –– 4309

Private Members' Statements

B.C. Enterprise Corporation. Mr. Williams –– 4309

Mr. Mowat

B.C. Health Care Research Foundation. Mr. Mowat –– 4311

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Mr. Lovick

Free trade and grape industry. Mr. Rose –– 4313

Hon. Mr. Savage

Interior Provincial Exhibition. Mr. Michael –– 4314

Ms. Edwards

Hon. Mr. Savage

Regent College Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill PR401). Ms. Campbell

Introduction and first reading –– 4316

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Reid)

On vote 65: minister's office –– 4316

Mr. G. Hanson

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Barnes

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

It's my pleasure today to introduce 70 members of the Brocklehurst

Secondary School band and choir. They are in the precincts today. I'm

pleased to tell the House that they will be performing in front of the

Legislature between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. today. I urge people to go and

listen to some of the beautiful Brocklehurst talent — which

happens to be my home town. I would ask the House to make them very

welcome.

HON. MR. REID :

I'd like the House to make a special welcome on behalf of the member

for Surrey-Newton (Hon. Mrs. Johnston). Today we have with us Mr. Van

Huizen and 45 of his students from the Fraser Valley Christian High

School, who will also be performing in Victoria today. Will the House

make them especially welcome.

MR. DE JONG : I'm

pleased to introduce a couple of people who are visiting us here today:

Don and Sue Miller from Saratoga, California. It's interesting that

this happens today, after two days of debate on the estimates of the

Minister of Tourism and Recreation. We've heard many good things about

the minister, which were reconfirmed by these visitors last night as

they spoke to me. They said that they really appreciated the

cleanliness and beauty of this province, but especially the

friendliness of the people of British Columbia. I would ask this House

to extend a hearty welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Don Miller.

Ministerial Statement

PACIFIC RIM SCHOLARSHIP WINNERS

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I would like to make a brief ministerial statement. I think that

sometimes good news bears repeating, and we have some wonderful news

here, so I would like everyone in the House and in the province to be

made aware of it. The names of the first ten students selected to

receive the Pacific Rim Scholarship for a year's study in an Asia

Pacific country were announced just recently. The scholarship program,

which provides up to $20,000 each to ten graduating grade 12 students

in British Columbia, was introduced last fall as part of the provincial

government's Pacific Rim initiatives program; the other initiatives are

going on as well.

The scholarship winners this year are: Christina Chen from Burnaby North Senior

Secondary in Burnaby; Michael Cordiez from Rossland Secondary School; Calvin

Dang from Handsworth Secondary School in North Vancouver; Sara Deane, Rossland

Secondary School, in Rossland, of course; Teresa Lamb, Stanley Humphries Secondary

in Castlegar; Shawnsteen Love, Caledonia Senior Secondary in Terrace; Wendy

Ma, Vancouver Technical Secondary, Vancouver; Kim Manning, Belmont Secondary

in Sooke; also Steffanie Scott from Belmont Secondary in Sooke; and Steven Siqueria

from Richmond Senior Secondary in Richmond.

The

winners were selected from more than a hundred applicants. That

selection committee, made up of representatives from universities,

colleges, schools and the business community, shortlisted 25 of them

and then interviewed those 25 students. I have been told by the members

of the selection committee that, contrary to the usual pattern that

evolves — where the top few students are fairly easy to select and then it goes down the line —

of the 25 they had a very difficult job to pick the top ten winners.

They were certainly impressed by the quality of these people.

The

selection criteria included academic excellence and interests, personal

attributes indicating potential success in cross-cultural situations,

future intentions, and potential contributions to the province, the

country and the world. All of these students have made a significant

contribution to their schools and communities, and the winning students

will be asked to share what they learned during their year abroad with

the communities and the Ministry of Education on their return to

British Columbia.

I would certainly like to commend these

winners and also extend my condolences to the 90 other applicants who,

I'm sure, had good qualifications; but only ten could be selected.

That

concludes my ministerial statement, but I would also like to table in

the House the update on the Pacific Rim education initiative, so

perhaps it might get broader interest.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled an update on the Pacific Rim education initiative.

MR. ROSE :

I thank the minister for giving me two minutes to look over the

ministerial statement before he delivered it. It's not a very complex

one, so I think I'll be able to understand and absorb it.

I'd

like to add my congratulations to those of the minister. I think our

contacts with the Pacific Rim are going to be enlarged as the world

grows smaller. The fact that we are making these contacts and educating

our young people to communicate both ways, to and from the Pacific Rim,

is an important contribution to education. I congratulate them as well.

I've

also noted that all ten of the students selected come from the public

schools of British Columbia. I congratulate both the public schools and

their teachers for doing an excellent job in preparing these students.

It seems interesting, too, that we have two from Rossland and two from

Sooke. It's intriguing that these people have been selected from those

two schools — four out of the ten. It indicates that there's a

great interest — at least on the part of the teachers and students

from those two schools — in applying for these scholarships.

May

I add my congratulations from this side of the House. Perhaps when

they've completed their studies, the minister might make another

statement, which would probably underline the things they've done and

accomplished. We wish them all the best in their studies and

congratulate them for winning the scholarships.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

MR. WILLIAMS : I think it's interesting at this stage of the game to reflect on the Expo land deal and the desire of the

[ Page 4310 ]

government

to put the Toigo proposal to bed. They've done so in two ways. They've

rushed the deal with Li Ka-shing. It was very clear from the

presentation at the Discovery Theatre that it was a rushed-together

deal in the last stages that the Minister of Economic Development had

been able to achieve by her own pressure and leaking game that had been

going on for weeks before.

They've tried to put it to bed

in other ways as well: by sending the Premier out on important trade

missions to places like Golden, the Vancouver East Italian Cultural

Centre and Revelstoke, so that he has avoided question period and other

aspects of the Legislature this last couple of weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS :

Greek drama — thank you kindly. It's small wonder that they're

groaning and that they have tried to keep him away from the shop.

Mr.

Toigo, clearly, is the one person in British Columbia, beyond us all,

who has instant access to the Premier. The Premier thought, with his

usual charm, that he might be able to cover this problem further by

having a meeting with selected journalists — a gang of four. In

typical fashion it raised — my apologies if any of the gang are

here — more questions than it answered about this Premier. At that

meeting the Premier admitted — or confessed —

to at least nine interventions on behalf of Mr. Toigo, and that was

after a process was in place. Nine times he intervened, contrary to the

established public process, and then, after admitting it, he denied

that it was wrong and that it caused a split in the party. The people

on the other side can comment on the second item; I won't do that.

[10:15]

either doesn't think those actions were wrong, or he pretends they

weren't wrong, Mr. Speaker. Either way, he loses. It's not acceptable

either way, and either way the province loses. Actions such as these on

behalf of a friend — a business associate, a party bagman, a

leadership fund-raiser — are simply not acceptable in our system,

and the Premier pretends that he doesn't know it.

the U.S., in similar circumstances, there would be congressional

investigations underway after these kinds of goings-on in this process.

The Premier pretended that he would have given equal access to anyone

else, but we know that's not so. No one else has a hotline to the

Premier. But there was someone else. Remember that last year a group of

British Columbia trade unions put forth a proposal using pension funds,

last year. They made a proposal on October 29. The Premier was in Tokyo

at the time. He said: "It's too late. We have 12 solid bids and the

unions aren't one of them." That was on October 29. But right up until

the last month this same Premier has been hustling the Toigo deal with

respect to the Expo lands. It's never too late for Mr. Toigo. The

actual submission from Mr. Toigo didn't come until December, six weeks

or more after the trade union proposal that the Premier said was too

late.

At the meeting with the four journalists, the Premier

admitted that he complained to cabinet that Toigo was unable to see Mr.

Li in Hong Kong. Isn't that incredible? Has anybody on the other side

reflected on that? The Premier complained to cabinet that Mr. Toigo

could not see Mr. Li in Hong Kong. And who was he complaining to? Why,

I guess the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who

had her staff put in a phone call to prevent that meeting from taking

place.

It's very clear what Mr. Toigo wanted. He wanted to

cut an independent deal with Li Ka-shing for the Expo lands and pick up

the entire bundle of assets of the Enterprise Corporation, pulling off

the sweetest deal in the modem history of the province. That's what he

wanted to do. Mr. Toigo’s cover story, which becomes so laughable it's

hard to believe that he would try and paper it over this mess, is that

it was to promote his son Rick's video game. This is one of the world's

richest men, 20 percent of the Hong Kong stock exchange, etc., etc.,

and Mr. Toigo would have us believe that he was in Hong Kong to see Mr.

Li to promote his son's video game. Fifty years ago, when Mr. Li was

selling plastic flowers on the streets, maybe; but not today.

Does

anybody believe that the Premier's office is available for the

promotion of Mr. Toigo's kid's video games? Well, maybe it is. Maybe

for anything from Mr. Toigo, the Premier's ear is available.

It's

very clear what it was. It was the Expo land deal. That's what it was

all about. The Premier was available. In the olden days in the

cartoons, when I read them as a kid, there was a guy in the Li'l Abner

strip called Available Jones. He was available for anything and

everything. The Premier is Available Jones when it comes to Mr. Toigo.

My older comrades here remember Available Jones. When Toigo wanted the

Expo rides, the Premier was available, and that availability has cost

us $80,000 a year. Those rides still rust on the Expo lands.

MR. MOWAT :

It's with great interest that I listen to the words of the hon. first

member for Vancouver East. As we all know, the member was formerly a

town planner in Vancouver, and I guess I'm a bit disappointed that I

didn't hear anything positive about the Expo deals and the Expo land,

particularly when it's going to have a great effect on his constituency

of Vancouver East.

I do not wish to engage in political

bantering with the member or members of the opposition. Rather I would

like to take this opportunity to discuss some of the key aspects of

this exciting, dynamic new development.

too have had a chance to look at the plans for Pacific Place. I've

listened to comments of experts in the field — developers,

architects, locally elected officials —

and they have all praised the proposal. Like many of them, I am very

interested in this proposal as it will affect Vancouver. This

development is probably the most exciting urban project taking place,

not only in Canada but in all of North America. This project will

generate more than $2 billion in direct capital investments, $6 billion

in spin-offs spending and more than 28,000 person-years of employment.

