1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8735 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 8735

Oral Questions

Awarding of ResWest contract. Mr. Hanson –– 8735

Expo 86. Mr. MacWilliam –– 8736

Sanctions against South Africa. Mr. Barnes –– 8736

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Gardom)

On vote 47: minister's office –– 8737

Hon. Mr. Gardom, Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Barnes, Ms. Sanford, Ms. Brown, Mr. Skelly, Mrs. Johnston, Hon. Mr. Hewitt, Mr. Cocke

Estimates: Ombudsman –– 8748

Estimates: Auditor-General –– 8748

Estimates: Legislation –– 8748

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

On vote 71: ministry operations –– 8748

Mr. MacWilliam, Mr. Rose, Mr. Blencoe, Mr. Howard

Tabling Documents –– 8760

MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased today to

make an introduction. Mrs. Carolyn Bundy and her son David are in our

gallery this afternoon. Last Friday night they were the special and

very honoured guests of the Vancouver Centennial Museum. The museum has

a remarkable display this month and for a few months to follow of the

artifacts of, and gives an explanation of the life and the voyages of,

Captain George Vancouver. In this special Expo 86 year and one

hundredth birthday for Vancouver, this is a remarkable exhibition which

I would commend to all members.

Mrs. Carolyn Bundy is a direct descendant of this remarkable young

sailor, who at the age of 14 took to the sea and his voyages are, of

course, so much a part of British Columbia's and Vancouver's history.

Mrs. Bundy is here with her son. She lives in Norfolk and David is a

librarian from Lewisham near London. I would ask the House, as part of

the one hundredth birthday of Vancouver as well as our Expo 86

celebrations, to welcome Mrs. Carolyn Bundy and her son David.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, would the House welcome today a

resident of Victoria, a Ms. Doris Chester. Ms. Chester is very active

with the Maritime Museum auxiliary and the Victoria General auxiliary.

Would the House please make her welcome today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome

some visitors from Tenerife in the Canary Islands of Spain, visiting

our province to attend Expo, accompanied by Mrs. Elizabeth Chandler,

with whom they are staying. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs.

Dennis Tanner.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to welcome to the House this

afternoon a good friend of mine and of the first member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald), Mrs. Joan Saxton.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today visiting

from Australia with Louise and I are Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd and Brenda

Bone, two very wonderful people. I found out today something that I

never knew before, that it's really not Australia, Mr. Speaker, it's

Australia. They are wonderful people, and I would ask the House to make

them welcome to British Columbia.

Hon Mr. Curtis tabled a statement of guarantees and indemnities

issued as authorized by

section 56 of the Financial Administration Act,

for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986.

Oral Questions

AWARDING OF RESWEST CONTRACT

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Tourism. Will

the minister advise why the government used a single contractor to prepare the

background study for an accommodation and reservation system here in the province

of British Columbia which was finally concluded to ResWest?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm not sure I understand, Mr. Speaker,

the entire meaning of the question. We put the reservation system out

to tender, and there were several bidders. After much study of all the

bids, contract was awarded to ResWest.

MR. HANSON: Another question to the minister. My concern is

focused primarily on the single contractor that vetted the bids and

that set up the proposal and the application; that group is the

Sentinel Group. I'd like the minister to advise the House why the

Sentinel Group of Mr. Michael Burns — Patrick Kinsella and Douglas Heal

are members of that group.... Why did the government enter into a

contract with Sentinel Strategies and the Sentinel Group to vet the

process, to set up the selection process, and negotiate the contract?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, those people were chosen for

their expertise in the computer field. As you may or may not know, Mr.

Michael Burns spent many years with IBM. Because of the great expertise

these people had, we used them to advise us. But the decision was made

by my ministry.

MR. HANSON: The owners of the ResWest accommodation service

are entitled, under their contract with the government, to charge every

hotel and motel operator a $150 registration fee and a 10 percent

commission on every night's accommodation booked by tourists to our

province. ResWest expects revenue in excess of $3 million under this

monopoly situation. Will the minister explain why the government chose

the chief corporate fund-raiser for the Social Credit Party, Mr.

Michael Bums, to set up this monopoly reservation system?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I've already answered that question. If the member has another question, I'd be pleased to answer it.

MR. HANSON: I have many questions, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Michael

Burns's contract with the ministry was signed on January 16, 1985. It

provides a fee to Sentinel Strategies Ltd. In the amount of $33, 350

for services allegedly performed in the previous calendar year. The

contract dated January 16, 1985 requests payment be made by January 21,

1985. What work was performed, why was the contract designed and

developed retroactively, and what was the rush which required the funds

be transferred to Mr. Burns within six days?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: One must remember, when dealing with

these, that it was an entirely new function that we were setting up,

and we had to have some parameters in order to even go to tender on

this — we had to draw up a model. As for the exact dates of cheques

being issued, I'm afraid I can't remember exactly when contracts were

signed. So I'll leave it at that. But they did an extensive amount of

work for us so that we could even go to tender, and they also helped us

evaluate the bids. Other than that, there's not much else I can say

about it.

[ Page 8736 ]

MR. HANSON: The import of the question is that this is a

monopoly situation. When business people in this province find they

must talk to the chief fund-raiser for the Social Credit Party before

they can do business with the government, the Social Credit Party has a

serious ethical problem. Has this minister decided to recommend to his

colleagues the previous commitment given by the Premier to establish an

ethics committee governing cabinet ministers, and to set up a committee

for the benefit of all the people of this province?

[2:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can only reiterate that the contract for

the reservation system was done as fairly as we could possibly do it.

The parameters were laid out and were available to everybody; all of

the people who bid on the system had access to the same information.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: They all had access to the guidelines, to

the parameters. I believe, if memory serves me correctly — I'm not

quite sure — we had seven bidders on the short list, and every one of

the seven bids was examined very carefully before any contract was

awarded.

MR. HANSON: Will the minister confirm that the monopoly

ResWest system selected by Messrs. Burns, Kinsella and Heal is also in

the Sentinel Group, that they are the recipient of free government

advertising by which tourists are encouraged to use their services in

booking hotel accommodations, and that the B.C. Motels, Resorts and

Trailer Parks Association has petitioned Expo 86 for some alternative

to the usurious fees of the ResWest service?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member is incorrect, because the names

he mentioned have nothing to do with ResWest. ResWest is owned by

different people entirely. I've tried to tell him three times now that

it went out to tender and a successful bidder was awarded. The people

he mentioned helped to evaluate the bids, but that is all. And he's

also mistaken when he says it's a monopoly. There are other reservation

systems operating within this province.

MR. HANSON: It is of concern to the people of this province

that three individuals with such close connections to the Social Credit

hierarchy in the province of B.C. should be given the position of

developing a monopoly contract for a subscriber that would have such an

impact on the hospitality industry. What qualifications and expertise

do those three individuals have in the hospitality industry that could

warrant that kind of exclusive contract?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I can't evaluate

their qualifications as compared with every other company in the

province, but it was felt by the people in my ministry that they were

best equipped to draw up the guidelines for a reservation system. Those

guidelines were made public and were available to anyone who wanted to

bid on the system, including the other people, the resorts and trailer

parks people, that the member mentions. In fact, they were one of the

seven finalists in the bidding contest, and for whatever reasons....

MR. NICOLSON: One might say the best.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That's a matter of opinion, I guess, Mr. Member.

All the bids were examined very carefully. They were on the short-list, but they were not the successful bidder.

EXPO 86

MR. MacWILLIAM: My question is also to the Minister of

Tourism. Now that this assembly has declared its lack of confidence in

the minister, I'd like to ask him whether he has decided to comply with

the law that is governed by the Financial Information Act and to

disclose the financial information on the letting of contracts and the

firing of executives through Expo 86 Corporation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I believe I've answered that question to

that same member in this House on at least half a dozen occasions, and

I'm not about to change my answer just because he keeps repeating the

question. I've answered it many times, and if he cares to look it up in

Hansard, I am sure he will find the answer there.

MR. MacWILLIAM: As the minister well knows, the regulations

with the Financial Information Act require the minister to submit a

financial declaration within six months of the close of the fiscal

year. I would like to ask the minister why he has not, at this time,

submitted the information that has been requested for over a year now.

Why has that information not been submitted within the statutory

guidelines?

SANCTIONS AGAINST SOUTH AFRICA

MR. BARNES: A question to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. As of today, British Columbia and Alberta are the

only Canadian provinces purchasing wine and spirits from South Africa.

Has the minister decided to end the isolation of British Columbians and

participate in the national campaign to protest against South African

martial law?

HON. MR. VEITCH: We've always believed, in British Columbia —

or at least this government has always believed — that the people are

quite capable of making their own choices when it comes to purchasing

products. If the hon. member is asking about future action, I won't

offend the rules of this House by answering that question.

MR. BARNES: Supplementary question. People of good will

throughout the world, including the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group,

are now working very hard to end the stain of apartheid. Why does this

government continue to provide aid and comfort, not to mention income,

to the South African regime?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I guess the hon. member is entitled to any opinion he wishes, but we're not supplying any funds to the South African regime.

MR. BARNES: Further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister

has repeatedly held the view that sending British Columbia money to

South Africa upholds the freedom of British Columbians. This is

twisted, shameful logic. Will the minister explain why this government

was prepared to boycott Argentine products in the Falklands dispute,

but refuses

[ Page 8737 ]

to participate in worldwide sanctions against the racist South African regime?

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

not delisted Polish vodka, we have not delisted Russian vodka, and we

have not delisted South African wine. If and when we do, the hon.

member will be one of the first to know about it.

MR. BARNES: I have a question to the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations. Will the minister indicate if he still

holds to the policy that the treatment in South Africa is a question of

selective ethics?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to respond to the hon. member. I

never referred specifically to South Africa. I said that it was very

difficult to practise selective ethics throughout the world, and indeed

it is. I want you to know, hon. member, that I absolutely deplore

apartheid and everything that it stands for. Make no mistake of that.

I well remember sitting on the other side of the House. I asked a

question of the then minister, the hon. second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Williams).... I was talking about generators from Russia

going into British Columbia dams at a time when they were dealing with

people without trial, sending them to Siberia, and abusing the Jews of

this world, and I thought that was appalling. He said that was a good

question, and that was his only answer. It's a very difficult issue. I

sympathize with your point of view totally.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, pursuant to standing orders, the member for Comox has advised the Chair of a standing order 35.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35 to

seek leave to move adjournment of the House to debate a matter of

urgent public importance.

The situation in South Africa continues to deteriorate. Even our

knowledge of the situation has suffered. as the South African

government has imposed fascist-style press censorship. Throughout the

world there has been a strong reaction against martial law in South

Africa. There has been a rededication to the cause of ending the racist

policy of apartheid. Many Canadians have joined in this struggle. Our

own representative on the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, the Rt.

Rev. Archbishop Scott, has called for sanctions. But the Social Credit

government of B.C. refuses to act. It defiantly and blatantly states

that it continues to buy from South Africa, and to send B.C. dollars in

aid of a regime which is an outlaw to most of the civilized world.