This

development will be of great benefit to the city of Vancouver. It is a

mixture of commercial, residential and open space. I am particularly

pleased to see that the proposal will provide more than 10,000 units of

housing, which will be both market and non-market and meet the

requirements of all citizens. With the various participation clauses

that are in the proposal, there is a potential for the people of

British Columbia and the residents of Vancouver to receive an

additional bonus. We are ensuring that future generations will benefit

through solid long-term planning today.

The member of the opposition knows that the Ministry of Economic Development has written to the city of Vancouver

[ Page

4311 ]

and offered to seek adjustments of the current agreement if so desired by the

city. You can see there is no real intent to force benefits on anyone. Pacific

Place will undoubtedly serve as a catalyst for other developments, not only

in the lower mainland but through the entire province.

the success of the development project becomes more and more apparent,

I am confident, as are my colleagues from Vancouver, that we will see

other entrepreneurs investing in our province. The project is designed

to meet the needs of Vancouver, not only for the decade of the nineties

but for the next century. I believe this type of planning is very much

in focus with the Premier's long-term vision for the province of

British Columbia.

Pacific Place will complement surrounding

neighbourhoods and add to the city's vibrant and cosmopolitan

character. The city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia

are Canada's gateway to Asia. This project will serve to further

enhance our province's growing role in the Pacific Rim. Pacific Place

provides an opportunity for all levels of government to cooperate. In

order for the project to reach its full potential, all government

levels will have to work together, and I am confident that in spite of

the opposition, they will.

Historically, Social Credit

governments have undertaken initiatives that are of long-term benefit

for British Columbians. This project continues the trend that has been

established by previous Social Credit governments of building not only

for today's generations but, more importantly, for future generations.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Let's all thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain for the

fine speech written by Mr. Craig Aspinall, the former director of the

Social Credit Party communications, and who is now the spokesperson for

Li Ka-shing. Thank you, Craig.

What is abundantly clear is

that the Toigo friendship is beginning to cost the public purse. The

rides at Expo and the intervention by the Premier are costing $80,000 a

year. That's the first clear evidence of the cost of this expensive

friendship between the Premier and Mr. Toigo. Back in October, the

Premier said there might be problems of perception over a Toigo deal,

and that he would need to have a professional study to back up the

Toigo proposal in order to deal with those perceptions. He didn't even

try to get that.

There are now new stories tumbling out

about this heavy friend of the Premier and the muscling out of the

civil service, and you can be sure that more will come. This will not

die; this kind of friendship is not tolerated in our kind of government

in our kind of province. This kind of friendship is a test for the

back-benchers over there, and it's a test for the cabinet over there.

How long are you going to tolerate it? He's not only the Premier's

friend, Mr. Speaker; at the moment, he's your friend too.

B.C. HEALTH CARE RESEARCH FOUNDATION

MR. MOWAT : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak today on an issue of health

care research in British Columbia. Having had firsthand experience in the health

field, I know that all our health care systems are of top quality. Our commitment

to health care is demonstrated by the fact that one-third of the provincial

budget, or over $3.9 billion, is allocated to the Ministry of Health. This amounts

to over $1,300 annually for each person in this province. As part of our commitment

to health care, I'm proud to say that our province and government has shown

great leadership in the field of health care research.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

One

of the leading organizations in the area of health care research in our

province is the B.C. Health Care Research Foundation. In fact, it is

the second-largest funder of health care research in the province. I'm

pleased to see that the Ministry of Health contributed $4 million of

lottery funds to the B.C. Health Care Research Foundation for the year

'87-88. As well. a special grant of $517,000 was provided to purchase

equipment. I am pleased also to report and to see that our government

has increased funding for the Health Care Research Foundation by 12.5

percent to $4.5 million for the '88-89 fiscal year.

I have

had the privilege of being a director of the Health Care Research

Foundation, and as such I receive firsthand knowledge of the fine work

that the foundation is doing with the grants it is giving.

The

$4 million we have contributed in 1987-88 is in addition to the $5.4

million lottery funds donated by the province last year to the research

legacy fund of the Man in Motion campaign for spinal cord research.

Since

the Health Care Research Foundation program began in 1978, it has

distributed over $33.6 million from the lottery funds and has created

approximately 1,100 person years of employment. For every $30,000 in

research funds, one new job is created.

Just as important,

Mr. Speaker, the seed funding initially provided by the B.C. Health

Care Research Foundation frequently leads to outside funding, which

leads to more jobs and further research for the citizens of British

Columbia, Canada and the world. For example, some projects have a

leverage factor of over 12 times; that is, the research has received

over 12 times in additional funding since receiving the funding from

the B.C. Health Care Research Foundation.

The foundation

uses about 10 percent of its funds for scholarship purposes, with the

remaining 90 percent going for research grants. By committing

additional funds for the upcoming year, our government has recognized

the growing importance of research work being done in our universities

and hospitals. This type of use of lottery funds is something that I

wholeheartedly support, and I am confident that in the future our

commitment will continue.

The funds provided through the

lottery grants enable research to be carried out in a variety of

fields. For example, in the last few years new techniques have been

developed for treating fractures. As well, through these grants, we

have succeeded in halving radiation doses for children undergoing x-ray

examinations. Strides have been made in our understanding of

infertility, innovative techniques have developed in diagnostic

procedures, and these are just a few of our successes.

Presently

there are a number of innovative and exciting research projects taking

place. In fact, in the last fiscal year, 136 awards have been made for

various research projects. Through the funding contributed from the

lottery funds, research into Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis,

Huntington's disease, cystic fibrosis, Parkinson's disease, diabetes

and scoliosis have been undertaken. As well, the researchers are

carrying on projects on such matters as molecular biology of rubella

virus, links between diet and

[ Page 4312 ]

cancer and oral health problems among persons over 75 years living independently in Vancouver.

[10:30]

In addition, Mr. Speaker, B.C. scientists have received over $2.5

million in cancer research grants from the National Cancer Institute in

1987. After Ontario, our province received the second-highest amount of

grants for research in the field of cancer. The scientists in British

Columbia have become world leaders when it comes to cancer research.

Presently, for example, research is being carried out to develop a

cancer-detecting blood test. As well, through the TRIUMF facilities

located at the University of British Columbia, scientists can now treat

inoperable tumours of the brain and the pelvic area with a procedure

known as pion radiotherapy. At least 150 terminally ill British

Columbia patients have benefited from this painless treatment, which

appears to be more effective than the conventional treatment because it

does not damage the healthy cells surrounding the tumours. Some

patients with brain tumours have been restored to normal brain function

and the prospect of a very healthy, ongoing life.

Health

research being carried out by scientists in our province has led to

major innovations and has in turn served to enhance the quality of life

of many British Columbians. I am confident that in the future, funds

contributed by our government as well as funds contributed by the

federal government and the Rick Hansen and Terry Fox funds will enable

scientists to continue to undertake research in a number of areas.

The

research carried on by our medical and scientific community must be

something that we all support. Our government will continue to ensure

that medical research continues to receive the funding it deserves.

HON. MR. DUECK :

As Minister of Health, what the member from Little Mountain has said is

music to my ears. He spoke about some of the positive things that we do

in my ministry, and I believe that we all have a role to play. I've

often said it and I sincerely mean it: when it comes to health, I do

not believe that we want to play politics but to do what we can for the

people of this province.

far as the foundation is

concerned, it is my honour to be the chairman of the British Columbia

Health Care Research Foundation, and in that capacity, I'm very pleased

that we were able to give the foundation $4,500,000 last year — an

increase of $500,000 — and that we've again allocated another

$517,626 from lottery funds for purchase of critically needed research

equipment.

When

we speak of health, this side and the other side, we jointly wince a

little and say that a billion dollars is no small piece of the pie of

the government's spending. However, when we really look into it, the

needs of and demands on the people, and rightly so.... Because looking

back just a few years, the demands were much different. Looking back

ten or 15 years, we did not demand the care in medical facilities; we

did not demand the care in many areas, whether new technology, service

to the handicapped or service for senior citizens. In the next two

years, for homes alone, we will be increasing extended care and

intermediate care by roughly 1,200 new beds.

We can go on

and on with health care and say some of the good things we're doing.

Just recently we announced mammography screening for breast cancer;

it's the first in Canada. Some of these stories we just don't hear;

somehow they get lost. We hear about all the negative things, but there

are so many good things that we're doing. It's not just us; we're doing

them jointly as a government.

MR. LOVICK : Just a few very brief comments in the absence of my colleague the health critic from this side of the House.

You

know, Mr. Speaker, one doesn't want to attack anything that emanated

from the other side, because as far as it goes, we are hearing good

things, and obviously we're all committed to medical research. We know

its importance. We also know that it has some job creation benefits.

The predicament, however, is that the comments coming from the other

side are reminiscent of Dr. Pangloss or somebody in Voltaire, that "all

is for the best in the best of possible worlds."

continue to hear that kind of line, and I just want to remind the House

that some of us who've had the experience of raising money for

research — as I have, as the chairman of the Heart Fund campaign in my community for a couple of years —

know the process, which is to continually knock on doors and talk to

those individuals who don't have very much in the way of surplus

income. We are still forced to go, cap in hand, to those individuals

frequently least able to contribute.

That's also the case,

I fear, because of the lottery-fund approach to funding. Lottery

funding makes wonderful things possible, but let us never forget who

the people are in the predominant and dominant majority who buy lottery

tickets. They are those people who do not have a great deal of surplus

income. We're finding a mechanism to pay for important and necessary

services within our communities, but we're doing so by going to the

wrong people to get that funding. The answer, surely, if we want to

talk about a significant component in health research funding, is to

take it out of the realm of legalized and officially sanctioned

gambling and do something to create a fair taxation system in this

province, something that is regrettably long overdue.

MR. MOWAT :

I'm very pleased that the Minister of Health has got up and supported

the research program, and I guess I'm disappointed but not surprised

that we got nothing but doom and gloom from the other side.

heard the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), and I must say that

he must find it difficult when the first member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) gets up and says how great it is to have various types of

gambling such as bingo that his mother enjoyed. We are very fortunate

that people such as the second member for Nanaimo.... In his earlier

days he has taken time out to go and knock on doors, not just in a

political area but to do something good for his community.

Not

only do people want to be involved in research and doing such things as

raising funds for various projects — heart research, the Cancer

Society and that — but it also brings a great deal of awareness to

the people who are involved and are giving at the local level.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to end the day on a positive note and say that I'm very

pleased that this government is bringing forward and continuing to

support the B.C. Health Care Research Foundation and research in so

many other areas. Of course the government would like to do more, but

we realize that within the limit of the dollars that are available,

British Columbia is showing a great deal of leadership in its research

in so many areas.

[ Page 4313 ]

FREE TRADE AND GRAPE INDUSTRY

MR. ROSE :

When I make my speech, the person who will intervene — I don't

know if the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) intends to be

here or not —

will probably shout, "Negative, negative, negative," and accuse me and

my party of uttering sour grapes. Probably the orders have gone out

through the Socred caucus to introduce in every speech: "Negative,

negative, negative."

Also, I've noticed in the question

period that the government back-benchers have been issued thumping

orders. Every time the Premier or anybody else gets up, they have been

told to thump, because in the press it has been noted that when the

Premier sustained a substantial attack, there was no thumping.

Therefore, instead of allowing this chamber to be filled with silence

when the Premier spoke, we are now going to have it accompanied by

back-bench thumping, especially from the rabbit pack down there in the

comer.

What I would like to tell you this morning —

and I welcome the Minister of Agriculture here - really has to do with

free trade and the Premier's announcement in Oliver last week. It was

reported in the Sun that the

minister didn't know anything about it. This tremendously fine

announcement predicted several things that the Premier was going to do,

because he desperately needed an announcement to go into the nominating

convention for the Socred candidate — not a farmer but a bank manager —

in Boundary-Similkameen. Here we have a speculative announcement. We

know that the major and first casualties, but by no means the last, are

the grape growers in that lovely part of the land called

Boundary-Similkameen. They are going to be put out of business — about

200 of them. Maybe a third of them will survive on this specialty kind

of approach. That's all that will be left, and what we are trying to do

in here is soften the blow.

There are some terrible horror

stories associated with that whole industry. I've got a bulging file of

letters from people who have written because they are very concerned,

and I would just like to quote from a couple of them:

"I'd like your help on a very serious matter. I'm one of the many frustrated and discriminated grape growers."

They have been sold out. They were encouraged to get into the business, but they have been sold out. He says:

"About

seven years ago the wineries, advised by the B.C. government, made the

growers plant more grapes. Four years later, with very little

compensation to us, they gave us no alternative but to pull out our

blue grapes. Last year, due to the Alberta and B.C. governments' very

poor regulations for financial institutions, we lost our life savings

in the Principal collapse. And now with the Mulroney-Reagan deal and

GATT, I fear this could be the end of our business."

That's only one. This is the kind of gloom affecting people there.

Here's another one from Kelowna:

"We

purchased our vineyard in 1984 for $325,000 for 13 acres. This was to

be our retirement place, but now we go to bed at night not knowing what

tomorrow will bring. We are third- and fourth-generation Canadians;

please let us continue to be proud to be Canadian."

The

free trade agreement is very destructive to these people. They have

invested their life savings. They have been encouraged by the

government. As a matter of fact, even last year there have been ARDSA

grants to prepare more land for grape-growing. I think of Inkaneep,

down in Osoyoos. Right in the middle of the free trade discussions,

these people have been encouraged to go into it.

What's

happened to the Premier's announcement is merely speculative. There's

been no deal yet consummated with the federal government, none at all.

I don't think that what the Premier announced in terms of the subsidy

for grape growers for the life of the phase-in period, which amounts to

seven years, will even be tolerated. It could be challenged by GATT and

it could be challenged by the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. But this

government supports it. This government supports a move that's going to

put these people out of business, with a tremendous loss of life

savings. They're going to freeze them into 1987 prices. Well, that's

better than nothing, but again, there's been no deal on that one that

has been signed.

The minister's going down to Ottawa next

week. Hopefully there can be a deal signed there that will give these

people a break, a phase-in period. But even if you take the young grape

growers and retrain them at a university, you're looking at $20,000 or

$30,000 per person to give them university training or some technical

upgrading, if you can provide them with a job.

you try

and replace the land values.... Well, you just heard about $325,000. It

was that in '84. That land would probably not be worth even half that

today. We've got a big compensation bill that we're expecting, and they

want facts, not just speculation. That's all that was offered —

nothing firm — in the Premier's announcement last Saturday.

[10:45]

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

To the opposition House Leader, I appreciate the comments that were

directed relative to the grape producers and some of the critical areas

that the member sees relative to the investment the farmers have made

in that industry. Of course, the member talked a little bit about the

preferential pricing that we were allowed to have within the province

to establish the 80 percent content, etc.

From

the

perspective of free trade, I'd like to tell the hon. member that he can

be well assured that I, as the minister responsible, in consultation

with my colleagues, am working very diligently to make sure that those

producers who are impacted by that agreement have an opportunity to at

least have one of two things: an opportunity to replant to

varieties — they might well be the viniferous or some superior

hybrid varieties — where we can command the market niche. Those

are the premium wines that do bring good prices.

think you referred to estate wineries, the cap of 30,000 gallons for

domestic use, but in my judgment that doesn't mean to say that those

same estate wineries can't co-op and offer wines on the export position

at a premium price as well. I strongly believe that there are options

out there if we use appellation control, if we use wine sales

facilities on farms. I strongly believe there are opportunities for our

wine makers — I've had the opportunity to meet with them. As the

member well knows, I was in Penticton on Tuesday and had a meeting with

a few of the wine producers and the board. We discussed a number of

initiatives that would be helpful to the industry.

On the

free trade agreement as a whole, if you want to get beyond just the

grape industry, there's the horticultural sector that I am also working

towards trying to resolve. It's important to recognize that those are

the two key sectors that are

[ Page 4314 ]

going

to have to become more and more competitive or more and more efficient.

Also, if you look at the broad perspective of the free trade agreement

for the province as it relates to opportunities for people within this

province, let me assure you that we will do very well for employing

people and giving business greater opportunities in that free trade

agreement.

Without reducing some of the barriers that have

been so persistent over the years and building stronger and

stronger.... You know and I know that tariffs, duties and

countervailing actions seem to be becoming more and more prevalent as

we continue along this business of each country around the world — it's not only Canada and the United States —

taking a greater involvement in protecting their own sectors. A good

example: wheat in Japan is about $1,800 a tonne. That's protected for

the farmers in Japan. We could sell wheat in there for roughly $150 a

tonne, but we can't access that market. The consumer is the one who

would benefit from that.

It's important to recognize that

freer trade or liberalized trade between countries is the right motive

by which to increase opportunities for not only the business people but

the consuming public as well. With all due respect to what the House

Leader opposite is saying, we well recognize that, and this government

is committed to trying to alleviate the offsetting injury that might be

incurred in the grape sector. I make that commitment very strongly.

The member also stated that I am negotiating with Ottawa — which I am —

and that I didn't have any awareness of the announcement in Penticton

by the Premier. I was aware of it, but the point I made in the press

was that the details of the discussion between myself and my

counterparts in Ottawa could not be released. That's important. As

those discussions go on they obviously can't be made public, and the

Premier did not make them public. There were no dollar values

discussed. It's important to recognize that we are dealing with those

numbers in confidence, and we will continue to do so until such time as

the other provinces involved in the same type of program are all

treated equally. We can't have preferential treatment for one province

over another. My commitment as the minister responsible for that

industry is to get the best deal we possibly can, and I will continue

to stand by that commitment.

MR. ROSE : Well, that's

fine, but at the moment it's all sweet talk. There's no budget for

picking up the casualties of the free trade agreement. They include the

grape growers and the soft fruit people. This business about protecting

them through snap-back — whatever that means — is probably

one year after they're dead in the water anyway. The minister well

knows that a tremendous number of people have already gone out of

business without free trade. All this is going to do is to hasten their

demise. Why would anybody encourage anybody to go into the agriculture

business today? You're going to freeze a lot of people in perpetual

poverty or peonage until we develop a better kind of system.

You

talk about the subsidies in Japan. The subsidy on one bushel of wheat

in the United States is $3.13. In the EEC it's $2.65, and in Canada

it's 85 cents. How can our farmers, by themselves, compete with the

treasuries of other countries, nations or groups of nations? They just

cannot do it. You say we're going to get rid of protectionism around

the world. Why don't you talk to the EEC and the Americans and tell

them to tear their barriers down? They talk like that, but they don't

do it. You talk about a level playing field; it doesn't exist. In terms

of climate, labour costs, irrigation costs, land costs, all the input

costs, we're at a disadvantage.

MR. JANSEN : Negative.

MR. ROSE :

This is negative, negative, sour grapes, and all the happiness boys are

over there. You've sold them out through this business of so-called

free trade — even without free trade. From March 1987 to March

1988, 25 percent of the beef growers in Boundary-Similkameen went

before the farm debt review board. Forty percent of the tree fruits;

another of the horticultural ones, 25 percent. They're in bad shape.

They're negative, negative. It's not me that's saying that; they're

saying that.

Look at the Farm Credit Corporation. Seventeen

voluntary transfers in that same area. They've gone out of business.

Only five total foreclosures, but that's in one very small area.

Properties sold: eleven. Properties sold,

part 2: two. Total owing at

the time of transfers: $6,600,000 million. Total realized from sales:

$1.5 million. Where did the other $4.5 million go? They're in bad shape

even without free trade — just the threat of free trade, never mind the drought part of it.

conclusion, we're told that we're macho, that we can compete with

anybody; that if we get a chance we'll become competitive, competitive,

competitive — if only we could get free access to that huge market

there 20 times our size. What about Alabama and Georgia and Louisiana?