Therefore I move that this House adjourn routine proceedings to debate

the government's lack of response to the crisis in South Africa.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, pursuant to the policy of the

Chair, the Chair will undertake to review the matter and bring a

response back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

On vote 47: minister's office, $134.879.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman. there are a multitude of

topics that I would rather like to discuss this afternoon, perhaps

beginning with my love for compulsory marketing boards, particularly

noting that Mr. Malcolm Turnbull of the press gallery is with us — we

always josh him and say he's single-issue Malcolm.

I'd also like to pay some attention to the process in Canada for the

appointment of our judiciary, make some continuing observations about

the rather regrettable Senate of our country, say a few things about

the current stance of Premier Bourassa in Quebec, and once again refer

to the situation of British Columbia and the ownership of our inshore

seabed lands: and maybe say a word or two about daylight-saving, and

something about the equalization formula and equalization practices in

our country; and maybe something about the fact that we're totally

over-legislating throughout every free, democratic society — certainly

Canada is a great offender there. Perhaps we'd also like to say a few

words about property rights and our native Indian community.

But today, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. Prime

Minister of our country will be addressing Canada tonight, I would like

to deal with the largest salient issue in our country today, and that

is the issue of our economic survival. I'm very delighted to see that

at long last we have started an earnest attempt to forge a one-on-one,

across-the-board free-trade agreement with our biggest and best

customer, the United States of America. This has been my gospel for

well over the past quarter-century. As I've indicated, I'm talking

about not only Canada's economic salvation but its economic survival.

But my, oh my. what a Canadian paradox! The federal Conservatives

are asserting a basic philosophy of liberalism with, mirabile dictu.

the federal leader of Her Majesty's loyal official opposition either

getting slivers from sitting on his philosophy or fumbling into some of

the most dyslexic negativism and confusion Canadians have been

subjected to in literally eons. This was rather well recounted — and

I'd commend it to the members: I won't read it — in an

article in the Globe and Mail a couple of days ago by Mr. Jeffrey Simpson.

But we must give full credit to one thing at least, and that is the

position of socialists throughout the country. Although, with every

respect to them. I consider it wrong. short-sighted, shallow and

mean-spirited, it is totally consistent, mostly because the United

State of America is one of the bulwarks against the Socialist

International, all of whose camp-followers, I see from the papers, are

going to be having a little bunfest in Peru over the next few days —

including that great supporter of free trade with the United States,

Mr. Broadbent. Mr. Broadbent well deserves quotation at times — this

was in an

article by Virginia Galt in the Globe and Mail . Mr.

Broadbent said that Canadian public support for a free-trade

arrangement with the United States is waning, and he urged the labour

movement to apply all the pressure it can muster against the federal

Progressive Conservative government. Well, it’s pretty clear what they

wish to do. They don't seem to want to have anything to do with

anything which would assist the average citizen in our country to be

rescued

[ Page 8738 ]

from the tentacles of over-government or to secure

a better opportunity to make a buck and keep it. But that's their

religion. I disagree with it, but I again compliment them for their

fervour.

[2:30]

We believe that economic democracy cannot be severed from political

democracy, because the objective of these socialistic

internationalists, including Uncle Ed, who will be representing his

constituency in downtown Peru over the next week or so, was defined by

Prof. G. D. H. Cole, who was then the chairman of the Fabian Society.

He said it was to achieve, through state action, the coordinated

control of the economic forces of society; that it aims at the

reorganization of society by the emancipation of land and industrial

capital from individual and class ownership and the vesting of them in

the community. He continued, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams), with something that you probably totally agree with, and

that is that the distinction between socialism and communism is one of

tactics and strategy rather than objectives. As I say, thank the good

Lord that all of that is wrong. It is, regretfully, on the increase in

our country, but it's still a minority opinion in our country and,

thank the good Lord, in our province.

Surely even the socialists have got to recognize that Canada is in

tough shape. Our share of world trade has declined 37.5 percent in ten

years — down from a 4 percent to a 2.5 percent share in just ten years

— and to continue with Canadian policies that would reflect that sort

of direction is nothing less than a breadline mentality. So I would

say, come on, Mr. Turner, skip trying to woo into your tents some of

the Waffle Manifesters; think Canadian and go along with the Prime

Minister, at least on this issue. He knows, you know and every Canadian

knows that $1 billion of new exports means 16,000 new Canadian jobs.

That's the recipe for success, that's the route to prosperity, and

that's the course for a better standard of living for all Canadians.

The best and probably the only viable option today is free trade

with the United States. Without it, Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly

that we are on a collision course to economic disaster. But imagine,

just imagine, at long last being able to give the forgotten Canadian,

Joe Consumer, a break. How terrible and how awful and how dreadfully

un-Canadian that would be. Oh my, oh my, oh my! Imagine having to see

our GNP nationally, and within every province our PNP, on the increase.

Imagine the vanishing Canadian, the middle-income earner, having to put

up with some more disposable income. And imagine being able to buy a

pair of bottom-line running shoes for 15 bucks instead of 25, as they

are now, or a fridge for $500 instead of being soaked for $700. Imagine

our country enjoying a higher capital inflow. Imagine seeing everyone

being able to make a better go of it, with the Maritimes becoming

economically emancipated, and they and the people of the Prairies and

B.C. at long last being able to escape the turgid and self-serving

economic policies of central Canada. Imagine stopping downturn after

downturn after downturn and getting Canada, in the world sense, out of

the parking lane and into the passing lane. We have to say, Mr.

Chairman: go for it, go for it, go for it, because there is no

practical alternative.

What's the option? Buy from ourselves? Western Canada and the

Atlantic provinces continuing to throw a bunch of meat into the central

Canada cage, to perpetually support tariff walls and all the

tariff-protected, hothouse central industrialists? — children's shoes,

refrigerators, window glass are some examples. Every year, half a

billion dollars more goes into Ontario from B.C. — apart from

equalization payments — from the Prairies and from the Atlantic

provinces than ever comes out. B.C. people pay about 14 percent of all

federal taxes, yet B.C. receives an average of 7 percent of federal

Department of Supply and Service contracts.

We have just got to face the realities, Mr. Chairman. These are not

the days of John A. B.C. Is no longer 1 percent of the Canadian

economy; it's up to 11 and pushing 12, and that's evolution. But there

are still all those reincarnate Kings Canute who say no, the tide will

never rise. But it has, and it is going to rise more. The country is in

change, so let's make that change for the better. No longer can Canada

enjoy the luxury of fireproofing the few at the expense of the many.

The high-tariff route, the economic curtains, the incestuousness of

protectionism is just nuts: it loses jobs; it cripples recovery; it is

fiscally irresponsible; and it's been proven to be no longer sensible,

practical or realistic economics.

Once again we hear the howls at the centre of Canada, and indeed the

howls from the socialists in our country: "Free trade could ruin us.

The greatest price Canada might have to pay for free trade would be a

loss of political autonomy: the right of a sovereign nation to

legislate in its own backyard." That's hogwash! Yet that was the exact

headline and editorial comment from the Toronto Star ,

Canada's largest-newspaper, way back in a November 1984 editorial. Sure

we all know the U. S. is an elephant. But Canada's no pip-squeak, and

we must never forget it.

I say that Canadians have got the will, they've got the desire,

they've got the capacity, and it's in our bones to continue to maintain

our independence. We have and we can and we shall get stronger and not

weaker. We believe very strongly in Canada's backbone; it will not only

survive, Mr. Chairman, it will flourish. Even the European Economic

Community has shown us that free trade between a group of large and

small nations doesn't have to lessen a smaller country's autonomy. We

have to remember that ours is really only small in population, not in

resources, not in potential, not in know how or effort. But what we

need is an economic benefit and an economic boost, which will make us

stronger and certainly not weaker.

Another urgency is for us to dynamite the current logjam, because

other First World nations are forming trading blocs, to the increasing

exclusion of Canada and the United States. Each year the European

nations call for fewer and fewer Canadian products; for, in spite of

our historic ties and best efforts, we continue to sell less and less

to the 12 countries of the European Common Market and their peripheral

trading partners. There is no way that gate can be realistically

expected to open wider in the 1990s or beyond that.

Then there's the Pacific Rim, where in the past couple of years or

so there has been a series of very significant moves towards the

creation of a new political and economic cohesion, with reconciliation

steadily progressing between Japan and China, Japan and South Korea,

and Japan and Singapore. In other words, the handwriting may well be on

the wall re some much more difficult future trading patterns with East

Asia. I emphasize this: we certainly would like to and expect to

continue to trade with the European communities and with the Pacific

Rim, and increase that trade as much as we can.

It's totally unrealistic to expect that any special treatment or

assured market for our manufactured products can come from them. Their

interest is raw materials, and even the

[ Page

8739 ]

London Economist ,

in an

article that I read over the weekend, appreciated that last week,

in supporting free-trade between Canada and the United States, it said

it would even given GATT a lift. So we've got three choices: the

European Common Market and its peripheral nations, Japan/China and the

forming Pacific Rim bloc, or the United States.

There is no fourth viable option with the debt-ridden countries

beyond those trading blocs, because Canadian manufacturers have got to

have cash and not IOUs; nor can we survive by only selling to

ourselves. If we don't wish to just continue to cut and to catch and to

dig and to ship for the next century, now is the time for us to act,

and there is no way that we should be faint-hearted.The Economist

also wisely counsels by observing that being timid about our plans for

a Canada-U.S. free-trade pact can only increase opposition to it, which

is absolutely correct.

We've got to get these two connected economies together, get them

into tune, and that, I would say, would be darned beautiful music.

Also, we've got to start eliminating the nontariff barriers, the ones

that imperil...

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Would you mind going on hogwashing from your

own seat instead of there? Do one or the other, hon. member. I don't

like hearing you from there, but I find you objectionable from here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken, and the

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) knows it's most

unparliamentary to interrupt, and even more so from a chair other than

his own.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's all right. I've known him for a long time — no surprises.

Okay, Mr. Chairman, we've also got to start eliminating the

non-tariff barriers. Those are the ones, as we all know that imperil

our lumber, rock salt, steel subway cars, sweet foods and even

raspberries. All of those old saws on the status quo stuff, which has

got us to where we are now, and I certainly hope will not continue to

put us into that kind of position, are just totally mucking it up for

both sides.

We've got to take a look at the Canadian manufacturer. He's trying

to justify long-term heavy investment and expanded production

facilities without any comfortable assurance that his market could

exist in five years. What do you expect him to do? They hold back, they

stop more jobs, they stop more productivity, they stop more prosperity.

That's why the typical modern Canadian company is condemned to think

small and base its main production and profit margin just in the

Canadian market, no matter how efficiently and competitively it might

manufacture and market its products elsewhere, which is the reason why

one daily reads of Canadian companies opening branch plants in the

United States rather than expanding at home.