There are no barriers against them, and they're broke in terms of their

agriculture. Why would we be any better?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, I regret to inform. you that your time has expired.

MS. CAMPBELL : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. CAMPBELL :

Members on both sides of this House are on record as supporting

bilingualism and supporting efforts to encourage our young people in

British Columbia to speak French and have better relations with our

compatriots in the province of Quebec. Of course, recently in this

House we welcomed the Premier of the province of Quebec, M. Bourassa.

Today in the House in our gallery we have students from Lord Byng

Secondary School in Vancouver and their guests on an exchange from the

province of Quebec: students from College Saint Charles Gamier. I'd ask

the House to give them a very warm bienvenue and welcome.

INTERIOR PROVINCIAL EXHIBITION

MR. MICHAEL :

My topic today is the Interior Provincial Exhibition, which I consider

to be the greatest agricultural exhibition anywhere in the province of

British Columbia. I will attempt to make a case to the Minister of

Agriculture that the present allocation of funds from his ministry to

the various class A exhibitions in the province of British Columbia is

somewhat discriminatory.

The

Interior Provincial Exhibition

receives from the minister $10,000 a year in comparison to the PNE,

which receives $30,000 a year — three times as much. I would point

out to the House, Mr. Speaker, that there are only four class A

[ Page 4315 ]

exhibitions

in the province of British Columbia: the PNE, Chilliwack, the lower

Fraser Valley and the Interior Provincial Exhibition located in

Armstrong. That is the only class A fair in the entire interior of the

province of British Columbia.

It should be pointed out that the IPE attracts nearly double — 35,000 as compared to 20,000 —

the attendance as compared to Chilliwack and the lower Fraser Valley. I

would point out that as far as competitors are concerned, the Interior

Provincial Exhibition in Armstrong attracts somewhere in the

neighbourhood of 86 percent of the competitors to the PNE. So while we

attract 86 percent of the competitors, the PNE in downtown Vancouver

receives three times the amount of subsidy from the Minister of

Agriculture as does the IPE.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit

that the budget of the PNE is of course higher. It has more than half

of the province of British Columbia located within its area to attract

displays and commercialized displays and a lot of homebuilding displays

and things having nothing to do with agriculture. Yet the Minister of

Agriculture contributes three times as much to that fair as he does to

the interior exhibition in Armstrong.

It's my view that

when giving grants to such things as this, we should be looking at

assisting the smaller ones to become larger so as to compete on an

equal basis throughout the province of British Columbia. It's true that

the PNE has a larger overall volume, more competitors and more prizes.

But looking at the tremendous crowds they're able to attract, surely

it's not equitable that we should be giving three times as much to a

downtown Vancouver agricultural exhibition as we give to one in the

interior.

Anyone attending the IPE would know the

tremendous benefits of a fair of that size. We attract exhibitors from

all over the province, particularly the interior. It allows farmers to

get to know one another, to compare various products that they're

engaged in, and it is a tremendous boost for the economy of the

Armstrong area. People travel many miles to come to Armstrong; it's the

interior hub of agriculture. Within a very few miles of Armstrong, we

have such agricultural products as dairy, beef, vegetables, berries,

fruit, rabbits, goats and honey, and indeed it is the hub of the

interior of the province of British Columbia.

We attract

agricultural competitors and exhibitors from Williams Lake, the

Kootenays, the entire Okanagan and indeed from some coastal areas. I

would ask the minister to please give consideration in drafting next

year's budget to the great job we're doing in the

Armstrong-Spillimacheen area in the field of agriculture and that

hundreds of people are contributing thousands of man-hours every year

on a volunteer basis. Please give consideration to equalizing those

grants so that we can get $30,000 for the interior exhibition and match

the PNE, because it's a great agricultural area and deserves the full

support of the province of British Columbia.

[11:00]

MS. EDWARDS :

I'm delighted to hear these particular figures about the Interior

Provincial Exhibition in Armstrong because, like the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke, I'm a great booster of the interior. I always like

to hear of the activities that go on in the interior. I like to remind

other people that there are lots of things that we do in the interior,

and sometimes we do them far better than those remote communities of

Vancouver and some in the Fraser Valley.

I'm really pleased to hear that the Armstrong exhibition attracts 86

percent — I presume that's in numbers exactly —

of the number of competitors that the PNE attracts. I'm not sure what

the extent of the exhibition is in Armstrong, but just by simple

theory, if you like, exactly what should it be? Obviously Armstrong is

at the centre of a farming community and Vancouver is as urban as it

can be. I certainly would like to assure the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke that he has my support in urging the Minister of

Agriculture to recognize these events, which are crucial to the culture

of the province, because every community in British Columbia has some

history of agricultural activity. This is truly important, even though

most of the communities in British Columbia, I admit, began as mining

towns.

You can't survive without agriculture. I think the

minister should be looking to work against the centralizing trend of

this government, which, interestingly enough, seems to be allowing the

kind of urbanization that we in the rural communities find not to our

benefit. I would thoroughly support the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

in asking for greater support from the ministry vis--vis the PNE. I'll

leave it at that and let the minister respond.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. SAVAGE : To the member for Shuswap Revelstoke, I certainly appreciate

the comments that were raised and appreciate also that for those of you who

are not aware, this government contributes some $190,000 in grants to fairs

throughout the province, of which the PNE gets $30,000. As the member reported,

IPE in Armstrong gets about $10,000. I give due credit to the fair program

throughout the province as it relates to agriculture, and the PNE, if nothing

else, for realizing that people in the urban centres have the opportunity to

appreciate what agriculture is all about in this province. It does, in fact,

draw from the same fairs — for instance, the IPE in Armstrong, the Chilliwack

fair, the Matsqui fair, etc. — and those same people are also drawn into the

fair at the Pacific National Exhibition.

The

$30,000 grant that goes to that is our commitment as a government. We

are looking, in conjunction with the federal government, at asking for

greater support so we can upgrade. I can tell you that there are a

number of capital projects being proposed in a number of these areas to

upgrade these facilities, to have a greater image in the communities

they're involved in.

I concur with the members who have

spoken this morning, and I would like to say that we have kept our

commitment up. It is the federal government that has been inclined to

back away from its commitment. The federal government, obviously, has

provided the prize moneys for many of the awards, but we feel that the

federal government should also be actively monetarily involved in

increasing its commitment toward the funding of these fairs. That's the

angle from which I, as the minister, am pursuing it. I agree with the

members that we would like to see greater funding, but, as I say, right

now we are very much encouraging the federal government to do its share

to enhance the opportunities for the public to have greater access and

greater appreciation of what agriculture is all about in all these

communities throughout the province.

MR. MICHAEL : I

just can't understand why, in all the other classifications of fairs,

if you qualify for a particular class you get a particular amount of

money,

whereas with the class As, for some reason or other the PNE

doesn't get what

[ Page 4316 ]

the other class A fairs receive, which is $10,000; it gets $30,000. I submit that a class A fair is a class A fair.

When

I go to the PNE or the Interior Provincial Exhibition, I have the

distinct feeling that as far as an agricultural fair is concerned,

Armstrong's IPE is one. When I think of the PNE, I think of a carnival

atmosphere; I think of homebuilding displays and all kinds of other

things that go on there, but I certainly don't have the feeling that it

is an agricultural fair.

I won't dwell any longer, Mr.

Speaker. I think the point has been made. I certainly look forward to

the minister making some changes next year. If he's unable to increase

his budget, certainly he could look at bringing the PNE grant down to

$20,000 and moving Armstrong up to $20,000, but more preferably, at

making them both $30,000. I will close with that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Chair recognizes the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey. [Applause.]

MS. CAMPBELL : I thank my hon. colleague for his gesture of support before he even knows what I'm going to say.

Mr. Speaker, by leave I move that a bill intituled Regent College Amendment Act, 1988, be introduced and now read a first time.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

REGENT COLLEGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

MS. CAMPBELL :

Mr. Speaker, Regent College is incorporated by statute. The Regent

College Amendment Act seeks to make two amendments to that statute.

Regent College is now in a process of considerable building and

expansion and seeks, by this amendment, to amend the maximum term to be

served by members of its board from three consecutive years to nine

consecutive years. Secondly, the amendment seeks to change the

terminology of the administration of the college so that the principal

would henceforth be known as the president of the college.

I move that Bill PR401 be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Member Services.

Motion approved.

MR. WILLIAMS : I ask leave of the House to make an introduction, if I

may.

Leave granted.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I would like to welcome to the House students from Gladstone high

school in Vancouver. Gladstone has had some glorious, well-known

graduates, who are incredibly intelligent and attractive people:

namely, my wife. I hope she's reading Hansard when this arrives at the

door. Would you welcome the students from Gladstone.

HON. L. HANSON : I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TOURISM, RECREATION AND CULTURE

(continued)

On vote 65: minister's office: $243,459.

MR. G. HANSON :

Before I direct my comments and questions to the Minister of Tourism,

Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid), I would like to join the first

member for Vancouver East in welcoming the students from my alma mater,

Gladstone. Having been a former gladiator, welcome.

I want

to direct a few questions to the Minister of Tourism about a matter for

which he is indirectly responsible, and that is the B.C. Steamship

Corporation. The minister responsible is the Attorney-General (Hon.

B.R. Smith) ; however, the Attorney-General's ministry does not have

the capability internally to do the assessments and address the

concerns that I have about the proposal to sell or joint venture or

enter into different arrangements with respect to the sailings and

ownership of the Marguerite and the Vancouver Island Princess , and the

impact that may have on tourism in our area.

I don't have

to tell the minister what the economic impact of that life-support

system for this region is. I have looked at the statistics, and 1 know

that the minister is basically operating out of the same book, "Visitor

'87," which gives global figures of the number of nights individuals

stay on Vancouver Island, why they come, whether they come by ferry or

automobile, whether they rent their automobiles, whether they walk on

and so on.

We have some numbers that indicate the extent to

which Americans come into Victoria and this region and roughly how long

they stay. It's estimated that visitors coming on the Marguerite stay

2.4 or 2.8 days on average, which I think a lot of people in this

region are not aware of. They think of them as day trippers, when in

actual fact they'll stay an average of something like 2.5 days. They'll

also spend something in the order of $55 to $60 each, on average. They

come because they like to tour primarily, not necessarily to visit

relatives. Those are smaller percentages.

This is all by

way of a

preamble to indicate that in my view — and the view on this

side of the House — that there is some sort of economic adventurism

happening around a system or a company that is performing well,

bringing people into this region who are bringing their capital. We

have a tourism industry which is on the ascendancy, in terms of its

role among other sectors of the economy; but it's seasonal. We've had

many discussions over time in this House about how to even out that

curve in that four or five months, and how to spread it out so people

come earlier in the spring and after for skiing holidays; to utilize

E&N Rail for proper package holidays up to Mt. Washington; to try

to have people go through to the west coast to see the beauties of this

island; to spread the economic impact throughout the island. I know that

the minister hasn't the primary responsibility for B.C. Steamships, but

he has responsibility for the impact of the decision that may be made

as a result of any sale or any kind of new economic arrangement with

the private sector. What studies has your ministry undertaken to

anticipate the impacts that may occur given a new economic arrangement

with B.C. Steamships?

[ Page 4317 ]

HON. MR. REID :

I'm glad the member asked that question, because we've just completed a

pocket-cruise study of the potential and incremental opportunities for

cruise shipping in and around Vancouver Island and the lower part of

British Columbia into those ports which aren't currently being

utilized. The report indicates that there is a strong opportunity, if

not for the Princess Marguerite and the VIP .... I hope that some

offer or suggestion does encompass a longer usage of the season for

those two ships to embellish the opportunity for further tourists into

Victoria, and also into and around other ports on Vancouver Island that

don't require large port facilities, as do the larger oceangoing cruise

ships.

As soon as that report is off the press I'll make

sure the member gets a copy, because it's very exciting. It talks about

the long-range potential of the Princess Marguerite and the VIP added

on to the other pocket-cruising opportunities in British Columbia.

Maybe because of Bill C-52 — which is a federal bill — and some of the

conditions they're putting on additional cruise shipping in British

Columbia.... If that act passes, it's going to be incumbent upon us

as government to maybe utilize better or to ask for some better

utilization — that either the current ferries or ferry purchases be for

more ports in the lower end of British Columbia.

So to

answer your question about whether the ministry has a study, the answer

is yes, and it encompasses those two ships. I think the member's

concern about a drop-off or a possible loss factor for Victoria as a

result of privatization of those two ships is a concern he should not

have.

[11:15]

MR. G. HANSON :

I know that study was undertaken. and I gather it's a joint

federal-provincial study primarily looking at cruise ships going up and

down the coast.

HON. MR. REID : No, pocket cruises.

MR. G. HANSON :

My question is a legitimate concern that arises out of this region,

because the Marguerite and the VIP are functioning well and are a major

economic aorta for this region; when someone starts to tinker with

that, it raises concern, and we don't want any anxiety around this

whole area. The Marguerite alone, as a conservative estimate, brings

about $15 million into this region in a period of just four to five

months, and the spinoff through the area is something we don't want

disturbed.

It appears to us that not enough consideration

is being given to the long-range impact. For example, the question is

raised about the tenure of the Marguerite ; that perhaps greater profits

could be garnered by an owner or a joint venture, by having another

vessel substituting for the Marguerite . The Marguerite is an

attraction; it's a vessel that has a particular charm in addition to

its economic benefit, and it's tried and true. We've seen

rocket-ship-type vessels, jetfoils, the most modern vessels going, with

high operating costs, come into the system, last a short while, abandon

the system. The Marguerite has a long tradition of operating

successfully, of faithfully plying the waters between Victoria and

Seattle, and we don't want it disturbed when it's working so

successfully. This is our legitimate concern in this area.

would like to see a study undertaken around B.C. Steamships and the

economic impact into Vancouver Island; specifically, what are the

operating costs. The subsidy to the B.C. Steamship Company is a

relatively small amount given the resources it brings into the region.

We don't have the confidence, on strict ideological grounds, that the

private sector can do it better. We've had that experience where a

large corporation such as the CPR was involved and abandoned it because

of balance sheet issues. We feel that here we have something so

important that we'd like to request that a study be undertaken prior to

any decision being made.

We know that the board of

directors has been asked to examine various options of joint venturing

and sale and so on. But we'd like a proper study undertaken so that

there are no surprises. We don't want any surprises at all around B.C.

Steamship, because as I say, it's a life-support system. We cannot

afford any withdrawal of service by a corporation saying, "For economic

reasons, we've had to modify schedules, cut back on service" or

anything like that. That is not acceptable, because it is just so

important.

It cuts across all political lines in this area,

as the minister knows. No matter what the political orientation of a

citizen in this region, everyone agrees that the B.C. Steamship is a

vital company in a sector of our economy. It's vital to our hospitality

industry and it ain't broke, so why is it being fixed?

HON. MR. REID :

I'll take the concern of that member to my colleague the

Attorney-General and try to get a response back. I don't know if the

Attorney-General has read the pocket cruise report, but I'll make sure

he does. Between the two of us, we'll get you an answer.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

My question changes the subject a little, but I'd like the minister to

know that there are members who want to follow up on this subject. I'll

try to be as brief as I can and hope the minister can be direct in his

answers.

I want to know first of all if the minister would

outline what he sees his responsibility to be under the auspices of

recreation in his ministry.

HON. MR. REID : In brief, full.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I guess the minister is telling us that he doesn't intend to be brief,

because he's not going to give us direct information. I'd like the

minister to outline his direct responsibilities to recreation. What

does he have to do to fulfil his mandate to the ministry under

recreation? Is it purely a matter of doing the Summer and Winter Games?

Does he have some responsibility to recreational facilities? What is

his mandate? What work is he doing to fulfil that mandate?

HON. MR. REID :

Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure what line in my estimates she's referring

to, but the mandate of the ministry is to handle the cultural, tourism

and recreation components of British Columbia. It's 18 hours a day,

divided equally between the three divisions of the ministry. So

recreation and sport get about a quarter of every day of my active life.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

In the quarter or third of your day devoted to recreation, Mr.

Minister, can you tell the House what your plans are to help fulfil the

recreational needs of the people of British Columbia? In particular, I

am concerned with the youth component. I am particularly concerned with

the recreational facilities and needs of the people in the suburbs

around the lower mainland. In particular, I am concerned about the

needs of the youth in Surrey. We are seeing

[ Page 4318 ]

headline

stories where the youth in Surrey do not have the facilities to play

softball, for instance. We do not have ice facilities in Surrey — and

you're well aware of that. Can you explain to this House what your

mandate is in providing for the needs of the young people in British

Columbia?

HON. MR. REID : My ministry annually administers around $10 million in

sports and recreation in the province, and not one penny of it is for capital

improvements from my ministry. My ministry administers youth programs and training

programs; all the programs in the province in sports and recreation come under

my ministry, funded on an annual basis with small increments when available.

But capital improvements in the province — and you should know this — are not

the responsibility of this minister. I do not have funds in my budget. Find

it in the budget, and I'll tell you how we spend it. But if you're getting

into the estimates, tell me what line in my estimates you're talking about.

Because if you're talking about the ice arena for North Surrey, I think

you've got to continue to make the case on behalf of your constituency and

of the youth to see if the funds can be acquired from another source. It's

not within my ministry.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Under your responsibility to recreation — and as far as I can see, you

are the only Minster responsible for recreation in the province of B.C. — I'd like to know whether I can go back to Surrey this weekend and

tell those kids what the Minister of Recreation is going to do for

them. Surely you have heard the cries for help out of our municipality

from all of those young people who have nothing more to do than hang

around shopping malls. What is the Minister of Recreation going to do

for those kids?

HON. MR. REID : I'm prepared to look

at whatever recommendations and proposals that member wants to go home

and find out that she can do for her constituents and bring back to me,

like every other MLA in this House does.

Where I can talk

about the programs, I'm prepared to circulate to your constituents

exactly the recreation programs that we have available and that are

going on. We're not Surrey specific, but I can tell them what we do. I

can tell them what funding is available, which sporting groups to call,

and which recreation associations to be involved with. Surrey has the

best parks and recreation department in the province, in my mind, and

they do everything within the confines and the money that they have

available. Why don't you go and press them for increasing the taxes to

the Surrey residents to do the things you want to do?

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'd just like to agree with the minister that we have very good people

on the ground in Surrey in parks and rec. They are doing everything

that they can with the very limited resources that they have.

Basically,

what the minister has told this House is that he is not prepared and he

does not have the ability to do anything for those kids. I would like

to have on the record of this House my request to the minister to

provide me with full information in writing about his ability and his

ideas about what he, as the Minister of Recreation, can do for not only

Surrey, but for all of the suburbs that are expressing concern over the

phenomenal growth rate and the need for those communities' young

people to have recreational facilities and programs to meet their

needs. Mr. Minister, the message is that your programs are not meeting

the needs. My request for information and a comment from you is for

what you are going to do about it. I am dismally disappointed that the

minister has not offered a solution or even the mere indication that he

is thinking about how to deal with this problem.

HON. MR. REID : I take exception to those comments, but that's the style of that particular member.

Surrey,

as a result of this minister's responsibility, has had more attention

paid to it for its sporting and recreation components than any other

constituency in the province. In fact, I'm accused of having favoritism

towards Surrey. Surrey is getting the Summer Games in 1989 and around

$1.5 million will be spent on behalf of the taxpayers of British

Columbia for those games hosted in Surrey. If you can go back and talk

your constituent sporting and recreation groups into becoming involved

with volunteering and getting ready for the Summer Games to be held in

your constituency in 1989, that's the best thing you can do.