Think also of the enormous amounts of Canadian dollars that have flocked like

one-way migrating geese to the United States: huge outflows representing unlimited,

otherwise Canadian jobs. Look also at another non-tariff barrier: e.g., the

buy-American policy of the United States, which requires, as the members well

know, that any manufactured product purchased totally or in part with U.S.

federal funds has to be 50 percent U.S.-made in content, and finally assembled

there. Then in the states, some 37 of whom have local procurement policies.

with penalties of up to 20 percent.... And I can tell you, that's enough

to send a few chills down a few spines of surely even the most fervent status-quoers.

We can't buckle; we've got to respond. As the Premier pointed out to

Vice-President Bush — and one doesn't have to be a genius to see this —

in the long run this is a goofy process for both sides. That's why we

are preaching status quo until such time as saner heads prevail and we

can get on with the proper job. This mire of trade barriers and trade

tariffs is just a swamp, and we've got to get out of it. Canada needs

some good deals. but not cap-in-hand type of deals like the Bombardier

contract with Belgium to sell about $50 million of Canadian jeeps,

providing the Canadian government and other Canadian companies

sweetened the pot by purchasing in return $150 million in goods and

services, with a net Canadian outflow of $100 million.

That's not good business. nor is it progress. Look at the investment

capital outflows over the past five years. They're terrifying: 1980.

$2.35 billion; 1981, $5.9 billion; 1982, $200 million: 1983, $2.975

billion; 1984, $3.8 billion; 1985, $4.9 billion. Statistics Canada

tallies show us that our country’s net loss of investment capital

totalled a shocking $20 billion in five years. It's estimated that

about $75,000 can create one permanent job: $20 billion would therefore

reflect an export of 260,000 Canadian jobs — more than a quarter of a

million Canadian jobs. Little coincidence that unemployment across the

country responded in kind by rising from about 865,000 in 1980 to

1,328,000 in 1985. That's an increase of about 50 percent in five

years. You can see that those figures correlate totally.

[2:45]

The London Economist also

says: "You've got to get on with it now, and get on with it quickly."

They're right. It can be done. The Israel-United States free-trade

package is a darn good precedent. Negotiations began in January 1984;

they were concluded eleven months later. An agreement was signed in

April 1985 and went into force that August, just 18 months for a

two-way free-trade agreement to be phased in — over a ten-year period

in their case. Surely we can manifest that same kind of conviction,

courage and determination in our country. But as we know, the opponents

are exacerbating on each side of the border. There's no way they're

going to take it lying down. My old friend Jimmy Bardsley says: "When

the going gets tough, the tough get going." I think it's about time we

in our country showed our mettle.

May I also say, three cheers for our Premier Bill Bennett for

providing such strong and early national leadership on this most

commanding issue of all. These kinds of opportunities don't spring up

every day; they spring up about once a century and we've got to grasp

them. We've got to disregard the shrill of these so-called economic

nationalists, but in real life protectionists; the tariff-barrierites

and the hothouse status-quoers, the consumer subsidized inefficient and

the uncompetitive on each side of the border. Put them and all of the

Ed Broadbents of this world where they belong. and that's in their

place, because eliminating these iron curtains will be the only way to

permanently secure a market for Canadian manufactured goods for the

first time in Canada's history. Anything less in the short run lacks

foresight and courage, and anything less in the long run would for us

be disastrous economics.

I make no apologies for very clearly indicating this to the House,

and it's not new that I have a bias here. Yes, I do; it's very real and

very practical. I want our country to go forward

[ Page 8740 ]

and not backward, and I make absolutely no

apologies for that. I emphasize it. I'm proud of it, unlike the

socialists over there, and I don't believe Canada has any other

realistic choice whatsoever. I'm looking more for our children and

grandchildren than increased unemployment, lower standards of living

and higher taxes in an increasingly stagnant economy. Now is really not

the time for Canadians, like our socialistic friends over there, to

spend the rest of their lives looking in rear-view mirrors.

Before sitting down, Mr. Chairman, I would like very much to both

congratulate and express my thanks to all of the people within this

small ministry. They're dedicated, hardworking and intelligent public

servants, and British Columbia is truly indebted to all of them.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister got up in his place and made a

very convincing case for the abolition of his ministry. Why in the name

of all that's sensible or right or just are the people of British

Columbia having a whole ministry established to listen to that kind of

rodomontade, which was all that it was? The minister gets up and the

phrases roll off. He says: "Relieve us from the tentacles of over

government." It should begin with you. Why shouldn't it begin with the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations? How much can we save there?

How much over government are we being subjected to by that minister,

for no discernible reason whatsoever? Everything that this department

is supposed to do is done by somebody else.

I don't know what in the world we've been through in this. We've

listened to every cliche except "A rolling stone gathers no moss." I'd

hate to think what the real Rolling Stones would think of that

mossback. It really is time that the people of Point Grey in Vancouver

retired their senators.

This minister gets up and says: "Oh, Canada's in terrible shape."

That's right, the unemployment is growing, there are huge deficits,

we're losing out in external trade, and you know what he does? He

blames Ed Broadbent. Ed Broadbent hasn't been the government. Look in a

mirror. Look at yourself. Look at Maggie Thatcher. Look at Ronald

Reagan. If this is what you want for Canada, you can have it. Look at

their unemployment, look what they've done in terms of social justice

and enriching a privileged few at the expense of many, many down below

who haven't enough to eat and no home to live in that's worth calling a

home. Is this what you want?

You want to enter into free trade with the United States without any

idea whatsoever what the implications of that are. I want to know what

you're talking about, and you don't know. Mulroney doesn't know. The

minister doesn't know. You're going to the table with the sharp Yankee

bargainers and you'll say, "We're in favour of free trade, " and you

don't know whether that's going to involve our social security laws,

what it's going to do to our culture, what it's going to do, say, to

our beer industry. You talk about how we can buy a fridge maybe

cheaper, but you can't buy a fridge cheaper if you haven't got a job.

You don't know where you're going, any more than Mulroney does. You've

swung from being a Liberal to being to the right of Mulroney.

I can't believe what I'm listening to here. Naturally property

rights appeals to that minister, because most of the property rights

are now held by large corporations and financial institutions. Wouldn't

the lawyers and these privileged institutions love to have property

rights — their property rights — permanently embodied in the

constitution!

Wouldn't it make the corporate lawyers happy to be able to go and

defend their options and their warrants and all the rest of it?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Who owns Canada? It isn't the people of Canada.

You blame the Broadbents and the socialists for everything, when you

have been the government. The ilk that we're talking about have run

this country into all of the problems you describe — not Ed Broadbent,

not the socialists that you like to decry.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't know, I leave the.... I thought you should have said something.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Skelly) will come to order. So will the minister. The member continues.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, let me just finish by saying

something about South Africa and saying it in a very serious vein. As

the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) said, it is not just

this group and other people being emotional who have said that we

should bring carefully directed targeted pressure against South Africa

now in order to prevent in the future a bloodbath. And that group is

not a group of wild-eyed dreamers; it was led by Sir Malcolm Fraser,

who was the conservative Prime Minister of Australia. They appealed to

this government and that minister, and they came along with a practical

appeal that we should do something to play our part. They appeal to us,

and what to do they get? Some speech about Poland and Russia and so

forth. We all know the situation in Poland and Russia, but there's an

immediate need to do something to prevent that country falling into

chaos and totalitarianism and bloodshed, quite apart from the justice

of the situation, which may pass right over the minister's head. So you

reject this appeal by these very eminent people and the thoughtful

people throughout the western world who are trying to say to you before

it's too late: "Bring that pressure." Unless there are ameliorative

reforms quickly now that lead to the abolition of apartheid, that's

what you're going to come with: the worst possible consequences.

So I say that this department and the minister I'm afraid are

supernumerary, Mr. Chairman, and a waste of the public's money, and

Point Grey should retire its senators.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's interesting to hear the hon. member in

his defence of non-free trade with the United States. That's the

established policy of all of the socialists in our country. We know

that — everybody knows that, but perhaps it should be told a little

more strenuously than it has in the past. He started to talk about, my

goodness me, what's going to happen to our social programs? I'd like to

assure the hon. member that the social programs require dollars and

cents and productivity and wages to pay for them. They could be in dire

straits without that happening.

There was a very good

article by Mr. Ronald Anderson, and he was

talking about the programs that we cherish and support in our country:

unemployment insurance, pensions,

[ Page

8741 ]

medicare, subsidized access to higher education. He

made the point, and correctly so, that that's a way of life for

Canadians, and they want to retain it. But it's costly, Mr. Member, and

it's very questionable whether we're going to be able to afford that.

On the track we're now going we could not, in my view; it's impossible.

He said this: "If Canadians wish to preserve their humane system of

social welfare programs, it's not at all certain that the best way of

achieving this is by trying to maintain conditions as they now exist."

It cannot work. It cannot continue under the present ground rules.

This is our only opportunity, and it's a golden opportunity. That's

why I would implore you people to volunteer your support for it. Why be

against it just on old ideological grounds? That's really what it boils

down to.

"The major impact of free trade, " quoting a Mr. Newall, would be to

create a much larger opportunity for us to pursue so we can create more

winners. One prime benefit would give the Canadian producers a better

chance to penetrate the huge U.S. market.... Is that greater prosperity

would generate more revenues to undertake Canada's political

independence."

Please don't say the sky is failing; it isn't. This is the route to

take. But it's a paradox today that it's being opposed in certain

sections of the country — again, not surprisingly. by you people over

there.

MR. BARNES: First, Mr. Speaker, with leave I would like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: I would like to advise the House that a member of

the Washington state House of Representatives is with us, visiting with

friends from the state of Virginia. Mr. Jesse Wineberry is a member of

the Washington House. He just sent me a note to tell me that he himself

has sponsored anti-apartheid legislation, so it's very appropriate that

he happens to be here today.

To comment briefly, Mr. Chairman. on the position the government has

taken with respect to sanctions against South Africa, I am particularly

pleased that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is having his

estimates discussed today, because you will recall that between 1972

and 1975 the government under Dave Barrett — a socialist government, to

use the minister's expression — did remove South African wines from the

government distribution branches. Obviously that was only a token

gesture, but it did make quite clear the government's position with

respect to the oppressive measures that the South African government

was using against three-quarters.... Actually it was higher than thato

25 million people were being oppressed by something less than four

million at the time. And that was an abhorrent, unacceptable condition,

one that the world was just beginning to awaken to and beginning to

realize that most countries in the world were participating silently

in. Those symbolic gestures had to begin.

[3:00]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

This was 12 or 13 years ago, but today the problem still exists. It

has escalated to a point where large numbers of lives are being lost:

most of those are little children, women, people who have no means of

defence and are basically being held imprisoned by the physical layout

in those South African townships where there is usually just one road

in and one road out. They are being controlled by a government that is

perhaps one of the most well-equipped military organizations in the

world.

Mr. Chairman. I just want to suggest to the minister that although

it may be policy of his government not to impose sanctions against that

country.... As I pointed out earlier in question period, the government

did make one exception with respect to the Falk-lands situation.

However, as the minister himself has pointed out, it's a case of

selective ethics, the direction the government wishes to go.