MR. G. HANSON :

I'd like to come back to a matter relating to B.C. Steamships again, on

a matter that's directly the responsibility of this minister; that is

the external marketing. Looking at this report and where people come

from in the United States to Vancouver Island, it is clear that the

emergence of California, and southern California in particular....

Although there is not a breakdown here, it's my information that

southern California is the growth area for us. When you look at

California and other western U.S. states and Oregon, it comprises a

large percentage of tourists into his region.

I would like

to ask a specific question. What is the external marketing budget for

California and the southwestern U.S. for this coming year?

Perhaps

while the deputy is looking for it.... As the minister knows,

there's a direct payoff in terms of dollars pent in marketing and the

direct revenue that comes back from tourist visitations. So any

reduction in external marketing is going to have an impact here in

Victoria. I'd like him to assure us that there will not be any

reduction in external marketing that would impact on the passenger flow

from Seattle into Victoria.

[11:30]

HON. MR. REID : I'm sorry, I don't have the specific dollar that

we're earmarking for the California market, but I an tell you it's 32

percent of our visitation profile, and so it's 2 percent of our direct interest.

Our 800 number, which we currently have in place, is giving us 600 calls a day,

of which three-quarters are coming from the United States. I think about 60

percent of those would be from the California market.

answering your question, Mr. Member, we have some television marketing

in L.A. at the moment which we had put n place late last fall and early

this spring; it will probably some to an end towards the end of this

tourism season. Secondly, there is strong publication marketing in that

same market because of the strong representation to the economy here

from California. I don't know the exact number because my staff, since

the reshuffle in the budget, have not been able to get back to what

portions of the actual allocations for international marketing can be

continued in California in relation to the global budget at the moment.

[ Page 4319 ]

I want to give comfort to the member in saying that we do recognize that

our strongest market in international visitors is California, 26

million people. We continue to market as strongly there as we can

afford to. We're looking now — and I'm glad he raised it in the context

of the B.C. Steamships — at cooperating our marketing programs with B.C.

Steamships, B.C. Ferries, B.C. Rail, B.C. Transit and other Crown

corporations who are also marketing in similar markets. By coordinating

that, we'll get a bigger bang for our buck.

Unfortunately,

I cannot provide him with the final number. I can take the balance on

notice, if you wish, and provide that to you within a couple of weeks.

MR. G. HANSON :

I guess the worry to us is when we look in the estimates at the amount

of dollars for marketing and the reduction from $18.7 million in '87 to

$11.7 million, a reduction of approximately 30 percent. Every study

seems to indicate that every dollar spent in marketing tourism has a

direct proportional return. The worry is that when you're cutting your

vote there, that might manifest itself in a reaction in this region,

which we don't want to have happen. I'm sure the minister doesn't want

that to happen either. What we need is to have that minister go back to

Treasury Board and get that topped up to $18 million.

HON. MR. REID :

I thank that member for his suggestion. There's no question that with

the allocation of funds in 1988-89, the challenge to my ministry and my

staff in marketing, who are the best there is in North America, without

question.... The innovative ideas we've brought in in the last two

years plus the new one we've brought in with the new 800 number in

1988, which is working very effectively and giving us even further

direct response availability, plus immediate impact relative to

specific marketing programs and whatever advertising programs are out

there.... We're getting immediate response to those, now knowing how

to refocus and redirect that.

I want to emphasize to the

member just how successful we have been since 1985 in relation to the

U. S. market. I want to point out that in 1987 the accommodation

revenues in British Columbia were up 25.2 percent over 1985. Ferry

traffic was up 12.2 percent. Air passenger arrivals into British

Columbia were up 2 percent. I'm using '85 numbers. The campground usage

in British Columbia was up 37.8 percent over 1985. The U.S. arrivals

into British Columbia were up 31.2 percent over 1985. I would suggest

that 32 percent or 50 percent of that probably was from California.

Rogers Pass was up 5.7 percent over 1985, and our restaurant sales were

up 28.7 percent over 1985. Those are significant numbers over the very

successful year of 1985. I can also give you all the incremental

numbers. They were plus-factor relative to 1986 — not as large as that,

because it had a very competitive year, but they were all a percentage

higher than 1986, and significantly in some areas relative to....

Getting

back to the question. Because of the innovative marketing programs we

put in place during 1986 to take advantage of the Expo thrust and the

world-class recognition, last year we went to Treasury Board and asked

for an additional $5 million or $6 million - I can't remember the exact

number. We were granted it on the understanding that we would be able

to keep the momentum going. We proved it, and the momentum is still

there. What we've been asked by Treasury Board and others is to take

the challenge and be as innovative as we have been in the past and make

it work.

If that member was prepared to make an amendment

to my estimates that they go up by $5 million or $6 million, it would

probably be the only amendment that would ever be accepted in the

House. Normally we stand here to be challenged about how we waste

taxpayers' money, and how we don't use it very effectively. I'm proud

to hear that side of the House commending my staff and this minister

for the way we're handling taxpayers' money and doing a proper job of

it. If the amendment were to come from that member, we may get some

support from all members of the House in that resolution.

MR. G. HANSON :

I think we just may be able to accommodate that minister, because it's

clear, when you look at page 15 of this report, that the growth areas

for tourism coming into this region are southern California, California

and international visitors. Any reduction in external marketing would

be something we would be most opposed to.

It indicates that

the close-in U.S. markets declined slightly, while the more distant

markets increased. Clearly the federal program of "come to a world next

door," or whatever the theme is, is a very successful program — very

professional and very well done. To reiterate our concern, if you cut

back in the marketing into the California area or the west coast of the

U.S., we feel that's penny wise and pound foolish, because that is a

growth market for us. The international numbers are coming up, and it

makes good business sense, whether it's that side of the House or this

side of the House, given the research.

MR. R. FRASER : Aye.

MR. G. HANSON :

He has obviously seen some marketing into the Bahamas and into Antigua,

and it has drawn him away.... The per capita income was $200 a

year, so things are a little different there.

To summarize,

our concerns are twofold.

(1) We don't want any economic adventurism

around the operation of B.C. Ferry Corporation that would impact

negatively on this region, because it's working well, and it's tried

and true. Why get into something that puts the hospitality and tourism

industry — in its broadest possible terms — at risk in this region?

(2) Any reduction of external marketing that impacts in terms of passenger

flow on those vessels is also a deleterious thing which we feel is not

wise.

In those two areas, we urge the minister to go back

to Treasury Board, make sure that marketing program is intact and,

similarly, consult with his colleague, the minister responsible for

B.C. Steamships, and indicate that we need a comprehensive economic

impact study around any alterations of the formula that's working so

well for this region.

MR. SIHOTA : I want to talk

briefly with respect to the comments made by my good friend the first

member for Victoria. I will be very quick here, because we are running

out of time, I think that the government's intention to effectively

give up control or some control over the Maggie is misguided. I think —

more importantly and in a more positive vein — the government ought to

be looking at a Maggie II to do the Victoria to San Francisco run, or a

Maggie III, if the minister wants to say that.

However,

under no circumstances should that vehicle be placed in private hands.

That should be a public enterprise, as the successful Maggie has been

to date. If anything, the

[ Page 4320 ]

government

may want to consider a lease operation for a couple of years to test

the market, if there is a need to do that. He should get on with

constructing the Maggie II and constructing it here in B.C. That should

be the overall game plan, because it would provide far greater economic

benefits in terms of construction in ridings like mine in Esquimalt and

in that of the government House Leader.

At the same time it

would fill a much-needed tourist need. I think that's what the

government's strategy ought to be, as opposed to what we're hearing

from the government, particularly through the auspices of the

Attorney-General. Those are the only points I wanted to make on the

matter.

HON. MR. REID : I hear your concerns, and I

also heard them from the other member. I will be talking to the

Attorney General about the subject to make certain that you can satisfy

your minds that any move in relation to that will be a positive one, or

we wouldn't make it. An example that Victoria should recall is Pacific

Coach Lines, which, when it was run by us as government, was costing

the taxpayers $7 million a year. We handed it off to the private

sector, they increased the ridership and the service, and they also

picked up the tab.

If that kind of success story can happen.... I want to give my assurance to both of those members that it

would be folly to create a situation where the Marguerite and the VIP

did not give equivalent service, or better, to what it gives at the

moment. I know I'm encouraged from the presentations I've seen that

we'll get extended service, more service and probably better service.

But that's to be seen. I hear your concerns.

MS. EDWARDS :

I want to get back to what we broke off with yesterday. You were

talking about the projects you had done in the cultural and arts area.

You were talking about three-year funding. I'm curious to know how

much.... Maybe I'm getting into lotteries; some of this is lotteries

funding. Maybe we should do that first.

How much money will

the ministry get this year from the lotteries for funding? I think

that's a good place to start. I would also like to know how that

compares to last year. In general, is that funding going to be

distributed in the same way that it was last year?

HON. MR. REID :

The lottery funding provided to my ministry for recreation, culture and

heritage in 1988-89 is $22.016 million. It's down by about $1 million

from 1987-88. It's distributed for cultural programs, festivals of the

arts, multicultural programs, library services, heritage programs, the

Heritage Trust, sports and recreation programs, B.C. Games and new

initiatives.

MS. EDWARDS : Have I got that right? I

think you said it was down about $1 million from last year. Mr.

Minister, my observation on that is, of course, that the lotteries

money was originally set up to cover recreational, cultural and

heritage needs in this province. I don't think those needs have become

less. I know for a fact that the costs of servicing those needs and

helping the industry are not less; they have gone up.

wonder whether the minister is going to make some more representations

or whether he has any hope of, instead of having the funds for this set

aside for some reason somewhere else.... Remember, this year all of

these lottery funds are going into the BS fund. Last year they were all

going to pay off Expo. When will it again be the turn of the people who

have needs in recreation, culture and heritage — which is all of us — to

get a larger share and to get back to a reasonable share of those funds?