But let's not forget. as a Whip during the days of the Barrett

government I took it upon myself to boycott — not even knowing at the

time that I was doing so — not to participate in ceremonies to do with

a tennis tournament where South African players were involved. My only

concern was personal, not to be involved. I quietly left. And as it

turned out, the press got hold of it and found out that in fact I had

taken an action which should have been taken; but I had no intention of

taking it on behalf of the government, only on behalf of myself. But

what I found out was that that action made national headlines. It was

in the headlines of the papers in the province of British Columbia. I

started to get a lot of mail, This is the point I want to make: the

minister may not be aware of the sentiments of the people of British

Columbia. Not just the politicians or the government, but the people

themselves support the idea. I'm sure, three to one. That action be

taken against South Africa. This is one of those cases, Mr. Chairman.

where I believe and I hope the government will recognize the

opportunity to act in a non-partisan way. This is an issue of

fundamental rights and freedoms that we're talking about. I'm sure that

members on both sides of the House are concerned about this.

notwithstanding what the government says about not getting involved.

I’ve talked to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Veitch) on occasion about this issue. His concern is that if we

withdraw support in South Africa it's going to hurt the people we care

about the most. But the people themselves are saving impose a sanction.

The people who are hurting the most are themselves saying impose a

sanction. They're desperate, because they know that they're in a

situation they will never be relieved. Of unless there is this kind of

action and this kind of sacrifice. Sure, it's going to have an impact,

perhaps negatively, on some countries in terms of their economy. But

this type of commitment is far cheaper and far more honourable than the

consequence of hanging on to those investments and trying to extract

dollars at the expense of the blood of these people. This is the issue.

It's a matter of the world finally coming together and saying: "Look,

let's do something together for humanity." Let's begin to turn things

around, Mr. Chairman.

We're having peace marches all over the world. People are concerned

about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We are concerned about the

environment, about the ecology. We are concerned about the quality of

life. We are beginning to be concerned about one another, and realizing

that we are not living in isolation. We are indeed concerned about

international trade, as the minister has pointed out. and we would like

to have more opportunities and more avenues open. But in the meantime,

how can we tolerate this kind of abuse of humanity by a group of people

who are only interested in perpetuating themselves in power at all

costs; where people

[ Page 8742 ]

do not have the right to vote, do not have fair

representation; they do not have proper education, proper nutrition,

proper opportunities to develop in society. It's unbelievable, but that

situation is almost beyond description by those of us who live in this

society. We cannot begin to imagine that situation. I certainly don't

pretend to understand it. But just on the fundamental right that

everybody should have to participate in a government of their choice

and be able to do it in a democratic environment, that in itself should

be enough to cause this government to take action.

So I appeal to the minister to go to the people if he's confused or

feels that he would be taking an action that would be contrary to what

the people of British Columbia want. I'm sure you will find that it is

no accident that just about every province in this country has begun to

act in response to the request of those eminent members who are

citizens who are attempting to try to ameliorate this situation, trying

to avoid, as the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said,

the bloodbath that is inevitable. What other reason would this

government have to be so well equipped with the high technology weapons

that it has, in order to defend such a small population of people

against people who are fellow citizens, who are in fact unable to

defend themselves? Why has this government taken this action? We should

be concerned about this. It has gone far too far.

It is not a time to call names; it is a time for sanity. It is a

time to realize that if we did nothing else but bring some semblance of

sanity to those people in South Africa, we would be demonstrating that

there is some hope for the concept of the United Nations, of people

beginning to work together. It may be that first step towards a new

world order, that new direction that we are talking about. Because God

knows, something has to happen sooner or later. Why are we resisting?

It is not just a case of ideology, it's a case of fundamental rights

that everyone should have regardless of ideology, Mr. Chairman.

So I would appeal to the government: do not take this as a

conspiracy of the left to try to impose some unfair restrictions on a

country, that this is a matter not our business. It is everybody's

business. I think if you look around and begin to listen, you will see

that just about everybody is concerned the world over. There is nothing

safer, Mr. Chairman, for the minister to do now than to respond to the

people, rather than to hold back for some unexplained reason and thus

avoid the kind of unfortunate insults that become the inevitable

consequence when there is no other option, no other course; when

desperation reaches the point that it has in South Africa and people

such as Bishop Desmond Tutu begin to recognize that when their backs

are up against the wall, people have to resort to violence, You're

beginning to hear Christians say that there comes a time when the sword

may be the only way. I don't think people do that very lightly,

especially people who believe that violence is never the basis upon

which you can build anything. I certainly don't believe it's a base

upon which you can build anything. It always concerns me when I hear

peace-loving people, people who are basically humanitarian, who care

about the community and the integrity of humanity, begin to think that

we can win wars by violence.

I would suggest to the House, to the committee, that we should begin

to think beyond the immediate economics, the immediate kinds of

concerns and values that we feel we need in order to maintain the

standard of life that we have right now. There is a risk to that

standard of life, and the risk could be by default, the lack of action

on our part, the mindless lack of awareness that can happen. Perhaps

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations will be good enough to

respond to this very serious situation. British Columbia and Alberta

are the remaining provinces that have not seriously recognized they

have an active role, not a passive role, to play in this situation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I take no issue whatsoever

with the member concerning this being a most grave issue of fundamental

right and freedoms. I completely share his views in that respect. As I

said in question period, I consider apartheid to be an abomination.

That's not news to this hon. member, as he well knows. Furthermore,

it's very easy for anyone, on seeing some of these ghastly pictures and

hearing what's happening in that country, to weep over the possible

consequences. I've spoken up about somewhat similar issues in different

areas of the world that equally trouble me, some of them maybe even

more so. South African wines, hon. member — I don't buy them. I boycott

them, as you apparently boycotted the South African athletes. I've made

that decision here. I don't have any difficulty with that decision.

Quite frankly, I'm proud of it. Yesterday I didn't have any difficulty

watching the soccer game with Russia playing. Maybe I should have had a

few more concerns there.

You use the words "conspiracy of the left." I'm not using those

words. I know you're not speaking from that perspective, and I'm sure

you're aware that neither am I. I can tell you, hon. member, that the

Premier has received a wire from the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark articulating,

in general terms, Canada's position, and Mr. Clark indicated in that

wire that more specifics will be forthcoming. I do believe — and

correct me if I'm wrong; I may be incorrect in this — that my colleague

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said this is the policy

of the government at this time, leaving it up to the citizens of this

province to make that choice. We couldn't leave it up to the citizens

of the province to make that choice concerning the installation of

Russian generators, but it can certainly be left up to them not to buy

South African wine, and I commend them. Maybe there's more here that

gets into the mix from British Columbia to South Africa. I regret I

don't have those specifics — I'm not one of the economic ministers —

but I'm sure those are going to be looked into. It's not going to be

forgotten.

It's an extremely serious current issue in the world, and how well

Bishop Tutu is articulating and decrying the absolutely mindless

violence of putting tires around peoples' necks, putting gasoline on

them and lighting them, and of burying people alive. Extremely

unattractive. Unattractive is the wrong word; it's gross, it's

disgraceful, it's horrifying. How did it come about? For the reasons

you have articulated.

You know, Mr. Member, that ever since I entered political life I've

been an optimist. I think you fit the same category too, although it's

a little tough at times. Mankind is basically good. It doesn't matter

what his colour is, what his race or religion is, what his politics

are. Leadership sometimes does funny things, but mankind is basically

good. I'm darned sure this dreadful, macabre situation in South Africa

will right itself, and for the better — for the good of everyone who

lives there, and certainly for the good of all mankind.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, we hear that the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations is going to boycott, personally, the

purchase of South African wines.

[ Page 8743 ]

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: He doesn't buy it. Here is a minister who has

the opportunity to have some influence with respect to taking actions

that would in fact show the white, domineering, oppressive government

in South Africa that at least we in this part of the world do not

support what they're doing. Your not purchasing South African wines,

Mr. Minister, is a very small token when you are in a position in

government as a Minister of Intergovernmental Relations to ensure that

we as a province discontinue the purchase of not only wines but all

other South African goods. This minister should not only be pressing

his government to ensure that that sanction takes place, but he should

be working as hard as he possibly can in order to convince other

countries, such as the United States and Britain, to follow suit.

[3:15]

We have the Eminent Persons' Group established as the result of a

Commonwealth parliamentary conference in 1985 to look into the

possibility of a peaceful solution to the policy of apartheid in South

Africa. They have just come back with their report, which clearly

states that there is no way that the present government of South Africa

is moving towards changing its policy with regard to apartheid. The

recommendation of the Eminent Persons' Group, representatives from the

Commonwealth countries around the world, is that it is time every

country concerned about what is happening in South Africa take action

by imposing sanctions against the government so that the government

will recognize that unless it changes its policy it is going to lose

the support of the entire world — except maybe British Columbia,

because British Columbia is continuing to purchase wines and other

goods from South Africa.

It's not good enough, Mr. Minister. You are in a position of

authority and privilege in this province where you can take some

leadership on this issue. You are the people that said you would

boycott products from Argentina during the Falklands war. But now

people can make a choice; isn't that nice!

This minister is ineffectual in showing any leadership in his

responsibility as Intergovernmental Relations minister. He's sitting

back, supporting the views of most of the people on that side of the

House on this issue. I view it as a disgrace.

MS. BROWN: I want to compare the way the government of

British Columbia is behaving around this issue with the way another

province, Ontario, is behaving. I had the good fortune to have been

invited to participate in a special celebration sponsored by the

government of Ontario, the metropolitan area of Toronto, the city of

number of other groups and artists and other people in Toronto during

the week starting about May 25, specifically to commemorate the loss of

life in the struggle for freedom in South Africa and that province's

opposition to apartheid. It culminated in a dinner on May 30 at which

2,500 people were present. all of whom paid $100 to be there as part of

a fund-raising occasion and an occasion to honour the keynote speaker,

who was His Grace the Hon. Bishop Desmond Tutu.

Ontario went even further than simply having a minister of

intergovernmental affairs speak on their behalf. In fact, the Premier

of the province, Mr. Peterson, opened the Legislature for the first

time in 49 years to a spokesperson who was not an elected person, not a

visiting government official from another country or province, and

allowed His Grace Bishop Desmond Tutu to address the Legislature. The

Premier of Ontario, Mr. Peterson, invited people from in and around the

province to be there to sit in the public galleries, and invited a

number of people to sit on the floor of the Legislature. Again, I was

very honoured to have been included in that group.

The province of Ontario is not afraid, is not ashamed, has no

concerns about making its feelings known in terms of its abhorrence of

apartheid — not of South Africa, but of the actions of that government

— because the province of Ontario recognizes that, as with every other

country, not every South African, and not every white South African,

supports apartheid or the actions of that government. So the province

of Ontario was quite prepared to state publicly, not just through words

but through actions as well, and in a number of financial ways, its

opposition to that government's policies in this particular area. The

province of Ontario recognizes that two wrongs don't make a right.