[11:45]

HON. MR. REID : Mr. Chairman, soon, I hope.

MS. EDWARDS : Does that mean within this budget year?

HON. MR. REID : I don't have any evidence of it being available. I said to you: "Soon, I hope." The word is "hope."

MS. EDWARDS :

Does it depend only on whether or not the Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Veitch) changes his mind or the Treasury Board changes its mind?

Has the minister any input into that?

HON. MR. REID :

It's determined by lots of things, and one of them is the need of the

community and the case being made by each of the components in the

community making a case for additional funding.

MS. EDWARDS :

In other words, that amount for the minister to distribute could go up.

I know the minister doesn't distribute all of the lottery funds, but

could this ministry's share of that funding go up depending on the

advocacy of the communities?

HON. MR. REID : That's highly likely, yes.

MS. EDWARDS :

I hope we have some very persuasive communities and that you're

expecting to have very persuasive communities and, as you say, that

this is an ongoing thing and is simply a matter of just nudging an arm

for you to get some more funding for these particular areas, because to

have to tell me that the funding out of the lotteries is $1 million

down from last year seems to me another very great disappointment for

the people of this province.

However, I do want to go on

to the funding that you do, and one of the things you've been talking

about: three-year funding for some of the major cultural organizations

and institutions in the province. Could you tell me how much is

involved in that? Are you going to multi-year funding for all of the

organizations and institutions under the lotteries funds?

HON. MR. REID :

Ultimately, yes. None of them are signed up for a three-year contract

with my ministry without a full-fledged business plan that indicates

what the three-year planning for that component is, and what

commitments they need to make, and what kind of input they're going to

have. With an annual report indicating that they've been able to meet

the commitments and the programs they've agreed to, the second year of

incremental funds will kick in, and the third year. The reason we're

doing that is to create a businesslike attitude on behalf of the

cultural community out there as to using taxpayers' money in the best

way possible and without having a desperate problem annually about

whether they're going to get funding. If they make a case for a

business plan, if they make a case for three-year funding and we sign

on the dotted line, they're in for three years minimum. We're doing it

on a businesslike basis with each component which we fund. My staff are

meeting with those components and talking to them, and if they're in a

position

[ Page 4321 ]

of being able to sign up for a three-year contractual arrangement for funding, we're prepared to sign on the dotted line also.

MS. EDWARDS :

Mr. Minister, I don't want to sound totally negative on this, because I

think this is one of the most positive things that you're doing as

well. British Columbia is the envy of some other areas where they still

go from year-to year funding, and I think a move to multi-year funding

is very positive.

However, I do hear in what you say that

there would be an incremental aspect — in other words, I presume, a

growth aspect — in some of these three-year contracts. An increment

usually means it goes up, as I understand the lingo. I would like to

know whether in fact there are increases put into these three-year

contracts, and also whether the ministry.... When they make the

commitment for the three years, are they going to be able to meet that

commitment, given the cuts that have been made to the minister's budget

this year? I hope that's not going to happen again, but what assurance

can the organizations have that the ministry will be able to meet its

commitments under a three-year funding contract?

HON. MR. REID :

I want to make it abundantly clear that all the contracts we've signed

are on the understanding that current funds will be available and

additional increments, if they can be justified, will be met by the

ministry if they're signed on the line — always subject to funds being

available.

MS. EDWARDS : I guess that says it all, Mr. Minister.

Mr.

Minister, are you satisfied with the province's amount of funding to

arts and culture, or are you working to have it increased so that it

would be more in line with even the average across Canada?

HON. MR. REID :

As the minister responsible for recreation and culture, I can tell you,

you can never be satisfied with the funds available for that component

of the community out there. It's made up of so many volunteers who

participate and offer so much of their own time. I give the assurance

to that member that I continue to press, where possible, for additional

funding for those two components. They deserve all the support you and

I can get. To be negative about it is the last thing that any member

should be. So I say, please don't be negative about it.

make a case; I have not lost ground in relation to current funding for

any programs out there. I lost some ground for new initiatives in

1988-89 in that we couldn't make a case for incremental funding which

was required last year for the JobTrac program, which was not available

under the program itself, but we were able to assist it under new

initiatives. We weren't able to win that, but it did not affect — I

want to make it abundantly clear — the cultural funding in place in

1987-88. In fact, there are incremental increases in some components

because of contracts we signed last year as a result of success stories

on their programs and their business plans.

MS. EDWARDS :

Mr. Minister, I think it would have to be recognized that it's not a

bigger program if the grant amount from lotteries is $1 million down.

But I leave that for a moment to go on to the other studies that your

ministry did.

Under a task force you came forward with the

Project Pride report, and you now have an Artsreach report, and you

have, I guess, the final report from the library task force. Could the

minister tell me what he plans to do with these reports? Are they going

to result in some action, and what's the time-frame on that?

HON. MR. REID :

First of all, I will give you the assurance that you will see action

out of every report. Those task forces that made their way around the

province and interviewed in every community possible, discussing

subjects of all four task forces, were in some cases the first time in

history that the province has taken on that role. A couple of them had

kinds of task forces instituted in the '78-79 years, but this ministry

took it upon itself to get out and get some answers from the public on

what they perceive the culture, heritage, sport, recreation and library

systems input to be and to tell this government and our staff what

direction should be taken for all those components.

saying that, I want to give you the assurance that they will not

collect dust. They all require us to make a strong case for additional

funds in the upcoming years. They all conjure up funds, but they are

all related specifically to programs and initiatives that have been

identified and that should be looked after out there. Since I don't

have additional funds to do it in 1988-89, we will continue to assess

the recommendations in all those reports and try, where possible, to

implement all those that are not cost-generated.

For those

that have funds generated to them, we have to make individual cases to

Treasury Board for programs which probably have to be perceived to be

put in place in the years '89-90 — those kinds of things. But I want to

give you the assurance that they weren't put in place by very

energetic, competent and enthusiastic people only to be given the deep-six treatment. No way.

MS. EDWARDS : Particularly

with the "Artsreach Report, " there are two alternatives proposed and

you assure me that ongoing assessment will be made. Will that

assessment continue to welcome and make possible public input? Because

the "Artsreach Report" does not come to any particular conclusion about

which way it should go. Members of the arts community whom I've talked

to don't feel it has ended; that feeling of finishing is not there with

the "Artsreach Report" — which is not necessarily a criticism. In the

ongoing assessment, will the public continue to be involved?

HON. MR. REID :

The answer is yes. As a matter of fact, we're still taking input from

all the organizations identified by the "Artsreach Report." We still

have comments and recommendations coming in daily. So for that reason,

the one report, which we do not have a final update on, is Artsreach.

The other ones — New Approaches, Project Pride and the sport Gameplan

2000 — have had their reports completed, but Artsreach hasn't.

MS. EDWARDS :

I wanted to ask you one more thing about the recreational aspect of it,

the Seniors' Games. I've had some input on the Seniors' Games and I

don't know what your plans are for it. Some of the organizers were very

upset with the problems they had, and they felt that the amount of

funding was not enough. I'm not saying simply that we need more money;

I'm asking — and you must have heard the complaints — if you are going

to be able to address the complaints. I believe most of them had to do

with travel for seniors.

[ Page 4322 ]

From

what I see in some of the investigations I've done since I heard the

complaints, there is more equal funding than I originally thought there

was. Is there some plan for the Seniors' Games to become so solidly

recognized that they will have a longer-term input of planning and so

on?

HON. MR. REID : I know the seniors' group has had

some apprehension in the last few months. This minister is the first

minister ever to recognize the Seniors' Games as a separate entity. We

agreed to put them in place in 1988-89 in Vernon. We anticipated them

to require funding similar to the other independent games — those run

by the handicapped, the Special Olympics and so on. We offered them

initially $35,000 for the 1988-89 component. We also gave them, for a

year's usage, one of our senior staff in sports and rec, Mr. Gordon

Cameron, to help them with that.

The mechanics of pulling

it together in its first year have been a little loose, and we

apologize for that. It's really been the fault of three or four

parties, not a network, in order to resolve that. I can tell the member

that since the Seniors' Games were agreed to be put in place and we

agreed to fund them, we now have on my staff one of my senior

representatives who looks after games other than the Summer and Winter

Games. It's the component called "other games." I think he's in Vernon

today, as a matter of fact, presenting them with the funds — $80,000

in total that we are giving them this year to help them with the

first-year games. Plus we have a senior rep up there today to make sure

that if there are any glitches they can be looked after.

One

thing I will give that member assurance on: we will not let down the

seniors with their first annual games in the province of British

Columbia.

MR. BARNES : I want to switch the subject

just a bit to find out the minister's responsibility with respect to

multiculturalism, specifically the authority that he has with respect

to the heritage adviser's office. I'd like the minister to clarify for

the committee the government's policy with respect to multiculturalism

and the allocation of funding for the 13 or so agencies associated with

services throughout the province for that community, and to generally

give us an impression of the government's strategy with respect to

liaising with the multicultural community — the expectations with

respect to demographic change, concerns about the effectiveness of the

policy in line with federal policy, and the extent that we are

cost-sharing programs or generally trying to implement the spirit and

principles of multiculturalism as we have come to know it in Canada.

Rather

than make a long introductory expression on the part of the opposition

in terms of what we would like to see, I'd like to have the minister

perhaps save us time by stating the lay of the land, so to speak, as it

exists today, and then I can respond.

[12:00]

HON. MR. REID :

I thank the member for his questions and his ongoing concern for the

multicultural component of the B.C. government in relation to what is

going on and the policy and the funding. When I took on this ministry,

the one component I did not have a handle on — and I make no apologies

for it.... Collectively, the governments of the last few years in

British Columbia have not provided incremental funding towards the

multicultural component out there that is necessary in order to show

support for the multicultural community in a broader way than we have

in the past.