Unlike this minister, it doesn't say that because the Soviet Union does

something wrong or because Poland does something wrong and we don't

boycott them, when South Africa does something wrong we shouldn't

support sanctions against them either. When one is dealing with a

specific issue such as apartheid in South Africa and the reasons why

this government should take a stand on behalf of the people of British

Columbia, people who have made their feelings known about their

opposition to apartheid, to have the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations cite other governments that are a] so guilty of offences

against their people and the failure of the government to do anything

about that as a reason for not doing anything in this instance doesn't

make any sense. It certainly doesn't say anything about the principles,

integrity or courage of this particular government.

I think some of the statements made by the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations would seem to indicate that he knows the

price that the people of South Africa — black and white — are paying

for apartheid. But maybe he needs to have his memory jogged just a

little bit. I want to remind him, if he doesn't already know. that this

struggle against apartheid goes back to 1912. We're not talking about

something that happened in the eighties, seventies or sixties, or even

the fifties, forties, thirties or twenties', the struggle goes back to

1912. The first public protest against the pass laws was launched by

the black women of Johannesburg in 1915. That's how long this struggle

has been going on.

Since that time, not just the people within Africa, not just the

people of colour around the world, but many nations have grappled with

this issue and tried to come to some kind of decision about how best to

help the government of South Africa change its mind and its ways in

terms of the way in which it relates to the majority people, the native

people, of that country. And they have failed. I'm the first one to

admit that all efforts on the part of all nations have failed. We have

not been able to move that government. In fact, they have become more

entrenched in their opposition to freedom, dignity and liberation for

the black peoples of South Africa. They have become more brutal, they

have become violent and they have become more vicious in their attacks

on the black people of South Africa. As my colleague from Vancouver

Centre pointed out, they have gone from attacking adults to shooting

children. We're dealing here with legislated murder — approved,

endorsed, condoned and sanctioned by the government.

[ Page 8744 ]

Nobody is asking the government of British Columbia or the

guerrilla fighters, guns or bullets. The attempt still is to find a

peaceful avenue through which to communicate with the government of

South Africa and get them to see the evil of their ways. We're still

talking peace here, Mr. Chairman, and one of the peaceful ways that

work.... We know it works by the kind of opposition campaign which the

government of South Africa is launching against it. One of the peaceful

methods that we've asked this government to participate in is the

boycott.

We're asking the government of British Columbia please not to do

business with South Africa in certain specific ways. One, we're asking

the government of British Columbia please not to purchase any alcohol.

Now alcohol is not a life sustaining force. It is possible that there

may be a minority of people in this province who could not survive

without South African wines, and if that is the case and we can

identify those people, then I think that out of a sense of compassion

the government could exclude those people from the boycott — if and

where and when they exist.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Are you serious?

MS. BROWN: But what we are asking this government to

do.... And I have never been more serious in my life, Mr. Chairman,

to the member for Surrey. Now this member may come and stand on the

floor of this House and play games. When I rise to speak on the floor

of this House it's on issues that I'm serious about.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. REID: Go on back in the tunnel.

MS. BROWN: Go on back to where?

MR. REID: Go hide yourself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the hon. second member for Surrey maintain order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I accept that the first or second

member for Surrey doesn't care about what happens to black people in

South Africa, and I will protect his right to continue not to care

about those people, because this is a democracy, and no one is going to

expect decency from every person in this Legislature, or from every

person in this province. If the two members from Surrey are not

interested and do not care about this issue, that is their right, and

as a matter of fact they have my permission to continue to heckle if

that is what they would like to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Unfortunately, they do not have the Chair's permission.

MS. BROWN: Well, fine. If the Chair wants to withhold permission for them to heckle, that's fine.

I want to go back to saying to the Minister for Intergovernmental

Relations that the request for a boycott is based on a number of

considerations: one, that it is a peaceful way of registering one's

disapproval of the government's action; two, that it is an effective

way of helping the government, because it is hitting the government of

South Africa in its pocket, and it's an effective way of getting that

government to reconsider its policies of violence and cruelty toward

the black people of South Africa; and three, it is a way which, as I

said, does not visit a hardship on the people of British Columbia.

As I said before, Mr. Chairman, there really isn't that much that we

as Canadians can do to help the black people of South Africa, if we

want to be absolutely clear about it. One of the only avenues open to

us is through the boycott. We're not going to send them guns, we're not

going to send them bullets, we're not going to go down there and fight

with them. We're not sending them armies, navies, air force, any of

this kind of thing. We have only one really effective means of

registering our disapproval of the actions of the government, and

registering our support for the struggle of the people of colour in

South Africa — because it's not just black people who are trampled by

apartheid; all people of colour in South Africa are the victims of this

policy.

[3:30]

We're not asking the government to have as much courage as Ontario

has — we wouldn't go that far. We're not asking them to invite Bishop

Tutu to come and state South Africa's case here. We're not asking for

that level of courage from this government. We're not asking this

government to send funds or assistance or even a message of support

today, ten years to the day after innocent people were gunned down in

Soweto. We're not asking for that level of courage from this

government, because we know what this government is capable of. We know

this government's limitation. We've had to deal with it. I've had to

live under this government for well-nigh 30 years — for over 30 years,

give or take a couple of years. But we're asking also that this

government not do business in the area of agriculture with South

Africa, that they not purchase agricultural goods from South Africa,

that they do not purchase other goods. I'm talking about Outspan

oranges and things of that nature. We do get a number of things in the

area of agriculture.

We're asking that this government, in short, not do business with

South Africa. We're asking this government to remember that in 1963 —

23 years ago — the government of South Africa, without recourse to law

or the judicial process, incarcerated and today keeps imprisoned Nelson

Mandela, one of the people who spoke for and worked for freedom in

South Africa. We ask this government to remember that in 1960, without

provocation, at Sharpeville, the government of South Africa turned its

guns on innocent and unarmed people. We ask this government to

remember, Mr. Chairman, that most people in South Africa who are black

or people of colour still do not have the right to vote or the right to

even the basic education which they need to live where they want in

their own country; they are not protected in any way from the cruelties

and the violence of that government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time.

MS. BROWN: In exchange, Mr. Chairman — and I know that my

light is red, and I am winding down — I am asking this government to

make one small gesture: not to go as far as the Secretary of State for

External Affairs, the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark, and his government has done,

not to go as far as the Prime Minister has done, but to make one small

gesture; and

[ Page 8745 ]

that is today, the anniversary of the massacre at

Soweto, to indicate that this government is willing to stop purchasing

alcohol and other goods from the Republic of South Africa.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thank the last two speakers for their very

thoughtful and very sincere observations. I indicated vis-à-vis the one

specific issue of South African wines that I boycott them, and I

advocate that people in our province boycott the purchase of those

wines.

It's a very difficult thing in this world to at some times come up

with an immediate response that is truly effective. There might be much

better ways to do this to assist in bringing about a successful

resolution than just dealing with a South African wine.

I can remember that when Mr. Khadafy was dealing in murder of the

worst kind. At that very point in time the United Kingdom was training

Libyan pilots and selling mutton to Libya, if I remember correctly — I

think it was mutton — at about 10 percent of what it would cost to

purchase it in the United Kingdom. When that air strike happened. I

said to myself, if you happened to be in a position of authority,

wherein your say would be the only say or wherein you could persuade

your colleagues to respond, what would you have done there? Well, I

thought. the best thing that could have ever happened there would be

for all the nations of the world to agree that the commercial airlines

would not fly into, and would indeed embargo, that country. But that

didn't happen.

Vis-à-vis the British Columbia procurement policy, the only one that

I'm aware of — and this is why, as my economic colleagues have earlier

mentioned, they're looking into it — is South African wine, Maybe there

are others that want to find that out; and having done that, then

determine exactly the precise action to be taken. But I mention to the

hon. member, as she knows, as I know and as everybody in the House

knows, that there is no provincial capacity whatsoever to embargo

private imports, not embargo private imports. So I would reiterate: the

government is waiting to receive more precise information, which I

gather will be shortly forthcoming, from the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark

concerning Canada's position and the provincial role. Canada, no doubt,

is also giving great continuing attention to its precise position. What

Canada has done is certainly not a total embargo. I heard on the news

earlier this morning that Canadian sulphur is still finding its way to

South Africa, so indeed the route that has been taken by the government

of Canada, like it or not, is selective. And maybe there's still some

reason for reasonable selectivity; maybe there is not. But first of all

we have to receive some more of the internal facts in our country as to

precisely what is happening and what can happen, and take a very

careful inventory, as I've said, of the government purchasing policies

in B.C. I reiterate to the people of this province, and this is me

speaking: don't buy South African wine.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. SKELLY: It's good to hear that the minister's own view is

that he doesn't buy South African wine or believe in buying South

African wines or spirits. But the simple fact is that the liquor

distribution system in this province is the major purchaser of South

African wines, and they purchase those wines at the expense of the

taxpayers in this province. If the minister himself stops buying South

African wines, I don't think anybody will notice it except as a

symbolic gesture. It's important to that extent that a minister of the

Crown in the province of British Columbia would stand up in this

Legislature and publicly state that he does not intend to purchase

South African wines and spirits. I think that that's an important

personal gesture.

But unfortunately this government purchases thousands upon thousands

of litres of South African wines and spirits, and they purchase it with

the money of the taxpayers of the province that they are entrusted to

expend on our behalf. It's when the government of British Columbia

makes a gesture.... It may only be a symbolic gesture, because we're

not the major purchasers of South African wines around the world

either. But when the government of British Columbia makes that gesture,

then it becomes important to the people of the province and the people

of Canada, and it's an important gesture that is recognized by those

people who are so desperately fighting for freedom in South Africa.

It's the symbolism and the importance of that gesture that counts. It

counts on behalf of all of us as citizens of this province, because our

province will then have been seen as standing up and taking a position

on the issue of apartheid. To date, the government has not taken the

position that, I feel, hundreds of thousands — a majority — of British

Columbians would like to see it take.

The government has taken a position in the past. I'm told they took

a position in support of the boycott of Argentine goods during the time

that the government of Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. a

British colony in the south Atlantic. It's interesting the timing when

the government took that position. Mr. Chairman, because I think that

timing is important. It didn't take that position when the death squads

were operating with impunity in Argentina, arresting without charge,

holding without trial or process, torturing tens if not hundreds of

thousands of innocent Argentineans and in fact putting to death

thousands upon thousands of Argentineans. Then the government of

British Columbia did not stand up and make a statement on the human

rights of those Argentineans that were being violated. The government

of British Columbia did not take their position on the boycott of

Argentine goods when thousands upon thousands of mothers were

demonstrating in the streets of Buenos Aires, in front of the

government buildings in Buenos Aires, to protest the desaparicidos,

their children, their husbands, their spouses. When thousands upon

thousands of women were demonstrating in the capital at Buenos Aires,

this government took no steps to do anything, not even a symbolic

gesture of boycotting Argentine goods, to demonstrate their abhorrence

at the violation of human rights in Argentina. It was only when the

Argentinians invaded a British colony in the Falkland Islands that this

government took its action and expressed its support for the Canadian

boycott of Argentine goods. I guess it shows something about this

government and its concern for human rights, Mr. Chairman. We on this

side would like to see this government take some action, which will be

a symbolic gesture at best, but will show the people of Canada, British

Columbia and the world that we abhor the kind of apartheid policy that

is taking place in South Africa, that has been in place in South Africa

back to the turn of the century, and that we are absolutely opposed to

that kind of policy.

When the New Democratic Party was in government between 1972 and

1975, Mr. Chairman, we did take that position. We took South African

wines and spirits off the shelves of liquor stores in the province of

British Columbia. And we said that not only does the consumer have to

make a

[ Page 8746 ]

choice on this issue, by ordering those wines and

spirits specially — because they were still available in this province

— but those who supported the South African government. those who

wanted to purchase South African wines and spirits and demonstrate

their support for the apartheid system, had to do it as a gesture of

their own. What exists in the province of British Columbia today is the

government making a gesture on our behalf, a gesture that supports

apartheid, that supports the regime in South Africa, in spite of what

this minister may say on his personal behalf. What this government is

doing directly supports the South African government, directly supports

the system of apartheid.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Contrary to some of the remarks made by my

colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) that the members for Surrey

don't care — and I would hope that those comments were made tongue in

cheek, because certainly any thinking person must care about what is

going on in South Africa.... Really, I have no problem at all in

supporting most of the arguments put forward by the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds that we look very seriously into the amount of business

being done by the province of British Columbia with the South African

government.

You know, it's impossible to condone the actions of the South

African government against their black population, and we now see

whites pitted against whites and blacks pitted against blacks. Who can

possibly be happy with that type of situation? It's absolutely

unacceptable, in my mind. As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned,

the gesture would be symbolic, but I believe it would be very

important. I would certainly ask our own members to look at appropriate

actions that could be taken on behalf of the people of British Columbia

to let them know of our displeasure.

[3:45]

HON. MR. HEWITT: It is very difficult to talk about a

situation that contains a lot of anguish and heartbreak, and physical

hurt, the one taking place in South Africa. But I for one have not been

able to resolve in my own mind that economic sanctions will help the

people of South Africa. If you took the stance that I guess many have

taken around the world, and the stance that some of the...

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, it's very difficult when you have

black people sitting across from you, and you are taking a stance that

indicates that maybe you are in favour of apartheid. That is not my

stance.

MS. BROWN: Do you want us to leave or change colour?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, madam, I do not want you to do that. I

want you to listen to a comment that I'm trying to make that, in my

mind, is very difficult to make, but one that it would be nice if the

whole world would look at in reality as opposed to emotion.

The very people whom many of us are trying to help the average black

person in South Africa — can be more than injured by economic sanctions

that will bring the country to its knees. For example, the value of

their currency today has dropped substantially, and will continue to

drop. South Africa, like many other nations, imports many of its goods.

As the value of their dollar drops, they either have to cut out

services, which may be in the areas of medical assistance,

transportation services or housing for their own people — black and

white included.... They may not be able to provide the service that

should be provided because their product is not being sold on the world

marketplace because of economic sanctions. We will have denied entry

into our countries of products that black people of that country may

have produced. At the same time, the value of their currency drops. As

a result, imported products become more and more expensive. So what we

do is add chaos and confusion, total confusion, with people saying: "I

don't understand this. Why am I laid off from my job? I had a job last

week. I want to see apartheid go, but I'm not working this week, and I

have a wife and three or four children to support. I have a daughter or

son to educate. Now I'm no longer working, and unfortunately the state

cannot increase social assistance to me because it's going further and

further into the red."

AN HON. MEMBER: They never had it in the first place.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think it's fair to say — and I've taken

some interest in this and read a fair amount — that up until, I guess,

about a year ago there were some major moves away from apartheid. These

major moves were endorsed by, as a matter of fact, Rev. Tutu, who had

shown how far he was against economic sanctions at that time, and he

was saying: "We are moving in the right direction." At that time he was

preaching consultation, peace — discuss and work out the problems; and

I think it's fair to say that many of the issues that he raised as a

concern were followed through by people in political office.

I don't have the answer, and it's a very difficult subject to deal

with because in trying to speak out with common sense you can possibly

be identified as somebody who supports apartheid. I certainly do not,

nor does any other colleague on this side of the House. We feel sorry

and, I guess, to a certain extent ashamed at what's happened; but as

the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) has said, it's changed from

an issue of apartheid, white versus black; it is black men killing

black men by putting a rubber tire around the neck of another black

man, pouring gasoline over him and lighting him as a torch. That is

most distressing, because usually the man who is put to the torch is a

member of the police force, in many cases trying to keep law and order

in his own country. It's white against white. You've seen the extremist

right attacking the government of South Africa because they think

they're moving too far away from apartheid.

I don't know what the answer is. I guess only one person knows, and

maybe some day he'll come back and give us all some guidance, because

we seem to be like a ship adrift without any rudder. The major concern

I have is that of law and order in the country.

I admire those who attempt to resolve these issues with reason, with

discussion, with deliberation, rather than resorting to violence and

chaos in the country. I would only hope that maybe that's where we can

play our role: not just stopping South African wine coming into this

province but playing a role as Canadians and as a provincial

government, with representation and lines of communication with the

federal government, to try to act as peacemakers. Over the years that's

what we've been identified as. Canadians and Canada have been

identified as peacemakers involved in the United Nations and NATO,

always as ones who've said violence is not the way, sitting down and

trying to resolve the issues and

[ Page 8747 ]

moving slowly and steadily towards a goal which

will ensure that South Africans, black and white, are equal in their

country. That would be a tremendous goal for us all to achieve. To

those opposite who feet that maybe I'm not being sympathetic to the

cause of South Africa, I can assure you I am; but I'm also very

concerned about the chaos and the total ruination of a country if

common sense does not prevail.

MR. COCKE: First I'd like to congratulate the member for

Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) for what she said. I feel that that kind of

acknowledgement is what we need this afternoon in this House.

I would also like to allude to the member who just took his seat,

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who gave us a history

lesson that I just can't understand. The people in South Africa — that

is, the people who believe in liberty and freedom — have been begging

for the kind of actions that we've been asking for this afternoon. They

want the boycott. They want something to bring to the attention of that

government the fact that the world does not accept their behaviour.

Just let me allude to a couple of areas. We saw what happened when

the United States decided to embargo Cuba for what they felt was a

political cause. We saw the devastation. We saw the same thing happen

in Chile and the total devastation in terms of the Allende regime. If

we in our society are able to accept certain people doing certain

things that we know have a great effect, then why aren't we consistent?

If in fact we don't agree with apartheid, then for God's sake.... Out

of the ten provinces, eight have said no to South African wine. As the

Leader of the Opposition said: "Yes, it's just a gesture, but it's a

gesture that can give some leadership, some opportunity for the rest of

the world to say: 'You know, what they're doing in that little old B.C.

Is absolutely dead right."'

Blacks against blacks, whites against whites, blacks against whites

and all the rest of this talk — somebody has to speak to that nation

and say: "Get your act together, because if it becomes too late, the

consequences are devastating." In my view there's no question that in

the long run — and it may take another fifty years — if history is

allowed to repeat itself there, that will become another communist

regime, driven there by us. We have consistently supported regimes that

we find to be "tolerable, " one way or another, and invited the

situation that normally takes place. We have not learned from history.

The United States is notorious for never having learned from history.

If we want a free world in the future, we'd better be looking to

supporting real actions of freedom. What we're doing is a very small

step in the direction of inviting that kind of freedom.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, it's rather irregular, but just in

the interest of procedure, might I ask the minister in his capacity as

House Leader if at some point he would be willing to support resolution

53 standing in my name on the order paper, which reads:

"Be it resolved that this House condemn the continued failure of the

South African government to grant fundamental human rights and freedoms

to the majority of its people because they are not white, that

immediate removal of South African products from liquor stores and

cessation of other trade with that country be effected, that such

sanctions remain until its racial apartheid laws are repealed."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the resolution would have to be

called by the House. We are in Committee of Supply at this point. One

must admit that without discussing your resolution, without

anticipating legislation, there's enough latitude in the debate to

carry on, and that your point can be well made. But reference to

calling a resolution or to legislation would be out of order in this

vote.

[4:00]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to make new

statements. I've spoken already, and my colleagues have added their

sentiments and their feelings and made recommendations, I think most

eloquently, and in fact members on all sides of the House have

responded in a positive sense. But what is required is to take a step

of action. I would hope that we could resolve to act in a forward way

so that the people of British Columbia can identify with a governmental

decision to respond.

As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, during the time that we

were government a decision was made to remove the products for those

two-odd years — between '72 and '75. After the election of the Social

Credit in 1975 the government brought the products back. Now we realize

the reasons for that and we understand them, but it should be clear

what we're talking about. We're talking about action by the government

on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and I believe that if the

government were acting on behalf of the people, certainly in terms of

their desires and their wishes.... They have been clearly illustrated

by their response, their sentiments, talk shows, letters to the editor,

and any number of ways that they've been very responsive in a positive

way to sanctions against South Africa. So if the government is

concerned about individual rights and freedoms, the majority opinion is

that the products be removed. As for the government's private

ideological reasons as a party, I think the government can put those

aside on behalf of the people of British Columbia, which is what I

think is called for here.

Perhaps the minister would at least recognize that there is this

difference, when he talks about the freedom of the people to make their

own choice. In fact, it's closer to what the Leader of the Opposition

suggested: that the freedom is best granted by the government's taking

an action which represents the common view. but allowing that option

for the individual person who may wish on the contrary to purchase

South African products, which is always the right of an individual.

It's always the right of an individual to go to the liquor branch and

order any product from anywhere in the world — in fact, products that

are not even carried by the LCB. So the individual right is still

available. We're not talking- about the government acting on behalf of

the people of British Columbia.

It may be of interest if the minister would consider some kind of a

referendum. Why not put it to the people? The government is doing polls

on just about everything you can imagine, at great taxpayer expense. I

can't think of any issue more important, and a better way to inform the

public about the issue at hand than to present it with some kind of a

plebiscite or a referendum. Perhaps the minister would like to respond

to that suggestion.

[ Page 8748 ]

Vote 47 approved.

Vote 48: intergovernmental relations, $2,557, 122 — approved.

ESTIMATES: OMBUDSMAN

Vote 3: ombudsman, $2, 396,084 — approved.

ESTIMATES: AUDITOR-GENERAL

Vote 2: auditor-general, $4, 402, 758 — approved.

ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION

Vote 1: legislation, $10, 861, 780 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

(continued)

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I don't think we've got a quorum here, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just let me check.

With the greatest respect, government House Leader, I understand your concern. We do have a quorum.

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

Motion negatived unanimously on a division.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate having

the opportunity to say a few more words about tourism. Unfortunately on

Friday... I understand it was quite an exciting day, but I had some

important constituency business that I had to attend to. I did fully

plan on getting an opportunity to address some of the concerns in terms

of tourism marketing and development, and other aspects of the

operation of the ministry.

I would first of all like to spend a little bit of time talking

about the latest B.C. travel indicators. In a

summary of 1985 B.C.

travel indicators, the minister had painted rather a glowing picture of

the increased vigour of our tourism industry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, hon. member. Hon. members, the

member for Okanagan North has taken his place in debate. I realize

there is some levity this afternoon; however, the member will be

afforded every courtesy to offer his remarks. Can he please proceed

without any other interruptions.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. It is rather difficult to have to talk above the noise.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You should have been in here earlier.

[4:15]

MR. MacWILLIAM: I heard about it.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

As I was saying, the minister has painted a glowing portrait of the

health and vigour of the tourism industry, but I wanted to point out

that some of the information that he was citing doesn't really

represent the entire picture.

There has been increased U.S. vehicle and resident entry; there's no

doubt about it. That's helped to reduce some of our historical balance

of trade deficit in tourism that hovers around the $200 million mark.

But unfortunately we are showing a loss in some of our overseas

entries, as well as showing a bit of a loss in the rubber-tire traffic

that we're experiencing from other parts of Canada.

In 1984 tourism highlights published by the ministry show an 8

percent decline in visitors when compared to the figures for 1979. In

fact, for the five years from 1979 to 1984, we seem to have been losing

ground in terms Of attracting visitors to British Columbia. So it's a

little misleading to look at figures for one month or two months, or

even to compare one year to the next. But when we start to compare five

years or the trend over a number of years, we do get a much more

accurate viewpoint. When you look at that, we see that we do appear to

be losing ground.

The minister has boasted about a 4.2 percent increase in the hotel

occupancy rates of this year. But I wonder if the minister realizes

that the average occupancy rate of 58.5 percent is still below the

traditional break-even point — or the point that the industry considers

as break-even — of 60 percent. We're still below that. So although the

minister has been highlighting this increase, we still have a long way

to go in terms of the health of the hotel industry.

Despite that, the minister doesn't seem to have done very much in

terms of assisting the motel and hotel businesses throughout the

province that have been hurting. I haven't heard much in the way of his

pressure to relax the hotel occupancy tax. This is something that I

think is a consumer-based tax, Mr. Chairman; if this tax was phased out

or reduced, it would stimulate business in that sector of the industry.

As well, I haven't heard much from the minister in terms of any

pressure being brought to bear in reducing the restaurant meal taxes —

again, a consumer-based tax that if phased out, reduced or eliminated,

I think, would help in terms of the health of the particular industry.

One interesting figure that I'd like to look at is the campground

attendance. These are from the ministry's figures. Campground

attendance is down about 1.5 percent from 1984. But the interesting

thing is that when we look at the figures compared to 1981, we see that

campground attendance in fact dropped approximately 20 percent. I think

this is a real concern. I bring this up for the minister's attention. I

wonder if the minister has initiated any investigations to determine

why we've had such a significant drop in our campground attendance.

I'd like to point out to him that I've made some observations. I

mentioned earlier in the House, I think, debating the Lands, Parks and

Housing estimates, that I had made a trip last summer, kind of a

busman's holiday, looking at tourism and camping facilities throughout

the province, and comparing them to other areas such as Oregon and

Washington. As a matter of fact, my trip took me from the California

border up to almost the Alaska border, and throughout British Columbia

to the Alberta border. So I think it gave me a good opportunity to

compare what is available in British Columbia

[ Page 8749 ]

with other provinces, as well as in the States. I

found that travelers have voiced a lot of concerns in terms of the lack

of amenities in our present campground facilities. There's a lack of

showers, a lack of hot water, a lack of Laundromat services and rather

primitive washroom facilities. I understand that these kind of come

under the auspices of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon.

Mr. Kempf), but they also impact on the Ministry of Tourism. Much of

our rubber-tire traffic is RV traffic and campground traffic, and one

of the biggest concerns I've noticed in talking to travelers from the

States is that our campground facilities, when you compare them to

theirs, are inadequate. We don't have the amenities that other areas

have, such as the state parks in Oregon. I wonder if the minister has

any comments on that, and whether he has any plans to try to convince

his colleagues to upgrade those facilities.

I want to point out that a recent resident travel study done in the

Washington and Oregon area mentions that "Washington and Oregon

visitors overwhelmingly reject the notion of roughing it." I would

suggest that the facilities in some of our campgrounds are in fact what

could be described as roughing it. So perhaps the minister would like

to comment on that. I think we can do a lot in terms of upgrading those

facilities.

I'd like to go on and make a few points in terms of tourism for the

future in this province. I think there's no question that we're going

to see a surge in tourism — or hopefully will see a surge in tourism

this year, being an Expo year — and I hope that our concerns with

regard to maximizing the spinoff of Expo and generating regional

tourist traffic do bear fruit, because we have a good potential here

with Expo. We want to make sure that we maximize that potential.

In 1984, Mr. Chairman, B.C. lost almost $200 million in revenue that

was exported out of the country by tourists traveling out of the

country. I think what has happened in the past — and I've mentioned

this to the minister before — is that we've failed to market a quality

product, we've failed to ensure that we have a quality product, we've

failed to diversify and enhance our product, and we've failed to

advertise or, as we can say in the jargon of the industry, to market

that product effectively. I think more aggressive action has to be

taken by the minister and his ministry in order to increase our

marketing skills for the benefit of this industry.

A couple of marketing studies have been done. The minister is well

aware of these studies. They've just been published, and I want to go

over some of their salient features, and then perhaps I'll sit down for

a moment and let the minister respond. The resident travel study done

recently in Washington and Oregon is interesting. It has identified a

target market in that area for vacationers to British Columbia. They

seem to be about age 35 to 44, college-educated families with children;

their household income is $25,006 plus; they like short vacations. The

study recommends that we highlight water-related activities and avoid

the extremes of rich-style living and the other side of the coin, which

is the extreme of roughing it. The study recommends that we implement

an ad campaign based on new and interesting destinations as a strong

selling-point.

I'd like to recommend to the minister that we could in fact do a lot

with promoting regional tourism attractions that would tie in very well

with these recommendations. But I have some questions for the minister

in terms of the specifics of this study. What steps has the ministry

taken at this point to implement these recommendations? I'd like to

know if the ministry has developed an appropriate ad campaign that

incorporates the findings of this study.

Another interesting point. The study suggests that relatively little

is known about Vancouver Island, Whistler Mountain and the Okanagan as

destination points — I'm referring to the study done in Oregon and

Washington. I'd like to know what is presently being done in order to

correct these deficiencies. It seems that people in Oregon don't know

about the Okanagan, and they don't have a clear idea what the Island

has to offer. What has the ministry implemented in order to correct

this?

The study also concluded that specific information would be helpful

on what to see and do in British Columbia. It said that that kind of

very specific information is critical to our ability to sell the

province as a destination point. My question to the minister is. or

maybe it's a suggestion: has the minister or his ministry considered

installing a toll-free telephone number so that out-of-province

potential tourists can receive information on the area, region or

specific activity of their choice?

One last point that I want to touch on. The study found that a

significant number of the U.S. tourists who would come to B.C. are

cable subscribers. They watch a lot of cable television. Has the

ministry implemented — or is it considering implementing — an ad

campaign focused on that particular market segment through the cable

systems of the northwest U.S.?

Perhaps the minister would like to comment on those questions. Then I have a few others.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to be able to

rise in this place again and answer a few questions. I think I'll start

with some questions that were asked last Friday when the member for

Okanagan North chose not to be here. After being so pompous on

Thursday, and very indignant about what was happening in the House, he

chose not to be here on Friday.

MR. MacWILLIAM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe

the minister is referring to vote 70, which is the minister's

estimates. We're discussing vote 71 and I would suggest that the

minister is out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the minister is well aware of the rules of debate that a previous vote is not debatable at this time.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes. I'm very much aware of that, Mr.

Chairman, and I did not ever mention a previous vote taken in this

chamber. I was merely referring to that member's attitude in this

House. It strikes me as rather odd that one can be so indignant one day

and then not show up for the remainder of those estimates the following

day.

MR. MacWILLIAM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are

addressing vote 71, which is ministry operations — general

administration, tourism marketing and tourism development — and I would

suggest that the minister is out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is well aware of the vote under debate at this time in the committee. Would the minister please continue.

[ Page 8750 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I plan

to answer some questions that were asked in this House on Friday, I

believe by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). I notice that he

is not in the House at the present time. In fact, I would like to make

note that only three members of the opposition are in the House at this

time, and one who is making a lot of noise is not even in his seat.

If I might, I would like to explain to the opposition, especially to

the member for New Westminster — I want him to read this in Hansard —

about his query as to the amount of money we're spending in marketing

this year, and why it had not been increased from last year. I'm going

to explain something that he might have difficulty understanding — he

obviously wasn't listening when I made my opening remarks — and it's to

do with working in partnership with the private sector. When we talk

about the Partners in Tourism program, we are not just paying lip

service to it or just putting together nice-sounding phrases; we are

putting it into action. Our Partners in Tourism program has this year

enhanced our marketing in the order of somewhere between $3 million and

$4 million. We're partnering with the private sector to make our

taxpayer dollars go just a little bit further, something that perhaps

those members wouldn't understand. I doubt very much if they would have

the ability to work with the private sector to that extent.

I can tell them that the Partners in Tourism program is working

extremely well. We are partnering with every one of the nine regions in

this province to make our dollars go twice as far as they normally

would, and if the program continues at its present rate of success, we

will be expanding it next year.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, I'll talk to whomever I wish. You

people aren't interested in talking about partners. You should get in

your own seat if you're going to make comments across the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. minister address his remarks through the Chair.

[4:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the people

in this assembly, I just want to explain how we work with the private

sector in all nine regions of this province to enhance tourism, to make

it work better and to make our dollars go further. If they would like

to see the details of the Partnership in Tourism program I would be

most happy to provide them. I'm sure they can understand it in its

simplest form.

The other comment I would like to make...

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You should excuse yourself. You weren't

here when these questions were asked, Mr. Member. I will answer your

questions in due course.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Okanagan North

(Mr. MacWilliam) will have his opportunity to stand in his place;

likewise the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). At the moment

the Chair has recognized the Minister of Tourism.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would also like to address the question

of Expo and taxpayer dollars, because on Friday one of the members on

the other side — and I forget which one — threw the phrase out several

times that the taxpayers' dollars were being poured into Expo.

I just want to say for probably the umpteenth time in this House,

Mr. Chairman, that that is not true, and the members opposite know that

it's not true. Taxpayers' dollars have not been tunnelled into Expo. As

much as they would like people to believe that, it is just not true. We

set up the Lotto 6-49 fund to underwrite the cost of Expo, and it did

so very nicely. There will not be a burden to the taxpayer when Expo is

finished; I'm very pleased to say that to the people of British

Columbia, Mr. Chairman. No matter how many times they say it, the

taxpayers will not be burdened with a legacy of debt from Expo; they

will be burdened with legacies that they will enjoy for years and years

to come.

Just for their edification, maybe I should repeat some of the

legacies that will be left after Expo; they don't seem to comprehend

that. As many times as we say it, it doesn't seem to sink in over there.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, I will tell it again anyway, Mr.

Member, just so that maybe if I say it enough times, it might

eventually sink through and you will absorb it.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in hard assets alone Expo will

leave a legacy of some $150 million right on the main site, plus about

another $200 million facility on Burrard Inlet in the form of a

convention centre and a cruise ship facility. On the main site we will

have the refurbished CPR roundhouse, the British Columbia pavilion

complex and the Expo centre.

On top of that, Mr. Chairman, these people seem to forget that Expo

will generate some $3.5 billion to $4 billion in economic activity in

this province in 1986, not to mention the thousands of jobs that it is

providing. Thousands and thousands of jobs have been provided that

wouldn't be there had we not taken the decision to go ahead with Expo.

Then the member for New Westminster had the audacity to say that

this is not a fair for the people of British Columbia. I can tell you,

Mr. Chairman, that we have 95 community committee associations in 95

communities around this province, with thousands of people working, at

absolutely no charge, to benefit from Expo 86. If that isn't a fair for

all the people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, I would like to know

what is.

I've covered the partners program and how we're going to benefit

from that. I didn't even touch on the legacies on the tax revenue that

will be generated by Expo, Mr. Chairman. The tax revenue alone that

will be generated will be in the area of $600 million; just in taxes,

$600 million. They tend to keep spouting the same rhetoric over there,

that the taxpayer is going to be left with a bill at the end of Expo.

It is just not true, Mr. Chairman. They know it's not true, but they

continue to say it, as if saying it enough times will make it true.

I have some figures on U.S. vehicle and resident entries for this year, as

well as Rogers Pass traffic, that I would like to share with the House. The

member for Okanagan North touched on that. He also touched on the meal tax that

we are charging on all meals over $7 in British Columbia. Yes, Mr. Chairman,

it's very nice to say that we should be doing away with that tax, but the

member knows full well that when we

[ Page

8751 ]

brought that tax in a couple of years ago, like every other jurisdiction we

were looking for ways to generate revenue. It was badly needed in the province,

as it was in many other jurisdictions throughout the entire free world. Reluctantly

we did put on a meal tax; but unlike the member, I don't think that it is

a deterrent at all to tourism in British Columbia. Such taxes are commonplace

elsewhere throughout the free world; in fact, in most jurisdictions they're

quite a lot higher than in British Columbia. It's a tax that we don't

like to see there, Mr. Chairman, but it's one of those things that in our

present-day economy in the west seems to be necessary.

I have some Rogers Pass traffic I think is interesting which I would

like to read into the record so that the people of British Columbia

know what is happening. Let's start with the United States. U.S.

traveler entry is showing a 40 percent increase this year over May 1985

through the Douglas border crossing. So there is no question that we

are already reaping the benefits of Expo, Mr. Chairman, in increased

tourism traffic from the United States alone, a 40 percent increase

over the same period last year.

The other day I mentioned the number of buses that are up. We're

doing some 150 buses a day, I believe, out of the United States over

what we normally do.

Rogers Pass traffic, which gives us the clearest indication we can

get from eastern Canada, is up 21.5 percent over May of last year; year

to date is up 7.4 percent. So a 21.5 percent increase in May over last

year, in spite of the downturn in the economy of the province of

Alberta — Alberta is facing tough economic times now — again points out

some of the benefits that Expo is providing our province this year.

That takes care of a couple of the questions. The campground issue

that the member brought up is one that we are working on. We are

working on mainly assisting the private sector to develop their

facilities. Through the development side of my ministry, which is not

responsible for campgrounds directly, we are working with the tourism

industry to improve the quality of the tourism plant in British

Columbia, but encouraging the private sector to do so.

We are also, wherever possible, working closely with the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) on the government campground

issue. I would like to see campgrounds improved, expanded and enlarged,

and I would like to see it done by the private sector, not by

government.

The member talked about the future of tourism in British Columbia.

Perhaps he wasn't listening the other day when I went on at fair

length, I thought, on what we were planning for the future, but I'll

just reiterate a few of the things that we see for post-Expo and many

years to come.

One of the things that will enhance our product for many years

probably from here henceforth is the information centre network that we

have established throughout the province with the British Columbia

Chamber of Commerce. We have established a common look and a common

theme to ensure that when visitors see the logo of an information

centre, which is easily identifiable, they will know that when they

drive in there they will get the latest up-to-date information on any

region in which they happen to be. The information centre network will

benefit us for many years to come.

Couple that with the travel planner. The member asked what we are we doing

for regions like the Okanagan, the Island, etc. Well, I would recommend some

bedtime reading for him in the form of our travel planner, which does exactly

that. It takes the visitor on a step-by-step, region-by-region tour of the province,

so that he or she can do a one-day trip, or two days. or three days . whatever

his or her requirements are. It takes circle tours through every region of the

province. So I think we have covered that very well.

The SuperHost program. I could go through all the detail on that

again. but I don't want to bore the House. The SuperHost program is one

that will be in place for many years to come because it is doing a good

job of teaching the people on the front line of tourism how to treat

visitors and how, indeed, to be super hosts.

The marketing and market development I touched on again, but the

member seems to want me to repeat it. We have an excellent marketing

program in place with the Partners in Tourism and with our own

marketing programs and with cooperation with the private sector. Our

marketing is based on the research that we have been doing. The member

went on at length about research done in Washington and Oregon — yes,

done in Washington and Oregon by my ministry, so that we know exactly

what the people want when they come here from those areas. We've

carried on extensive research in British Columbia, Alberta, Washington,

Oregon and northern California. I think we're way ahead of where the

member thinks we are. We're way ahead of most jurisdictions in this

country when it comes to market research and marketing. I could go on

at length about marketing and research and what our plans are for the

future; but I think we're doing the right things, in fact to the point

where many other jurisdictions are coming to see what we're doing in

marketing and market development in British Columbia.

The last question that the member asked that I can think of...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Time, hon. member, unless the minister wishes to act as the designated speaker.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm the designated hitter today.

I've just got another point to touch on. The member asked about the

toll-free line. Yes. we are investigating putting in a toll-free line

and, once again, we are investigating it in cooperation with the

private sector so that we can make our dollars go just a little further.

MR. MacWILLIAM: On a point of order, I believe that the

Premier in his statement on Friday indicated that he was the designated

speaker for that vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the present Chairman was in the chair at that time.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Fine. I'm just seeking clarification.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am confident that if you looked at the Blues you would see that he had not. Would the minister continue.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, we are looking very seriously at

putting in a toll-free line. But as you can imagine, these are very

expensive propositions. I think we will bring it about, but we will do

it once again in cooperation with the private sector.

Also. In conjunction with the B.C. Motels, Resorts and Trailer Parks

Association, we have done a special RV promotion in the United States,

because our statistics show us that

[ Page 8752 ]

more and more people are traveling with

self-contained accommodation. So we are working with the industry to do

this type of promotion, and we have done so this year in the United

States.

[4:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: Just a brief intervention, perhaps not on the main

topic. I was interested that the minister protested the fact that we on

this side of the House were making a statement, or the charge, that the

taxpayers might be picking up any Expo deficit. He countered that by

saying: "Well, that's not going to be paid by the taxpayers at all.

It's going to be coming out of Lotto 6-49." Would the minister confirm

that taxpayers buy Lotto tickets? Would he also confirm that if the

government decided to use the Lotto proceeds for some other purpose

than Expo, it would be used to relieve statutory or budgetary costs for

whatever that other purpose was' Would the minister also confirm that

really what it is is that lotteries...? We become more and more

dependent upon them for more and more things; what it amounts to is

chasing a dream. It's really a voluntary tax, usually on the poor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister may respond with respect to the

Lotto funds expended under the purview of his ministry, particularly

Expo 86. But with respect to the direction of lottery funding, that

would be better dealt with by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy), whose estimates have already passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member virtually contradicts himself.

If lottery funds were used for some of the purposes that he suggests,

then indeed it would be an ongoing tax. I think that Lotto 6-49 funds

could not be put to a better purpose than funding something like a

world's fair that has done so much for this province in such a short

time. The international recognition alone that British Columbia and

Canada are getting through this fair could not be attained in any other

way.

Yes, Mr. Member, I guess I'm as aware as you are that when a person

buys a lottery ticket it comes out of their pocket. But when they buy a

lottery ticket, they put their hand in their own pocket. When you tax

them, you put your hand in their pocket. I think there's quite a

difference. When people buy a lottery ticket, it's voluntary. When you

tax them to do some of the things that you would, it's you putting your

hand in their pocket, I think there is quite a difference.

MR. ROSE: I think that the minister speaks with a great deal

of authority, because I think this government has a tremendous

reputation for putting its hand in the people's pockets. There's no

question about that, so I don't deny it. I'd just like to assure them

that as far as I'm concerned, and as far as many people in the province

are concerned, talking about an Expo legacy, we just hope that one Expo

legacy we won't have following the closure of Expo and the next

election is the minister himself.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I wonder if the minister can advise whether

he has considered an accommodation guide for bed and breakfast

facilities similar to the guide for motels and hotels. It's my

understanding that people that are wanting to advertise bed and

breakfast facilities are unable to do so through the present tourist

information guide because of the reluctance of the ministry to add on

those.... Well, I guess there must be numerous facilities that would

apply. Yet at the same time there are maybe half a dozen facilities

that have been advertised in that same guide for some time now. It

seems that we have a few facilities that are getting the benefit of

advertising, and yet a lot of the newer facilities are not able to be

accommodated in this guide. First of all my question is: why can't

facilities coming on stream be accommodated? Secondly, if not, have you

considered implementing a bed and breakfast guide for those facilities?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer to the member is yes, we have

considered it. We considered it very thoroughly a couple of years ago.

The answer is very simple. We just do not have the staff and the

resources to inspect every bed and breakfast outlet in the province. We

just do not have it, nor do we intend to expand the ministry to that

extent. So what we do is advertise the bed and breakfast registries in

the accommodation guide and refer people to the bed and breakfast

registries. Then the registries, which are private sector, can refer

people to the individual bed and breakfast. So it's as simple as that.

We just do not have the resources or the inspectors to deal with that

many outlets.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Another question to the minister. Aside from

the federal-provincial ERDA funding through Partners in Tourism, has

the minister considered the development of a specific funding program

for regionally based market surveys? I know the ministry itself does

market surveys — we've talked about a couple of them here today. But I

think that in any regionally focused tourism development strategy we

have to accommodate the need for the nine tourist regions throughout

British Columbia to do their own marketing, to identify their own

target markets and the best strategies to implement. I would ask the

minister whether he has considered specific funding for regionally

based market studies.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer again is yes. We're doing this through the Partners in Tourism program.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I said aside from that. I know that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, I think we would rather do it by

partnering with the region rather than always having the government g