In saying that we — and my cultural heritage

committee of cabinet — in the last six to eight months, in order to

address that, have asked for suggested recommendations to a council of

members from a broad spectrum of the multicultural community —

recommended members to make up this council so that we can, in a short

period of time.... I'm suggesting that within 60 days, because I don't

want to make a time-frame we can't meet, the council will be put in

place. It will have as broad a spectrum of representation of the

multicultural community as conceivable to be workable, so that the

community itself will then have some direct input by virtue of that

council, with a chairman appointed by themselves, to talk about and

visit communities around the province about all issues to do with the

subject.

The difficulty I find with the multicultural

department of the ministry is that it has been very haphazard over the

years. There's no particular reason for it, except that it doesn't seem

that we have addressed primarily the needs of the multicultural

community on an ongoing basis, because it is growing so fast in our

province, particularly in the metro area. I've met with large groups of

them, and on an individual basis. We have a cultural adviser, Enrico

Diano, advising me on a regular basis on how to apportion out the

limited funds we have available, which is not — in my mind — the best

method. I think the community itself should be talking about what is

available and how it should be apportioned out to do a better job for

that community.

If it's not enough, somebody else has to

make the case; that's what a council does. My sports advisory council

comes to me and pounds on the desk with my staff and says: "Mr. Reid,

you're not making a strong enough case, and here's why." The arts group

comes and pounds on the desk and says: "Mr. Reid, you're not making a

strong enough case on behalf of the arts council on three-year

funding." So we listened to them, and we made some recommendations, and

they said: "You aren't hearing from the community out there on heritage

and culture." So as you know, we put in Project Pride last year to go

around the province and talk to the community which they said we hadn't

heard very well.

I'm proud of what happened out there. Some

of the recommendations we got are a little difficult to implement,

because they have a cost-factor attributed to them. I'm not saying they

shouldn't be done. I have a little empathy for the multicultural one.

Once this council is in place — and I give you the assurance that it

will be — it's time for the community to have a spokesperson come to

the cultural heritage advisory committee meetings on an invitation

basis and bring us up to date on what they perceive we should be doing

for that community on a regular basis.

I know it's kind of

scattered around. I don't want to give you the shotgun approach, but

I'm saying that we do have some concern. As I said to that member

before, we haven't done it as well as this minister would like. I give

you the assurance that it will be one of our priorities in 1988-89.

MR. BARNES :

I was sitting here somewhat flabbergasted by the minister's remarks.

Clearly he doesn't belong on that side of the House, because you're way

out of line with the remarks you just made. In all the years I've been

here, I haven't heard a minister even indicate the desire to do the

kind of things you're suggesting should be done. Also, to be so

critical of past government policy, which has been

[ Page

4323 ]

atrocious.... You didn't use strong language, but you made it quite

clear that there's an awful lot that can be done. I presume, based on what

you've been finding by talking to these groups, — that there's a lot

of evidence to support the need for more government participation.

was wondering if you recall the brief that was presented to the cabinet

on social programs last September. It was presented on behalf of a

delegation of private and non-profit immigrant service agencies. A

pretty telling bit of evidence came out of that report indicating that

British Columbia spends about 5 percent of the money that the federal

government expends for immigrant services in the province of British

Columbia. That's like saying $9 per immigrant, compared to $120 by

Alberta; $44 by Saskatchewan; $30 by Manitoba; $90 by Ontario and $133

by Quebec.

So your condemnation of your government's policy

is well-founded. It's incredible that in a province like British

Columbia, where we are on the Pacific Rim, and we are promoting a

multicultural society.... In fact, the demographics in the public

school system bore out these facts that there's such a mixture that

we're going to have to take a look at the basic curriculum in terms of

what is essential in order for people to function in this society. We

is serious and is close to crisis in this province.

It's

not going to get any better unless there is a stated statutory

commitment on the part of the government. I don't mean money coming

from the lotteries fund — as has unfortunately been the case — or ad

hockery. We're talking about public policy dealing with information

that we're collecting, partially through the council that you're

suggesting may come up, but also through an ongoing agency monitoring

the situation in terms of economic and fiscal planning, recognizing the

value and the contributions being made as a result of this image that

we have as a multicultural society. We're benefiting from it, but we're

not taking care of it. We're allowing it to erode, and it is at risk.

These

are the things that I think we need to address seriously, so I'm not

really able to condemn the minister. It's almost like saying: " Where

have you been all our lives?" We haven't been hearing this in the past;

I'm pleased. I want to congratulate you for your responses to the

serious questions I'm raising.

For the record — and even

more so for my own understanding —

I've always been curious about the

role of your heritage adviser who has his office in Vancouver in the

Media Centre there. He has been shown in Public Accounts as receiving

anywhere from $160,000 or $250,000 annually. He has been receiving....

I don't know how many years he has been there, but I will say

it's probably since 1980 or '79 or so. Maybe you could clarify how long

he's been there.

That's important in terms of the history

of this battle for getting funding for multicultural programs, because

in the election of '79, Grace McCarthy was the minister responsible at

the time and there was this big public agent, this big organized plan —

conference, I think it was called — for multiculturalism to get all of

the recommendations for public policy. But that was never implemented

and it died.

We've got some background information on what should be happening, and

we've got some preliminary work that has been done, but what is the heritage

adviser's mandate, outside of providing grants occasionally for ceremonial

events throughout the multicultural community? He had $250,000, 1 believe,

for '87-'88. I don't know what he's got for '88-'89.

Could you...?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES : Is part of that salary? What is his contract in terms of his duty?

One

final question, if you could answer this as well. What authority has he

to grant? Does he come back to the cabinet committee for heritage

and cultural preservation? Is that his arm?

HON. MR. REID :

I'll take all your questions in context, because I can answer each of

them. First of all, the role that he has is that he does not have the

spending authority for the allocation of the $250,000. He makes

recommendations as a result of applications. Every application that

comes in to me as the minister I refer back to him to vet, to look at,

to find out whether it's a bona fide group that deserves the support of

the government and my ministry and the cabinet.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID : Oh yes, the community makes the application.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID :

Well, that's what the council will do. Let me give it to you this way.

We talked about the past; Let's talk about the future. The council, in

the future, will do that. These are tough decisions to make. If you

know what your budget is for a year and you're getting requests that

are ten times your volume of dollars available, it's a pretty tough

decision. What has happened in the past, because of the kinds of

requests that come in, and, as you know, the varied interests in the

multicultural community....

A community of 400 people —

for instance, the Brazilians — may make a request for $1,800 or $2,000 to put on a festival. Without the knowledge daily — and I don't

have that knowledge at my fingertips — about the size of the group and

the kind of impact they have on the community, far be it from me to

write them back and say: "Sorry. We don't have enough money in the

kitty. We're tying to make it stretch to the end of the year." I send

it back to that adviser and I say to him: "Please advise me and my

cabinet committee on the magnitude of the need relative to the volume

of dollars available. What's your recommendation on this application?"

It will come back and he'll say: "They wanted $1,800. They could

probably do just as adequate a job as the Fijians, who got $1,500 to

do a similar program. So I'd suggest $1,500." I take it to the

committee and then the committee votes on the allocation. When the

committee votes on it, we then advise the cultural heritage adviser

that the cheque can be cut and it can be presented to that group on

behalf of the ministry. That's how it works.

The global sum

is always in question. Secondly, how it's handled: the cultural adviser

is strictly an adviser. He has no authority or power to do anything

other than be an adviser to the minister and to the cabinet committee

on multicultural activities.

You made reference to the 1979

study and forum and workshop that was held in Vancouver. It was two and

a half days. I read through that, and as I said to you earlier, in the

[ Page 4324 ]

report

made to our committee in September or October of 1987, they drew some

recommendations out of that '79 report. The only one we were able to

embellish and endorse right away was the council request: that there be

a council of multicultural representatives drawn up. That was the first

one.

The difficulty with the other one about having a

written policy is that the federal government, as you know, had just

come down with a brand-new policy within days of that meeting, and we

weren't in a position, without knowing what the federal policy — it had

been enunciated by the Hon. Mr. Crombie at the time — meant in the long

haul. What we didn't want to do was have a policy come out then which

was contradictory, maybe, in a small way. In that community, as you

know, it's very delicate. You've got to handle it with kid gloves so

that you don't offend anybody, because there are different opinions on

what should be done, and with reference to that report, you'll see it:

what one group says, the other's not totally in favour of. But in

saying that, that's what the council, I hope, will give us some help

with. Once we have that in place, then you and I can have this dialogue

on an ongoing basis, saying: "Are they doing their job?" You can make a

challenge to them once they are appointed.

[12:15]

MR. BARNES :

I will just wind up with one final expression of hope, in that I'm

interpreting the minister's words in as liberal a way as I can and

expecting that the parameters are unlimited for what we can expect in

terms of a new public policy on multiculturalism in the province of

British Columbia, and that in fact we are talking about an unlimited,

open approach to just what is required, and it's going to have the

weight of statutory commitments to consolidated revenue — it will not be

left up to the whims of the political winds in terms of whether the

lottery funds are coming in or not — and that we recognize that this is

a substantive, very serious commitment and necessary in terms of the

balance that we require.

In other words, it's the same as

looking after the family; it's the same kind of commitment that we make

in ensuring that people have equality, fairness and opportunity to

participate, and that they experience the fullness of their citizenship

and rights in this province. I think this is what we're talking about;

this is what the federal government wants to do, and this is vital and

essential. If we are going to continue with a fair immigration policy

such as we have in terms of allowing people to become new Canadians,

then we've got to help them settle and we've got to give them the

opportunity to adjust and to develop and to have a sense of pride at

having made that major decision to become a part of this great country.

I want to commend you for your candour. In fact, I'm quite surprised at

the positiveness of this brief exchange, because it looks to me like

somebody has gotten to you. I doubt if it has been many of the

colleagues of the past; something new is happening. But it's a good

sign, and I hope that within 60 days you will be reporting back about

who those members are on the council and that they will not be

restricted in keeping the public informed about what's happening, and

that we can all participate; it's way overdue. I'm pleased about that.

Vote 65 approved.

Vote 66: ministry operations, $45,672,508 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. L. Hanson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:18 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1988, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada