1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 12, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7377 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 39). Hon. Mr. Dueck

Introduction and first reading –– 7377

Health Professions Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 40). Hon. Mr. Dueck

Introduction and first reading –– 7377

Seniors Advisory Council Act, 1989 (Bill 41). Hon. Mr. Dueck

Introduction and first reading –– 7378

Oral Questions

Day care funding. Mr. Perry –– 7378

Island Highway construction schedule. Mr. Lovick –– 7378

Trial commuter-rail service to Port Coquitlam. Mr. Rose 7379

UIC benefits for forest fire fighters. Ms. Edwards –– 7379

Knight Street Pub investigation. Mr. Sihota –– 7379

New Westminster pool incident. Hon. Mr. Dueck replies to question –– 7380

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism and Provincial Secretary estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Reid)

On vote 70: minister's office –– 7380

Hon. Mr. Reid

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Rose

Mr. Chalmers

Mr. Kempf

Ms. Pullinger

Ms. Edwards

Mrs. Boone

Employee Investment Act (Bill 32). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 7406

Mrs. Boone –– 7409

Mr. Clark –– 7409

Mr. Loenen –– 7410

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 7411

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism and Provincial Secretary estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Reid)

On vote 70: minister's office –– 7412

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Williams

Mr. Clark

Mr. Barnes

MONDAY, JUNE 12, 1989

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, we are indeed honoured today to

have with us a delegation of parliamentarians from New Zealand. I would

like to introduce them to you. We have the Hon. Thomas Kerry Burke, a

Member of Parliament and Speaker of the House of Representatives; the

Hon. Venn S. Young, Member of Parliament, and his wife, Mrs. Catherine

Young; Mr. Robert M. Gray, MP and senior opposition Whip; Mr. Graham D.

Kelly, M.P., and his wife, Mrs. Janette Kelly; Mr. James R. Sutton, MP,

and Mrs. Sheila Sutton; and Ms. Genevieve Orr, secretary to the

delegation. Would you please show them a warm British Columbia welcome.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if, on behalf of the opposition, I could

mirror or reflect the felicitations of the courtly member for Dewdney —

that's courtly spelt with a "c" not a "p" — in welcoming the New

Zealand delegation. Some years ago I had an opportunity to visit them

in Wellington and enjoyed their office space, which is a building very

similar to this one, but next door they built a beehive. That's where

they keep all the members' offices, and personally, I think they were

stung — but we won't go into that one. The Kiwis are welcome here, and

I'm pleased they've forsaken their very beautiful country to come and

visit us in the wilds of North America.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: All British Columbians are saddened by

the passing of Mr. Bill Hamilton. He was a former cabinet minister,

former Postmaster-General, former chancellor at SFU and also president

of the Employers' Council of B.C. He certainly served his community,

the province and the country in a variety of capacities and extremely

well. I would ask that the House send our condolences to the surviving

family.

MR. ROSE: I was acquainted, but not intimately, with Mr.

Hamilton. As everyone knows, he was Postmaster-General under the

Diefenbaker government. He did all kinds of community work above and

beyond the call of duty. He had, I guess, one of Canada's most

brilliant minds. He's gone. We've sent our condolences, and I know

British Columbia will miss him.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity

as well, on behalf of this side of the House, and I think I can speak for all

here, to congratulate Mr. John Shields on his re-election as president of the

BCGEU. John has been one I have worked with somewhat over the last several years,

and I find him to be a very reasonable individual. We can certainly, at times,

have our differences, but we generally arrive at satisfactory conclusions for

all. I would ask that we extend our congratulations to him.

MR. R. FRASER: It's with great surprise and delight that I

introduce two people here — the surprise is that she's supposed to be

in the office and the delight is that she's here with her husband — our

constituency secretary Penny Hazle and her husband Claude. Would the

House please join me in making them most welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I would like this House to welcome to the

precincts today 23 attachés from agricultural countries around the

world who are visiting the Legislative Assembly this afternoon and will

later this afternoon go over to the mainland. I would like this whole

assembly to give them a joyous welcome.

MR. PERRY: I want to ask our House Leaders' indulgence to

make one more acknowledgment of the New Zealanders here today. Speaking

as a representative from one of the first nuclear-weapons-free zones in

British Columbia, I think many of us in British Columbia have admired

and respected the New Zealand Parliament for its courage in enforcing

the first nuclear-weapons-free zone in the world in a country which is

a member of the western alliance. I would just like to acknowledge the

respect of British Columbians for New Zealand on that issue and welcome

them all to the House.

Introduction of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Dueck presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. DUECK: This bill proposes amendments covering seven

separate acts administered within my ministry. They include the Anatomy

Act, Community Care Facility Act, Health Act, Health Emergency Act,

Hospital Act, Hospital District Act and Mental Health Act. An amendment

to the Community Care Facility Act establishes guidelines with respect

to the operations of group homes. Another amendment, to the Health

Emergency Act, will establish a separate licensing body for emergency

medical assistance. Other changes are mostly administrative in nature.

Bill 39 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Dueck presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Health Professions Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. DUECK: This bill proposes amendments that would give four health professions the

[ Page 7378 ]

authority to regulate the use of corporations for

the delivery of professional services. Amendments would also permit the

establishment of a college of chiropractors and a college of

psychologists, both to assume regulatory functions from their existing

associations. Other changes are of a more routine or administrative

nature.

Bill 40 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

[2:15]

SENIORS ADVISORY COUNCIL ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Dueck presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Seniors Advisory Council Act, 1989.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, this act would establish a

seniors' advisory council, setting out in a detailed mandate the very

important work undertaken throughout our province by the council for

the betterment of seniors, the most rapidly growing segment of our

population.

Bill 41 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Oral Questions

DAY CARE FUNDING

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Social

Services and Housing. Has the minister now decided to reverse his

government's policy of inadequate funding for day care in this province

and his emphasis on seeking federal funding, in particular to subsidize

new commercial spaces?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to this House

on more than one occasion, we are very concerned about the subject of

child care. I have spoken with the federal minister and realize that

their child care act is still on hold. I have said to this House and to

the people of British Columbia that our government will be making

changes in and improvements to child care on a unilateral basis, and

we're in the process of doing that at the moment. An announcement will

be made very soon regarding day care.

MR. PERRY: A supplementary for the minister. Will the new

program give priority to funding nonprofit cooperative day care spaces?

Will it provide new training programs for day care workers? Will it

provide better licensing and monitoring, to ensure quality care for all

children in British Columbia? Will it emphasize parent participation in

the management of day care centres? In other words, is this going to be

a meaningful program, or is it going to be more of the same old showbiz?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, I'd like the member to

refresh my memory on which "same old showbiz" he's referring to. I

don't think the people out there who are receiving subsidies for day

care would refer to it as "showbiz."

Secondly, in answer to all of his questions, we want the people of

British Columbia to have a choice when they select their day care so

that they can shop for the very best day care there is. That member can

rest assured that when the people of British Columbia select their day

care, they will have a choice of commercial day care, non-profit,

family day care and unlicensed day care — or whatever you wish to call

it, which is some of the best we have in the province. The people of

British Columbia will have a choice. They won't be told by any

government where they have to go to get their day care.

ISLAND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

SCHEDULE

MR. LOVICK: A question to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways. Approximately one month ago, Mr. Minister, in your estimates

debate on three different occasions you assured this House that the

construction

schedule for the Vancouver Island Highway, as announced in

November 1988, was still operative. Among other things, that

schedule

meant that the construction was to begin this summer just south of

Ladysmith. Will the minister confirm that as of today there has not

been a date set for the tendering of that project?

HON. MR. VANT: The answer to that question is no.

MR. LOVICK: I'm happy to note that I'm going to be pursuing

this matter with the minister, because that's not the information given

by his office. Will the minister confirm that even if the process has

now been tendered — i.e., a date established — it must go to at least

one or more public meetings? Will he confirm that those public meetings

have not yet been established?

HON. MR. VANT: From time to time my ministry is very pleased

to have public information meetings. Indeed, there are a number of

major projects throughout the province where we've had what we term

"open houses, " with very detailed graphics and mapping of the proposed

project. The last one I held was a very successful one and concerned

the Lougheed Highway out in the Dewdney riding. It was very well

received. We are providing — as it is available — very detailed, very

precise information to those citizens most affected in the particular

area in which a project is going to take place. I can assure the first

member for Nanaimo that the Vancouver Island Highway is no exception to

our very determined policy to keep the public fully informed.

[ Page 7379 ]

MR. LOVICK: I know not whether the minister's problem has to

do with hearing or comprehension, but apparently he didn't understand

my question. My question was whether he would confirm that, in fact,

that process must go on. But it has not yet been announced, which would

certainly indicate that the project will not proceed on schedule, as he

indicated. Can he confirm that?

HON. MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite

that the original

schedule announced last fall — in Parksville as I

recall, when most of the mayors of Vancouver Island were present — is

going to prevail.

TRIAL COMMUTER-RAIL SERVICE

TO PORT COQUITLAM

MR. ROSE: Moving right along on things that perhaps might not

proceed on schedule, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Municipal

Affairs to give us an update on the commuter rail from Port Coquitlam

to Vancouver. I asked her on April 24 whether or not it was dead. The

minister said it may be in a coma, but it's not dead. I wonder if she

could update us on its current status, and whether it's still breathing.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, there have been no changes in its status since our last discussion

MR. ROSE: On the eve of the last federal election the

minister was quoted as saying, "It's a go, it's a go, it's a go," or

something like that. I know the minister isn't really a go-go minister,

but nevertheless that's what she said. On April 24 in response to

another question of mine, she said: "About a month ago, I sent a letter

to the federal government attempting to receive some assurance that

their commitment is still in place." Has she received a response?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, I have received a response.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister would be prepared to share

the response that she received from the federal government. A lot of

people in the riding that are in a gridlock trying to get in to work in

Vancouver as commuters every morning are very interested in this kind

of information.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The federal commitment is still in place.

UIC BENEFITS FOR

FOREST FIRE FIGHTERS

MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Minister of Forests. Can

the minister confirm that temporary forest fire fighters in British

Columbia this summer are not being assessed Unemployment Insurance

Commission contributions?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, we don't assess UI on temporary emergency firefighters.

MS. EDWARDS: The province, Mr. Minister, can make these

people eligible for unemployment insurance and for paying their

premiums simply by approving an order-in-council. Can the minister

explain why the government has not taken the step to designate these

employees as insurable — in other words, as provincial government

employees — so that the people who do this dangerous and difficult job

can claim benefits later, based on this work?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, ideally we wouldn't need any

emergency firefighters, if all things were the way we'd like to have

them — that is, without the threat of forest fire.

What we've done as a ministry is establish a number of unique

firefighting teams, some transported by helicopter — helitack teams; we

have some initial strike forces that rappel from helicopters — and

rapattack teams. And then we have unit crews, 20-man crews, spotted

throughout the province. I say 20-man crews, but they're open to

members of the other gender. All these special teams get the full gamut

of benefits, including UI; they are specialists highly trained in fire

suppression. We've made this opportunity available to all people. We've

advertised it fully throughout the province, and we've made it

abundantly clear to native groups in the province that we would welcome

their participation. Indeed, we have trained a number of specialized

unit crews from the native community, and we hope to see more. All

these specialized crews have UI benefits. Casual employees, picked up

from time to time, do not get those benefits.

MS. EDWARDS: Supplementary. Mr. Minister, the federal

government took special steps in order to make it possible for people

who may be drafted to do this work to be able to contribute to and then

benefit from unemployment insurance. Has the minister decided he will

look at what the federal government has done and finally allow these

people to have those benefits?

HON. MR. PARKER: No.

KNIGHT STREET PUB INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA: The government has been resisting answering

questions with respect to the Ministry of Labour, Mr. Doney and the

Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) these last few weeks. The Minister

of Labour has now met with Mr. Doney, we know, on Friday. Can the

Premier tell this House when his government intends to cease its

stonewalling activities and begin to answer questions relating to the

matter of political interference from the Premier's office?

[ Page 7380 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Ninety-nine times out of a hundred he's out of order, and I think he is again.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier has now decided to become the

Speaker. It was the Premier who campaigned on the promise of open

government, and the government hasn't been answering questions around

the Knight Street Pub. My question to the Premier is simply this: will

he now direct his Minister of Labour to answer the pivotal questions

relating to Mr. Doney, Mr. Hick, Mr. Poole and the matter of political

interference from the Premier's office?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think part of the question is to do

with open government, and I can assure the hon. member — although I

don't think I can convince him, because obviously he doesn't hear or

listen — that certainly the people know we have the most open

government in the history of the province.

We've had the cabinet meet in various communities around the

province. We've had the Cabinet Committee on Regional Development meet

throughout the province. We've had the social services committee of

cabinet meet throughout the province. We've had the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Parker) travel the province with respect to forest policy. We

have the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) traveling the province

with respect to matters for seniors. We have the Attorney-General (Hon.

S.D. Smith) traveling the province on justice reform. We have the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) telling the people about our

great budget. We are the most open government in the history of this

province.

[2:30]

MR. SIHOTA: Omitted from the Premier's list are the

activities of the Minister of Labour and his inability to answer any

questions in this House relating to the matter of political

interference from the Premier's office. If the Premier is so proud of

that track record, which he has enunciated to the House, is he prepared

to continue that tradition and ask the Minister of Labour to answer

these questions relating to political interference from the Premier's

office?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: For the record, the Minister of Labour took those questions on notice, and I will remind him of that.

NEW WESTMINSTER POOL INCIDENT

HON. MR. DUECK: I was asked a question in the House a number

of days ago that I took on notice. It was regarding a patient from the

Forensic Psychiatric Institute who had been permitted to visit the

Canada Games pool in New Westminster on Saturday, June 3, with no

visible escort.

I am not going to respond in full in the House at this particular

time. I've given a full written report to the opposition House Leader

to protect the confidentiality of the people involved. I would like to

say that every one of those prisoners was escorted and their behaviour

at no time, in this particular group, was inappropriate or problematic.

Other than that, the House Leader has the information, and I hope he's

satisfied with it.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

AND PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

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

HON. MR. REID: It's my pleasure to introduce the estimates

for my ministry for the fiscal year 1989-90, with two sets of

responsibilities: Tourism, and matters related to the role of the

Provincial Secretary.

The first is one of the healthiest, fastest-growing economic

generators in the province today. The other, the Provincial Secretary,

has a twofold function. It provides essential support structures for

the administration of government, and it manages the community-based

public programs such as lottery grants, multiculturalism and the

Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. I won't go

into great detail about these responsibilities, but I want to review

some of the accomplishments in both areas, because people aren't as

aware of them as I think they should be.

First of all, tourism. This is a real success story, Mr. Chairman.

Last year we generated $3.5 billion in revenue — a 13 percent increase

over 1987, which is impressive enough. It is 4.5 percent higher than

1986, tourism's record-breaking year — the year of Expo. There are some

other great statistics: 18.7 million visitors in 1988, which is up 12

percent over 1987 and almost equal to the 18.9 million visitors in

1986, Expo year. In 1988 the provincial hotel occupancy rate was 66

percent — the highest it has been since 1981. Our direct overseas

visitors were up by over 20 percent; our Japan visitors were up by over

28 percent; United Kingdom visitors were up by over 20 percent and

Australia was up by over 15 percent.

There is more good news and more statistics to boast about. British

Columbia is now ranked third among all the North American tourism

destinations. That's right, we're ahead of the Big Apple — New York —

and we are third behind California and Florida with their Disneyland

attractions. The estimated impact on the B.C. economy in 1988 from

group tours alone is $737 million. The largest number of travelers last

year were British Columbians, and they made 10.5 million trips — nearly

25 percent more than in 1987. This reflects the success of our Partners

in Tourism program. It's a very strong, effective, innovative marketing

of regional products

[ Page 7381 ]

by the private sector, and dollar for dollar is matched by the government.

The 1-800 toll-free tourism information line is another true success

story. We had 108,000 calls received by our program — which began in

March of 1988 — up to March of this year. Over half of those who called

and received information came to British Columbia.

The Provincial Secretary's lottery grants program continues to

support a broad range of community programs. In May I tabled the

1987-88 annual report of the lotteries branch with detailed accounts of

distribution of lottery revenue. The highlights of this year are that

the Health Care Research Foundation budget will be doubled to at least

$6 million, and the travel assistance to sports groups, community

groups and sports groups in the school system has been doubled. There

is $2 million more to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and

Culture for recreation, heritage and cultural groups. The budget goes

to $25.2 million from $23.2 million.

The major budget item this year also is the $28 million for

environmental issues. Go B.C. has $50 million for major capital

projects for this year in the communities. Other Provincial Secretary

activities are multiculturalism and building a harmonious society,

which is one of our greatest challenges. B.C. is committed to a society

where differences are respected and traditions cherished.

The government takes an active role, and in 1988 we established the

24-member Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage. It continues to be

active in making recommendations, and it ensures that the views of all

British Columbians will be heard at the highest level of government

input.

We also have the concerns for those with disabilities, and that's

one of our other priorities. Last January, the Premier's Advisory

Council for Persons with Disabilities was established: 13 members with

Rick Hansen as honorary chairman and Robert Sorenson of Victoria as

youth adviser. It is a very active and committed group, which gives

clear signals of our interest in raising public awareness about the

needs of the disabled in our province. What a tribute to have a

spokesman such as Rick Hansen, who, as you know, just last week

announced the Access Awareness Week across Canada.

Another important Provincial Secretary responsibility is the

archives and records service, management division. We recently merged

the two branches of archives and records management into one called the

B.C. archives and records service. It's much more streamlined and

efficient. We are now the leader in Canada in terms of effective

management of government records.

In addition to these services, the ministry provides support to both

executive and legislative branches of the government, operations and

maintenance of the legislative buildings, cabinet offices in Vancouver,

Government House and protocol services. As you know, we passed the

Provincial Symbols and Honours Act, which establishes the Order of

British Columbia and the B.C. Medal of Good Citizenship. It will be

administered by protocol, and it gives the province a new sense of

identity and recognizes some of our very distinguished citizens.

It is also responsible for the operation of the elections branch and

ensuring that the democratic process is applied fairly and equitably.

Responsibility for government communications was assigned to my

ministry in August 1988. The public affairs bureau, which was formed at

that time, is responsible for planning and coordinating information

services across the province and across government and for ensuring

that government policies and programs are presented in a clear,

accurate and consistent manner. The bureau makes sure that all

government information and advertising programs meet professional

standards and that full value is received for the taxpayers for

communications expenditures. The bureau has established professional

development programs for information managers, and it works closely

with ministries on issues of management strategies. Staff also produce

a number of cross-government publications, such as the Provincial

Report, the B.C. Update and Quick Facts About British Columbia.

In

summary, our ministry is a ministry of diverse activities

providing services to the public and stimulating the growth of a

dynamic tourism industry. I'm proud to be the minister. I want to thank

my staff, who have been very diligent and are a very hardworking and

dedicated team.

MR. G. HANSON: Just in the nick of time. I always like to have my research done properly, Mr. Minister.

I'd like to begin by saying how overdue fair election boundaries are

in this province. Under this minister, the responsibility for the

Election Act, for meeting the concerns of Justice Beverley McLachlin

and meeting the concerns of average British Columbians, the citizens

who want an opportunity to exercise their franchise in a democratic

society....

Beverley McLachlin has indicated that our election boundaries are

unconstitutional, that we have inherited this situation where we have

dual members, which is an antiquated, outmoded and unconstitutional

election situation. Only Prince Edward Island, I believe, still

maintains dual-member ridings, and it's a tiny little province where

every member can return virtually home from the Legislature in the

evening.

I want to just briefly recount a little of the history of this

situation and then ask the minister some questions about the process

from here on. All members are aware that we had the Eckardt report, the

famous Gracie's Finger, boundaries that were drawn to favour one

political party, political interference that occurred in the history of

this province. That was followed by a Warren commission report, which

fell into disrepute because the statistics and the numbers did not hold

up under careful scrutiny and were not applied fairly between all the

different ridings, according to the calculation. Subsequent to that and

prior to the last provincial election, 12 additional members received

dual membership. That was a very

[ Page 7382 ]

unfair situation, where 11 of the government's

ridings received extra members and one of the opposition side, to bring

the dual-member ridings up to 17 in number for the province. That's

just a little recent history.

Then we had the 1986 election fought on those boundaries, a very

close contest with very few percentage points difference between the

government in power and the opposition. Those additional 12 seats serve

this present government very well in terms of those numbers.

Shortly after election night, the Premier of the province indicated

that electoral reform was long overdue in the province of British

Columbia, and that an independent commission would be established to

redraw the electoral boundaries to be fair and just for the citizens of

this province. Judge Thomas Fisher was appointed. He established an

office and staff Terms of reference were developed. Justice Fisher

prepared an interim report based on an extensive network of hearings

throughout the province. I believe the total hearing-process report

accumulated something in the order of in excess of two million words of

testimony. There were about 1,500 submissions from individuals, MLAs,

former MLAs, interested parties, academics, etc., concerned about fair

election practices in the province of British Columbia justice Fisher

produced his interim report, but prior to that he asked that the

government expand his mandate, because it was clear to him that simply

by dividing the dual-member ridings, it exacerbated the situation and

made the electoral process in the province even more unfair than he had

possibly imagined. He asked the government to expand the mandate so

that he could alter the boundaries, that he could examine all

boundaries, and come up with a fair map.

[2:45]

Justice Fisher suggested 75 seats and a variance of a norm not to

exceed 25 percent, and that he would then produce a map taking into

account community of interest, population, historical factors,

transportation and other factors. Justice Fisher held his preliminary

hearings, produced his interim report, made it public, advertised it,

and made maps available to all members and all citizens. They then went

back for a second round of hearings to allow individuals, including

MLAs, to make their concerns and views known to Judge Fisher and his

staff, and if they had any complaints or difficulties, to make those

known to him. Many MLAs appeared before Judge Fisher and his staff and

made their views known.

A final report was presented. It went to cabinet and sat there until

the House resumed on March 16 of this year. Sometime subsequent to

that, it was disclosed to the members of this House. Originally only 22

copies were printed; now there are more available to the public, and so

on.

This House referred that matter to a standing committee, where it is

presently resting. There was a B.C. Supreme Court decision by Beverley

McLachlin, which was appealed, and a decision has come down on that

recently. Now all eyes are on this House, and all eyes of fair-minded

British Columbians are on this minister, because it is this minister

who has the responsibility for fair election practices in the province.

That's a short recap of the various developments that have followed

from the Premier's commitment to the people of this province that fair

election boundaries would occur and fair election practices would take

place prior to the next election. We are only something in the order of

halfway through the mandate; plenty of time exists. Requests have been

made of staff, and they indicate that boundaries could be redrawn and

the apparatus could be in place within six months or less, depending on

staffing levels and computer programming, etc.

My first question, given the fact that

section 80 votes on election day were taken away....

HON. MR. VEITCH: They were not taken away; they are still there.

MR. G. HANSON: On election day a person cannot register and vote, which is a travesty.

Am I coming close to time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member. The Chair has given you quite

some time to make your presentation. I didn't want to interrupt the

member until I was sure about what was happening, but I should remind

him — and I am sure he knows this full well — that when we discuss

estimates, we must not discuss any item that requires legislation. Sir

Erskine May makes that very clear. If the member can proceed in such a

way that we do not call for legislation, that's perfectly okay.

MR. G. HANSON: We are not calling for legislation, Mr.

Chairman. We are calling for action, for fairness from this minister,

to provide fair direction to the people of this province.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: That former minister is becoming somewhat mischievous.

The situation I am trying to explain is that the people of this

province have spent, give or take, about $2 million on a set of

hearings, engaged the best possible minds in academia, the legal

counsel of the province and Judge Fisher's attention to this matter. It

is clear that we cannot go to the next election. It provides

difficulties with the constitutional situation we presently have. I

wonder if the minister would care to comment on my comments and

indicate what his orientation is with respect to this matter.

HON. MR. REID: First of all, before I respond, I want to make

a special welcome to Mrs. Blaine and the Sunnyside Elementary School

from my constituency in South Surrey. There are 24 grade 5 students and

their parents and teachers with our delegation here today, and they

have a special focus on French

[ Page 7383 ]

immersion. I know we just went through a festival

for les enfants. I welcome the delegation from my constituency and hope

they have a very pleasant day. Would the House make them especially

welcome. Bienvenue.

The answer to the member, in relation to electoral reform.... I am

having some difficulty in addressing it, in that we have it in front of

the Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations Committee, and all

those issues are being handled by the committee. I expect to get some

kind of report back from the committee to the House before we go into

the next stage of recommendations.

I have trouble dealing with it, since it's now in the hands of the

committee. I don't want to comment any further and prejudice the

activity of the committee.

MR. G. HANSON: Is the minister advising the House that

because some of your members disagree with the recommendations made by

Judge Fisher, you will be foot-dragging and having the bubble machine

going full blast between now and the next election, deliberately trying

to take the people of this province into an unfair election that could

be ruled null and void? Is that what the Premier is saying? The Premier

promised electoral reform and a new set of boundaries prior to the next

election. Your members on the committee are foot-dragging to make sure

that Judge Fisher's report is not brought into the House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Nobody is dragging their feet. It's go, go, go.

MR. G. HANSON: So what's the problem with electoral reform? It was your promise. You initiated this process.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Get on with the committee.

MR. G. HANSON: Your members have made it clear that there's no way they're going to act on those recommendations.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You're dragging your feet. It's not becoming of you.

MR. G. HANSON: Unbelievable.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier made a commitment to the people of this province. Is the Premier now going to renege on that promise?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Premier has never reneged on a promise in his life.

MR. G. HANSON: Where's the cheaper beer? The list of reneged-on promises is as long as your arm.

It's important that the House understand clearly what this process

will be, because clearly your members have indicated they're not going

to act. They feel that they themselves should be able to roll up their

sleeves and draw boundaries. Is that what you see the process as being:

members of this Legislature redrawing boundaries?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I asked that some up-to-date

information be brought forward relative to the select standing

committee meeting. In case the member is not aware, there's a meeting

at 8 a.m. this Thursday, June 15, which is the next stage. I hope

you'll be in attendance, Mr. Member, and with the cooperation and

unanimity that we expect, we'll get on with some action. The committee

has been structured to meet again this Thursday, and that's pretty

immediate action, I think.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister tell the House how much it has

cost to date for that whole Fisher process — the two sets of hearings

that the judge has had? Could he just give us an indication, since

we're dealing with his budget, how much money we've now spent on that

process?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you against it?

MR. SIHOTA: Are you assuming things?

HON. MR. REID: I'll get that exact answer, and if you ask more questions, I'll make lists of them.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you. It would be most interesting to find

out how much we've spent on the Fisher process. It really would be a

pity, after the expenditure of public dollars and all those travels up

and down the province and the input from citizens' groups, to allow the

Fisher report to collect dust.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you saying it's not worth it?

MR. SIHOTA: I don't think the Premier heard the gist of my

comments. When you have a process, I think it's important, once people

have given their input during the course of that process — unlike Bill

19 — that the government then act on the recommendations of that

process.

Could the minister tell us this: what funding is provided in his

budget this year to implement new electoral boundaries in British

Columbia and to allow us to achieve the commitment that the Premier

made to eliminate dual-member ridings? That's a promise that the

government made, one which I'm sure, from what the Premier had to say

earlier, he will live up to. What allocation is made in this year's

budget for the redrawing of electoral boundaries?

HON. MR. REID: It isn't the question we had anticipated,

because a separate branch really runs a sort of encompassing cost

budget. We don't have a breakdown of any anticipated boundary line

adjustment costs and/or enumeration costs, but they are not

significant. I will get those numbers; I don't have them right now.

MR. SIHOTA: Is the minister confirming that there's something in his budget this year which would allow us to implement electoral boundary

[ Page 7384 ]

recommendations, or is the budget void of any allocations in that regard?

HON. MR. REID: The electoral branch draws on contingency

funds as a result of.... You never know how many by-elections you're

going to have; you never know when an election will be called or

whether adjustments are required or necessary.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: I know all about the boundaries, but I'm just

telling you that the requirement to fund the adjustment in the

boundaries is provided by virtue of contingency funds when needed to be

drawn upon. It's not something we budget for.

MR. SIHOTA: Going into this budgetary year the minister was

aware, I'm sure, that there was a court case wherein there was an

application made to declare the boundaries of this province to be

unconstitutional. I'm sure the government would not want to have

elections called with unconstitutional — or illegal, if one wants to

use more lay terms — boundaries. Therefore it seems to me that the

government would now be in the process of planning to deal with those

illegal boundaries. Could the minister tell what plans his ministry has

this year to remedy those illegal boundaries?

[3:00]

I think it's a reasonably put question to the minister and I want to

ask him again. It's not a question in terms of legislation; it deals

with the administration of his ministry. I'd just like to know what

plans are made by his ministry this year...

Let me just recap for a second. The first question I asked the

minister was how much we spent on the Fisher report. We're waiting for

an answer on that. Secondly, I asked the minister what funding was

available in his ministry this year to redraw electoral boundaries —

whether the budget is void of any allocation or not. The minister has

said that an application could be made to contingencies.

In light of the court decision, which we know the Attorney-General

(Hon. S.D. Smith) has said will not be appealed — and the government,

I'm sure, doesn't want to have elections on illegal boundaries — what

plans does his ministry have this year to then address that matter?

MR. LOVICK: No answer?

MR. SIHOTA: Just hang on. The minister is not prepared to

answer the question. Could he at least indicate to the House why it is

that he's hesitant to provide us an answer to this very basic question?

HON. MR. REID: I'm just making a note of them as we go along.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister tell us how much time he needs

to get the answers and whether or not we'll have the answers today or

tomorrow?

We're sitting tonight till 10 o'clock. His line staff, I guess, are

still there until 4:30. Can the minister tell us just when it is that

he thinks his staff will be in a position to provide him with answers

to these questions?

MR. G. HANSON: Let me just add one specific question, and

then perhaps we can hear the response from the minister. The Cariboo

by-election surely will not be fought on unconstitutional boundaries.

The Election Act gives six months; then 29 days after that. It could be

called any time within six months. Your staff is telling you that they

could provide all the technical material, maps and so on. Would you

tell the House whether the new boundaries will be in place before the

Cariboo by-election?

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a matter that involves legislation,

hon. members, and the Chair wouldn't want to be forced to rule the

debate out of order. Perhaps you could couch your questions in

different terms.

MR. SIHOTA: I purposely tried to avoid questions that would

speak to legislation, but more in terms of the plan of his ministry in

the administration of electoral matters, generally speaking.

We do know that it does take some time for electoral boundaries to

be redrafted. Could the minister tell the House whether or not his

ministry has taken steps to provide extra funding to the election

office to ensure that it has all of the resources available to deal

with this constitutional crisis that now faces government in terms of

an illegal map? Have you provided extra funds?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: You already have that answer.

MR. SIHOTA: No, I don't, and you didn't listen to the question. These are two different questions.

MR. G. HANSON: Perhaps some specific chronological

information might assist the minister. The last day of the election

campaign of 1986, Premier Vander Zalm promised that if elected he would

do something about electoral boundaries, specifically that he would do

away with dual-member ridings. Justice Fisher pointed out to all of us

very clearly that just simply dividing the dual-member ridings would

not satisfy the constitutional questions that Beverley McLachlin

subsequently looked at. On April 8, 1987, Premier Vander Zalm appointed

Judge Fisher as head of a commission on electoral boundaries. The

mandate was the redrawing of boundaries in order to eliminate the 17

dual-member ridings, and this was approved by order-in-council 87-690.

[Mr. Long in the chair.]

On May 15, 1987, the first public hearing was held. On September 17,

1987, Judge Fisher went back to cabinet and asked that his mandate be

expanded so as

[ Page 7385 ]

to include all the ridings in British Columbia, not just the 17

dual-member ridings and those contiguous. The request was granted, and

OIC 690 was amended.

On May 27, 1988, justice Fisher's interim report was issued. On June

1, 1988, a legislative committee was struck to consider the report. It

met once and formed a subcommittee. On August 25, 1988, the

subcommittee met. September 15, 1988, was the original deadline for

written submissions to the Fisher commission. The deadline was

requested to be extended until October 17 in order that all members of

the House would have an opportunity, through the chairman, the member

for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), who would then forward any MLAs'

concerns off to Judge Fisher.

On December 20, 1988, the final report was submitted to cabinet. The

report was tabled early in the session of the Legislature. Beverley

Malachi’s decision of April 17, 1989, rules that the boundaries of

British Columbia are unconstitutional. And on May 18, 1989, justice

Meredith heard an order requiring the Legislature to adopt the Fisher

report; order denied.

That's the chronological sequence that might assist the minister in

refreshing his mind with respect to the course of action that may be

taken with regard to this important matter.

Has money been allocated for the Quesnel by-election? Has it been

called from contingency funds for preparation for the Cariboo

by-election, I should say?

HON. MR. REID: The first answer is that the Cariboo is being

currently enumerated, like the rest of the province. Secondly, I'm

having some difficulty Mr. Chairman, dealing with this question in that

it's within the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and

Intergovernmental Relations, and they meet this Thursday at 8 o'clock.

If the members are interested in the elections branch budget number for

1989-90, it is $2, 775, 256. That's the budget allocation for the

elections branch, and no funds are provided in the elections branch for

enumerations, by-elections, general elections or boundary revisions.

The Election Act provides that whatever is needed will come from the

consolidated fund. It's not a separate provision within the estimates.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: No. Whatever is spent is covered. It's not a

separate request. It's not something that is in my budget allocations.

It's under legislation

MR. SIHOTA: Putting aside the matter of requests for money... Oh, Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to see you in the chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: He just flew in.

MR. SIHOTA: Yes. You just flew into your chair.

Perhaps the minister could answer this question then. Putting aside

the matter of money, generally, in light of the court case, which has

declared our boundaries to be illegal, unconstitutional, could the

minister tell us what plans his ministry has made to deal with this

"constitutional crisis"?

Am I to assume from the minister's silence that, apart from the

legislative committee, no plans have been made by his ministry to

attend to the problems caused by the decision of the courts? Is that

correct, Mr. Minister?

I don't understand why the minister is silent on this matter. As

Provincial Secretary, he has the responsibility for elections in

British Columbia. We've had the courts come down with a decision

rendering those boundaries to be null. It would seem to me that the

province would begin immediately to. develop some contingency plans to

deal with what the courts have now ruled to be illegal.

There's a problem here, Mr. Minister, which I'm sure you understand:

those boundaries are unconstitutional, and you've got to deal with that

problem. All we're trying to determine is how you intend to exercise

your obligation in that regard as a minister of the Crown. So what do

you intend to do, in light of the finding of the court, Mr. Minister,

as per your responsibilities in charge of elections in British Columbia?

HON. MR. REID: I'm having a lot of difficulty dealing with

this question, and it's not because I can't answer it. At the

suggestion of the member for Victoria, we have set up a Labour, justice

and Intergovernmental Relations Committee to deal with the question of

electoral boundaries, and I do not intend to stand in this House and

prejudice the position of that committee. They're meeting this Thursday

at 8 a.m., and I intend to wait until that bipartisan committee meets

and reports to this House and, ultimately, to the minister responsible

for implementing whatever recommendations they have. I do not intend to

stand in this House and prejudice the position of the committee. I will

not do it.

MR. SIHOTA: My question to the minister was: apart from the

deliberations of the committee, what general plans does the government,

through his ministry, have to deal with this problem? The committee may

be meeting for a long time or it may be meeting for a short time. The

government may, whenever it wishes — preferably sooner than later —

call an election. The report of the committee may not be in by then.

The House may adjourn, and the committee may not be given authority to

sit during the summer. Those are all speculative things. What is

certain is that the minister, at the end of the day, has a

responsibility to deal with the issue. He's got to have a plan apart

from just allowing this committee to go on.

Let me ask you this. Has your ministry, as the ministry in charge of

elections in British Columbia, internally, for the guidance of the

committee — which I happen to sit on — determined an internal timetable

as to when you would like to hear back from the committee? What are the

internal time-frames your ministry is looking at in terms of addressing

this

[ Page 7386 ]

issue and having it attended to? Surely you don't want to give an

unlimited time. What period have you, as a ministry, chosen to allow

before you act?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: In the original decision of Madam justice

McLachlin the court asks the government to articulate what would be a

reasonable period for the government to respond to the provision of new

boundaries in British Columbia. Surely the industry must have given

some thought to that, and I'm wondering what the minister would view as

a reasonable time for it to get its act together. Or is it the

opposite, Mr. Minister — that you would prefer that the next election

occur on these illegal and unconstitutional boundary lines? Is that

your preference?

HON. MR. REID: I want to make it abundantly clear that I do

not have the opportunity of prejudicing the position of the committee.

Nor do I want to go against the recommendations of Judge Meredith, who

just last week indicated that this supreme group, this legislative

authority, has the right over all those decisions. For me to stand in

my place and decide for you.... If you want me to make the decision on

behalf of the committee because you sit on it, Mr. Member, I'm prepared

to do that, but I'm not going to do it, because we have set up a

committee to get a unanimous decision. We've set up a committee to

handle that through the legislative process, and I do not intend to

stand in this place and prejudice that position.

[3:15]

MR. SIHOTA: There are a number of variables at play here that

must be operating in the minister's mind. The minister says that the

courts, through Mr. Justice Meredith, have said that it's up to the

Legislature to make this determination. The buck stops at the minister,

because he's the one who's got to make the determination. Surely he's

got to have some timetable within his own ministry ordered to deal with

this issue. That doesn't touch upon the committee. I'd like to know

from the minister what timetable the government has.

HON. MR. REID: You'd be interested to know that my staff is

diligently listening to all these questions and concerns, and I've been

advised that the time-line graph outlining the implementation of the

redistribution was submitted to and filed with the Labour and Justice

Committee on May 30, 1989.

MR. SIHOTA: I understand that. That's the time period it

would take from the time a decision is made to its ultimate

implementation. In other words, that time-line starts to tick once a

decision is made as to what those boundaries are going to be. As a

member of that committee, I want to know what the government's wish is

in term of how soon you would like the committee to deal with it, and

what timetable you have set up internally.

Let me put it to the minister in this context. The terms of

reference for the committee say that it has to be unanimous. The

committee report may not come out unanimous. Your members may vote

against what I and my colleagues vote for.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Hang on. We've made our position very clear, Mr.

Minister. From our point of view you could have a map tomorrow. You've

had the map sitting on your desk for quite some time since Judge Fisher

delivered it to you. We'd be quite happy to proceed from that point on.

It seems to me, quite frankly, that your members are the ones who have

the difficulty. What internal timetable have you set for your own

ministry before that timetable that you referred to in your question

starts to tick?

MR. G. HANSON: Let's take the comments just made by the

minister. Your staff did make a submission, but through

cross-examination it was revealed that a simple alteration in the form

of the maps would reduce the suggested time by a third. That was

gleaned in one small meeting. It went from nine months to six months

based on whether a short version of the maps was required versus the

long version.

It's clear that the election machinery in this province — the way

you and your predecessors have established it — has deliberately

arranged to make it very difficult to make changes unless you put the

resources there. No? I'm pleased to hear that. How quickly could you do

the job if you really wanted to do it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Government House Leader. Opposition.... Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. ROSE: I think you were right the first time. It's like

the minister calling me the senior member. Unfortunately, senior and

senile have the same word root.

I'm smiling, but I'm not particularly happy. I wrote Mr. Goldberg

recently and asked him a number of questions, one of which was whether

we could anticipate any changes from the current boundaries to

recognize the growth that has taken place in these ridings — especially

mine — since the last election.

I'd like to remind the minister that my riding is one of those

dedicated suburban. It is currently the largest provincial riding in

B.C. In 1985, it represented 62,000 souls. I guess it might have even

doubled, but perhaps not. Certainly it's gone up the required 60

percent. I would have little difficulty in assuming that. I don't have

any records.

Previous to the redistribution there were certain ridings — such as

Richmond and Surrey, but especially Richmond — that, I think, needed a

two-member riding. At that time the riding represented by the

[ Page 7387 ]

then Minister of Health, Mr. Nielsen, deserved it. We don't have any quarrel with that at all.

I was interested, because I think — I'm sorry to impute motives —

there's a little stall going on here. I know the minister is shocked

and dismayed when he hears me say that. If I were in the government's

position, I would not be that excited about proceeding into

redistribution along the Fisher lines. I'm sorry that I have to be

cynical and skeptical and maybe even suspicious that the government's

intentions are not to move with the greatest speed ever known to man or

beast.

The point is, though, that I wanted to ask Mr. Goldberg, the chief

electoral officer, if there was any possibility of updating the

existing boundaries, because I had a sneaking suspicion that the

government would prefer to go on these existing boundaries, because 11

out of the 12 favoured the government party the last time. We were very

critical of that. He wrote me back and said: "No, we couldn't do that."

We couldn't even recognize this growth because these boundaries had to

be in for six years or two elections. I hope I am quoting him

correctly. I don't have the letter before me. I looked for it earlier

and couldn't find it.

That's the problem we have. Take the riding of Central Fraser

Valley. It has 160 square miles. The size of the riding that I

represent is 432 square miles. Yet I'm allowed only one member, and

Central Fraser Valley, which is easy to get around — mine has a lot of

rocks and Christmas trees — is 160 square miles opposed to 432 square

miles. I've got — or did have — 42,000 voters, and the base of 38,000

gave Central Fraser Valley two members. In my riding we have one. I can

understand that it's a downtown riding and only a few square blocks,

but this is just one example I think the Okanagan would be a similar

situation, and it probably exists elsewhere. I'm not talking about

Surrey, because you've got your three ridings. I think we could qualify

for that, and we did under Fisher.

I really want to ask the minister what his intentions are here in

terms of getting out what I feel is a very gerrymandered McAdam

commission report Sure, Fisher was supposed to address these matters

But if we're going to have the same boundaries in the next election, it

seems to me to be grossly unfair. I know that a minister who represents

a government is always exceedingly fair about these matters, and would

ask whether he could enlighten us and perhaps give some of us some

encouragement along these lines.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I didn't know that senior and

senile were grouped together that closely, but I know that "senior"

certainly represents grey hair.

The meeting of the committee this Thursday at 8 o'clock in the

Douglas Fir Room would, I hope, finalize the whole question, and we'd

get a report early next week.

MR. ROSE: I want to ask the minister, who was reluctant a

while ago to intrude in any way on the work of the committee, if he

feels that the committee will report; that this will be its last

meeting and it is prepared to report. We have heard some interesting

stories about it traveling the province and getting the views of

constituents. After Fisher has done it twice, at a cost of a million

dollars.... If there is ever a case of redundancy, I think that must be

it. Does the minister anticipate the report from the committee after

they meet next week?

HON. MR. REID: If I had been around as long as that member,

Mr. Chairman, I'd probably have answers to those kinds of questions. I

don't know what the committee's going to do. It was demanded earlier

today by members from the other side of the House who sit on the

committee that some action be brought forward and that we get on with

it. I hope that this Legislature can deal with the subject very

shortly. I don't have any control over that committee; you should know

that, Mr. Member.

MR. ROSE: If he feels that there is undue lethargy at work,

the minister can indicate that by his impatience. We get the distinct

feeling that the committee is really in no hurry to act, and I hope

we're wrong about that. The government — at least the Premier — seemed

to be very embarrassed by any suggestion that last time somehow they

stole the election. I don't think there's any question that the Premier

would have won the last election anyway without this distortion in the

weight of voters, so I just hope they will proceed with it.

As for the business of Meredith, he said he felt it wasn't up to the

Legislature to take as much time as possible. All Mr. Meredith said in

his judgment was that he felt it wasn't the court's duty to impose a

time-limit; it was the Legislature's duty to impose the time-limit. I

think justice McLachlin's report was scathing about its relationship to

the original McAdam commission. I just think that the whole thing on

the McAdam commission has to do with his definition.... I think it was

scandalous, personally. It's almost like Louisiana North.

MR. CHALMERS: I wasn't intending to get involved in this

debate today, but the comments from the members opposite suggesting

that the committee has been stalling must not go unchallenged.

At our first meeting, when this was turned over to the committee I

we established a subcommittee; on that subcommittee is one of the

members of the opposition. We sat down in the Clerk's office and

determined what the agenda was going to be for meetings so we could get

to the point of dealing with the Fisher report. As you well know, we

had two other rather important items of business on the agenda, one

being the review of the Builders Lien Act and the other the review of

the judges' salaries. We have dealt with those items. Since that time,

we have had meetings at least once a week, and in some cases twice a

week, with odd exceptions.

[ Page 7388 ]

The last meeting that was held was to review the work that had to be

done by the chief electoral officer to have the mechanics put in place.

Because of questions from members of the opposition that needed

answering, another meeting was scheduled for Thursday of this week.

What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell is that there has been

absolutely no stalling on the part of the government members of that

committee since that time. I would also suggest that the work of the

committee might go much more smoothly if members of the opposition

would not only attend the meetings on time but would stay until the end

of the meeting so the work could be completed.

MR. G. HANSON: This government can hide behind the rules of

the House — and I have respect for the rules of this House — but under

the discussion of this minister's office expenditures, this is the time

of reckoning for him to discuss with the people of the province what

his views are on this very important matter.

You know, Mr. Chairman, it was a long time between sessions. We went

something in the order of nine months, and I think the minister should

answer the questions put forward by this side of the House He should

give us his views on what democratic fairness is. Every day in the news

we read about parts of this globe that take the struggle for democracy

very seriously. Yet here, the foundation of democracy — that is, the

right to exercise one's franchise to get on the voters' list and an

easy way to stay on that list, to have the right to vote, to have the

vote weighted in a fair and equitable way with other votes.... That is

not the case In the province of British Columbia.

We have antiquated election machinery in this province; we have

rules that deny people the right to register and vote on voting day. We

have a decision from a former justice of the Supreme Court of B.C.

Indicating that the boundaries are unfair, unconstitutional and

Illegal. Yet we get sort of a bubble machine response from this

minister.

[3:30]

You have an obligation to tell the people who pay the freight, who

paid the bills on the Fisher commission, who went to the hearings in

good faith and who want a fair and just system in this province....

This isn't the only inequity in this system. We deny the right to vote

to 18-year-olds, and we don't have an enumeration after the writ is

dropped. There are so many Inequities in our system.

The democratic process is a fragile one, and here in our province —

of all places — it's a travesty. We are asking simply that this

minister and this government live up to what the Premier said on the

day before the election: reform was coming, and the dual-member seats

would change. They would be done away with. It's not fair to the people

of electoral districts to have a whole series of by-elections on unfair

boundaries.

My colleague the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and

I are asking what your plans are to update the machinery so all the

election apparatus can be done. When the federal writ is dropped, there

is a full enumeration. Yes, it's a longer campaign; it's 58 or 55 days,

or whatever it is. But there are over three million square miles, and

there is a full enumeration carried out. The plans are in place. This

is the age of the computer, when information can be stored and

manipulated.

All we ask is that people have a fair chance to vote in a fair

weighted vote, so that their vote is equal to others. But if you go

ahead on the Cariboo by-election on the old unconstitutional

boundaries, you are not treating the people in that riding fairly. It's

also contemptuous of the spirit of the judgment of Beverley McLachlin

and the judgments that have been made subsequent to it.

We are asking for your views on electoral fairness. You are the

minister in charge. The money has been spent; the people have paid for

it, and now they want action. We need to know your views, and how

quickly it can be brought into place. As I have already indicated to

you, your staff said that a simple matter of adjusting the type of map

would cut the time by a third. There must be other technical features

of that system which can also be altered and additional programming

people to prepare the program in anticipation of new boundaries and to

make sure that there are sufficient map-makers to do the job properly.

It's done in other jurisdictions. What's the magic in it? How come

it's so impossible here in the province of British Columbia? Or is it

simply because the political will isn't there to do it?

MR. SIHOTA: First of all, I just want to say to the second

member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) that he made some good points

in what he had to say. Yes, the committee has been working, but it has

some limitations. The committee has very defined terms of reference.

The terms of reference of the ministry that this minister is

responsible for have a broader mandate, and obviously it has to take a

broader look at the issue.

The committee is, quite frankly, very focused in the work that it

has to do. That's why we are asking these questions of the minister. I

don't think the comments that he makes will prejudice the work of the

committee. I think it's fair to say that other ministers have been

known to talk about issues while they are before a committee and not

impact on the work of the committee. In some ways the comments of the

minister would be welcome with respect to what the committee is doing.

I have a concern that it's not so much that the committee is

stalling, but that the government wishes that the whole matter be

stalled for as long as it can. That's why we are trying to ascertain

what the ministry has planned, if this thing goes on and on. I asked

the minister a few minutes ago whether he would prefer that elections

in the next go-around here in British Columbia be called on these

illegal and unconstitutional boundaries. Is that the minister's

preference? That's my first question. I will sit

[ Page 7389 ]

down, and then I have a second, immediate question after that.

HON. MR. REID: I am having great difficulty dealing with the

way the questions are being put, because I think they lead to the

question of legislation and to a position of prejudicing the committee,

which I have said earlier I will not do. But while I'm on my feet, I

promised the members on the other side to provide the costs of the

Fisher report as soon as I could acquire them. The cost of the Fisher

report for 1987-88 was $753,479 and in 1988-89, it was $600,123 — for

a total of $1,353,602.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to bring to the members'

attention, as the minister has said, that only the administrative

action of a department is open to debate. The necessity of and matters

involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

MR. SIHOTA: I thank you for that, Mr. Chairman When I started

to ask these questions, I purposely pointed out to the Chair the

context in which they were administrative, in asking about the plans of

the ministry and the funding that the ministry has provided. The matter

of legislation is an ancillary matter. Once a determination is made by

the minister, legislation flows from that. But we're not asking for

legislation; we just want to know what plans he's making, what funds

have been put at the disposal of the elections branch to deal with this

issue and how they're going to spend them.

Obviously this matter has been discussed in caucus and in cabinet. I

don't want the minister to break his oath and tell us what occurred in

cabinet, and I'm sure the minister would not. But I want to ask the

minister this. Is it not true, Mr. Minister, that as a consequence of

those discussions — be they in caucus or in cabinet — your ministry or

you, through the funding priorities exemplified through your ministry,

have come to the decision that you do not want to implement the

recommendations of the Fisher commission?

In a courtroom, silence can sometimes be a shield, and sometimes it can be an admission.

HON. MR. REID: It's not a courtroom; these are estimates, my friend.

MR. SIHOTA: These are estimates, and it's not a courtroom.

I'm sure, therefore, the minister would like to confirm one way or the

other as to what is happening. I'm sure he would not prefer to use

silence as either one of those two devices.

The question to the minister again: is it not true that really, as a

consequence of the discussions I alluded to, the government has

concluded that it does not wish to implement the recommendations of the

Fisher report? Is that not what's at issue here? Is that not the truth?

I'll try again. Mr. Chairman, if the minister says.... Let's give

the minister the benefit — as we should — of the doubt. Let's assume

that is not the truth. Then could he tell us why his ministry is not

prepared to implement the Fisher report?

HON. MR. REID: I will continue to repeat: the Labour, Justice

and Intergovernmental Relations Committee sits this Thursday at 8 a.m.

The report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries is in front

of that committee. That committee will report back to this House before

there is any discussion in this House about any further action on

electoral boundaries across the province of British Columbia.

MR. ROSE: It's very difficult in estimates lately. I don't

know that the questions are any worse, but it seems that there's almost

a plan on the government benches or the cabinet benches not to answer

questions. I don't know whether.... It's the Stonewall Jackson approach.

Here's a little problem that the opposition has with several

ministries, including the Ministry of Labour. I've forgotten who it was

the other day. Oh, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) — he

just sat there in stony silence. We don't get answers to our questions,

so we're asked to repeat them. There's no response from the minister;

then we're accused a little while later of being tedious and

repetitious. So it's a bit like catch-22. We're not getting the answers

to the questions we need and at the risk of being ruled out of order....

So I guess the word has gone out that if you stall long enough, you

don't have to answer anything on your estimates. There's been a very

good tradition....

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) certainly does not fall into that definition. She's most open and candid.

MR. LOVICK: Garrulous, almost.

MR. ROSE: Well, loquacious, if not garrulous. So she answers

all questions, and on the questions that she doesn't answer, she sends

us little billets-doux outlining the answers in great detail, even if

they cost $20,000 to prepare.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

So we're not painting her with the same brush as we are some of

these other people whom, perhaps if I were less a gentleman, I would

accuse of dumb insolence — dumb not in the sense of being without

intelligence, but without voice. So the question is.... Let's assume

the committee reports. The minister just told us they're going to meet

on — what is it? — Thursday morning. They come together with a

recommendation. Can we anticipate that the committee's recommendations

will be followed — even though Fisher's were not — and that there might

be some time when we could have a ballpark estimate of when we're

likely to get some legislation to get rid of this gerrymandered mess

that has been trounced right up to the highest court in the land?

[ Page 7390 ]

HON. MR. REID: The question just broached by the member is future policy,

and it will certainly be a policy that we'll deal with once the committee

reports back.

MR. KEMPF: I'll try to assist the minister a bit and change

the direction of this debate to the tourism side of his portfolio. I

don't wish to prolong these estimates either, but I want to pursue a

question of a great deal of concern to, I would suggest, almost the

northern two-thirds of British Columbia and all the small business

people there. It is a question with respect to the tourism zones as

they now stand and what the minister and the government may be

intending to do as far as the changing or realignment of the zones is

concerned.

Just to bring the minister up to speed, I have a number of letters

before me from chambers of commerce, municipal governments, regional

district governments and simply concerned citizens throughout the north

and north central part of British Columbia with respect to a rumour

that tourism zones may be realigned to have them conform to the

regionalization scheme — i.e., to the boundaries of the ministers of

state — presently in place in the province. My question is fairly

simple, and we can get this off the slate very quickly simply by a yes

or no answer from the minister. Is it the intent of the minister and

this government to realign the tourism zones in British Columbia to

conform with ministry-of-state boundaries?

[3:45]

HON. MR. REID: It would probably be a simple question to

answer yes or no to, but it's not quite as simple as that, because the

current regional associations are working together with the network

council across the province in looking at the alignment of the current

tourism regions along with the alignments within the eight economic

regions. They will make some recommendations back to my staff on how to

make a more equitable alignment which serves the tourism industry in

the province as a whole.

MR. KEMPF: I'm not talking about the recommendations or

concerns of any politically appointed group in this province; I'm

talking about the concerns of the people out there who make their

livelihood from tourism. I accept that tourism is a very essential part

of the fabric of British Columbia today. In fact, if we keep cutting

our forests the way we are, it will probably very soon be our primary

industry — that is, if we have any of British Columbia left for

tourists to come and enjoy looking at.

However, there is a real concern out there, regardless of any

committees — and we've committed ourselves to death in British Columbia

with this regionalization scheme.

MR. R. FRASER: That's what they want over there.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Member, if you want to talk in these

estimates, why don't you get on your feet and do so like everybody else

who's interested in pursuing matters of great concern to the people in

the areas we represent. I'm talking about small businesses throughout

two-thirds of British Columbia who are very concerned about the

dismantling of North-By Northwest, a tourism association which has been

worked on for some 15 years. I want to know, here in these

estimates.... I'm going to get a yes or no answer before I'm through,

and I don't want to hear from any committees that have been politically

appointed by government. I want to hear from the minister with respect

to whether the government intends to realign the tourism boundaries in

British Columbia to adhere to the convoluted regionalization system

that we have under this administration. I think the people who live in

north and north central British Columbia and who make their living

there have a right to know whether their tourism boundaries are going

to be lumped in with Vancouver Island. Port Hardy and Vancouver Island

and Terrace and Prince Rupert have a whole lot in common.

I want to know whether that lumping is going to take place. I want

to know whether the work of 15 years by a very dedicated group of

British Columbians is going to go down the tube because of

regionalization, following in the footsteps of what happened to the

Northern Development Council. We have a right in northern British

Columbia to know, before it's done, what the government intends to do.

I ask again: does the minister intend to realign the tourism boundaries

of British Columbia to conform with the ministry-of-state boundaries?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, the member doesn't have to raise

his voice about this subject as if this minister didn't care about the

small tourism entrepreneur in North-By-Northwest and the Peace River

area, in High Country and the Rocky Mountains. Nobody works harder for

the tourism industry in this province than I do. Nobody has more

concern about input from the small operator than I do. Nobody cares

more about making certain that when we do make changes — and we're

going to make changes daily across this province — we get input from

communities, from operators across the whole province, about how better

to serve their community We accept recommendations on an ongoing basis

from a committee of our government, the Provincial Tourism Advisory

Council, which represents the whole spectrum of the province, plus

every small operator. But when there are inequities in the system which

must be looked at, this minister will continue to review them.

MR. KEMPF: I'm sorry that the minister is a little touchy

I'll lower my voice a few octaves so that it doesn't get so much on his

nerves. But that won't change my question, and the response I just got

does not answer that question.

I guess another question that I have of the minister is this: if it

isn't broken, why fix it? Fifteen years of hard work by dedicated

British Columbians has gone into North-By-Northwest. Any tinkering with

the

[ Page 7391 ]

present system will wipe out the work of that association, most of

it done on their own by interested individuals in many small

communities throughout the north giving freely of their time to set up

one of the best tourism associations in North America. You're telling

me here today that some politically appointed group is going to make

decisions which could tear down the 15 years of work by those

individuals simply because a government has it in their head.... Or

perhaps it's not a government; perhaps it's just one individual who has

it in his head that everything has to conform to his outlook for

British Columbia.

As northerners who give up our natural resources to fuel the economy

of this province, we have a right to know what's going to be done

before it happens. We've seen what regionalization did to the Northern

Development Council. We saw those 15 years of work go down the tube.

Are we to see the same thing happen with North-By-Northwest simply

because we cut this province into a number of pieces of pie, to conform

with somebody's warped idea of regionalization? I think not.

This may not be an item which will shake the foundations of

government, but it will certainly add to it. You have not seen anything

until you raise the wrath of the small business people. I campaigned

for your government on a platform of wanting more assistance and less

government intervention for the small business man in this province. We

in the north have seen nothing but the opposite.

You turn your head, Mr. Minister, but I can give you example upon

example. You want to start listening. You want to recognize what the

policies of your present Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) have

done to small business in that area. I know that's out of order, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for recognizing the fact that it's out of order. I appreciate that.

MR. KEMPF: I'll get back to tourism, but we were talking

about small business. If the Minister of Tourism wants to know what

this government's policy has done to small business, I'll give him all

kinds of examples. You're not going to do it with respect to an

organization that has set up one of the best tourism situations in

North America, merely because you want everything.... Perhaps not you,

and I'm sorry if I'm levelling these accusations at you when I

shouldn't. But somebody has decided that regionalization is the only

thing that's good for British Columbians. Mr. Minister, the change in

our tourism boundaries and zones to conform with ministry-of-state

boundaries is not good for British Columbians, for northern British

Columbians, and we'll not stand idly by while it happens again.

I ask the question: is it the intent of this ministry to change the

tourism boundaries to conform to the ministry-of-state boundaries?

This is beginning to look like question period revisited. As soon as

you ask a difficult question of this government, one which deserves an

answer, you get stonewalled. It's very simple, Mr. Chairman, and then

we can get on. I'll leave the chamber, and I'll quit shouting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, we're going to have ample opportunity

in this committee — and I'm personally going to look forward to it — to

canvass most of the subjects with the appropriate minister. I'm sure

many members are waiting with bated breath until that time comes.

However, for this particular ministry, if we can just confine our

remarks to that portion which is relevant to this ministry.... Your

discussion pertaining to whether or not tourism gets rolled into

regional development is in order, but I'm sure the whole subject of

regional development will be canvassed again; and if not by you, by

others.

MR. KEMPF: Again and again and again, until probably

September or October. I'm canvassing now the concern and anxiety of

small businesses throughout the northern two-thirds of this province

with respect to the possible changes in the B.C. tourism zones as they

now stand.

[4:00]

All I want is a simple yes-or-no answer, and then we can get on with

it. Again, I'll leave the chamber, I'll quit shouting, and all will be

peaceful again. All I want to know from this minister is: is it his

intent — and you won't get away by stonewalling — to change the tourism

zones to conform with ministry-of-state boundaries in British

Columbia? Simple question.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you, very much, Mr. Minister. I shall....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. First of all, I have to ask the

minister to wait to be recognized before responding. I would ask the

minister to stand and deliver his answer so that Hansard can record it,

and then we'll go on. Could the member for Omineca take his seat.

HON. MR. REID: The answer to the question is yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the House please make welcome the former

member for Langley and the former minister of so many things I couldn't

go through them all. He's with us in the gallery today. Would you make

welcome Bob McClelland. Déjà vu, I'm sure.

MR. KEMPF: I have an answer, and I appreciate it. I can

assure you, Mr. Minister, that I will communicate it to all of the

people concerned in the northern two-thirds of British Columbia.

MS. PULLINGER: I listened with some interest to the

minister's opening remarks and found them full of comments about the

industry and how well the

[ Page 7392 ]

industry is doing. It is indeed doing well. There were all sorts of

statistics that the minister was telling us about how the industry has

been doing. That's good, but it's also not surprising, because the

world economy is moving, it's gotten a bit better in the last little

while and people are moving around, and we're reaping some of the

benefits. I commend the British Columbia tourism industry for what it

has done.

I find it interesting that the minister tells all about what the

industry is doing, all the statistics, facts and figures, and yet we

have heard nothing about what the ministry is doing or not doing. I

wonder if that has something to do with the fact that the ministry has

been dismantled. I wonder why that's happening. I'm sure that the fact

that the ministry has been taken apart, if you like, will be to the

detriment of the ministry.

I would like to start by asking a couple of questions about the

function of the ministry as it is now. For instance, if I was the

manager of a small ski lodge or a small fishing lodge, and I wanted to

expand, would I go to the liaison officer for the minister of state, to

the development branch of Regional Development, to the recreation

branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture, or

to the marketing branch of Tourism? Or would I go to all of the above?

I wonder if the minister would clarify for me just what I would do in

that position.

HON. MR. REID: I'll just make a note.

MS. PULLINGER: Okay, I'll give you another one in the same

vein that you can add to that. For instance, if we were going to have

an international dance fair, something that was going to continue year

after year, which of the ministries would we see? Again, would it be

Regional Development, Culture, Municipal Affairs, Tourism — which

ministry would it be, Mr. Minister?

You're obviously not going to answer now. Maybe you could tell me

what grants there are through those ministries. How would I get

funding? How much could I get through the Ministry of Tourism? Could I

count on those carrying on year after year? Can you answer that for me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member continues.

MR. LOVICK: Ask him what the ground rules to this are going to be. Do we have to have ten questions first?

MS. PULLINGER: Good question. Are you going to respond to my questions? Am I going to go all afternoon, and then you're going to respond?

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER: Okay, another one along the same vein. I

understand that the Ministry of Tourism has lost to the Ministry of

International Business its offices in London, San Francisco, Los

Angeles, Seattle and so on. With particular reference to the United

States market, which is our biggest draw area outside of the province

itself, I am interested to know just how this is going to function and

how the Ministry of Tourism will deal with their marketing that's

happening through International Business. Are there trained personnel

at these places in the Ministry of International Business to handle

your ministry's delivery of services and the coordination of these

international tourism marketing agencies? Are there any services in

those offices in the United States and London that are no longer able

to offer to potential tourists the kind of services that they had? For

instance, how would these things now deal with the selling of

convention business? That takes some marketing. Or how about large tour

businesses — convincing major tours to come up through British

Columbia? Will those things be dealt with through those same offices,

and if so, how does your ministry deal with that?

HON. MR. REID: I'll start with the last one first. In

relation to the offshore offices, there is a joint sharing of offshore

offices between all departments of government. International Business

and Immigration runs all international offices as a direct

responsibility of that ministry, but my ministry has the expertise, the

trained personnel, still in place in all the offshore offices that we

had when their administration was handed off to International Business.

As a matter of fact, we probably have more flexibility in those

offshore offices with our expert trained personnel than we had before,

because rather than doing office administration and management, they

are now doing tourism marketing, tourism promotion and the tours and

activities that our people are the best in the world at — no question

about that. We haven't lost any personnel; we have incorporated our

offshore operations with International Business to give British

Columbia an economic thrust internationally on activities other than

tourism, where we already had the exposure.

We had and still have joint offices in urban counties in California,

San Francisco, Seattle, and we have offices in London and Dusseldorf,

which we share with International Business. There are other new

operations opened up under International Business for which my ministry

has the opportunity of training the personnel, which we didn't have the

luxury of before, with the complexities and assistance that they can

have towards the tourism marketing component and tourism in general in

those areas. They provide that ongoing information and assistance to

package tour groups internationally that we did not have before:

training service, questions on personnel, the question about the

division between hard development of tourism infrastructure.

My ministry's focus on marketing and the assistance towards a

product which has some marketability are in my ministry's mandate,

which is to encourage the product, to advise operators on the best

methods by which to get the message out and to transmit that message

with Partners in Tourism, SuperHost, Info Network, etc. But the actual

hard

[ Page 7393 ]

construction development within the areas of the province comes under regional development.

We have a tourism ERDA agreement which continues until March 1990.

It is administered by the Ministry of Regional Development with

personnel from my ministry who adjudicate the request for development

funds as they relate to tourism.

MS. PULLINGER: Am I to understand that given the scenario

that I presented you — if I had a ski lodge; obviously it touches all

these ministries — would I then have to deal with all those ministries

or just with your ministry?

HON. MR. REID: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. If it's hard cement,

bricks and mortar, lumber and glass, you would deal in funding — I'm

talking about the major capital funding which may be under ERDA

funding, federal-provincial sharing or offshore funding. To make the

product actually come off the ground, it would come under the Regional

Development ministry. My ministry deals with the product having

viability, whether it has any future or demand. If there was a demand

for the product, my staff would offer continued input to the proponents

to give them advice on suggested location, the compatibility of the

product for the rest of the infrastructure in the area, and whether in

the minds of my staff, who are the professionals, the product is

timely, and those kinds of things.

MS. PULLINGER: I would like to move on to tourism marketing

in the estimates and just ask a few questions about some of the changes

that I see in the ministry budget. For instance, in marketing the

operating costs, I see, are up about 40 percent and asset acquisitions

are up about 300 percent. Similarly, in "Tourism Product and Services,

" asset acquisitions are up by a factor of 14 from $2,500 to $37,000. I

wonder if the minister would tell the House why there is the increase

in operating cost. What is that? What's being done differently? I

wonder if you could explain the enormous increase in both divisions in

asset acquisitions?

HON. MR. REID: Without having the breakdown right at my

fingertips, I would suggest, for brevity's sake, that the acquisition

of computers would be a capital asset, or an acquisition which we would

utilize more extensively now than we used to, because we track our

clients on a daily basis using the 800 number, using fulfilment pieces.

If you are talking about publications and those kinds of things, if we

had our druthers, we would double what we currently have available to

circulate internationally But there is a limit with the budget I have.

The capital asset that you are talking about, in order to make the

ministry more effective — $35,000 and those kinds of numbers — must be

something small, computer acquisition or something, I would think.

MS. PULLINGER: I would be interested to know, too, what the

professional services, $1.3 million approximately, represents in your

budget. That again is a significant increase.

MR. REID: Ask a couple in a row; I will get some advice and some responses to these one at a time.

MS. PULLINGER: Okay. Last year I see that there was a

breakdown between the description.... I don't know what it is, because

I don't have it in this year's; but 15, and this year it is all under

20, and the amount seems to balance. Is it the same thing, or is that a

change? Is this contracted-out services, or what exactly does that

represent?

I am also interested to know what the information advertising is,

the $5 million. Is that for things like Super, Natural British

Columbia? What does that represent as well? What kind of advertising do

we have under that one?

A third question is that I would like an explanation of the grants, the $740,000 and the $4,037,000. What does that represent?

HON. MR. REID: The answer to the last one first: the grants

portion under my ministry, when it is listed in the grants portion, is

the Partners in Tourism money that goes out to the nine regions on a

proportion of the private sector purchase. We grant matching money

according to a formula and a program.

The other question was about contracted services. We are contracting

the service this year for the reopening of the Douglas crossing, which

is about $200,000. That would be the major cost in the contracted

services.

[4:15]

What was the third? Oh yes. I've just been handed the actual

breakdown on the $5,350,500. First of all, 68 percent of that, almost

$4 million, goes into the continental United States, to do with

television, radio, newspaper, magazines, etc. Eight percent goes into

the province of British Columbia, which is half a million dollars;

other Canada, $813,000; international marketing, almost $600,000.

It's broken down in the following ways: almost 62 percent of that

goes into magazines and publications. Cable television, which is a

major market — it's not a large percentage, but it's a major cost to

us, and it deals with CNN, which gives us global exposure for Super,

Natural British Columbia.... And newspaper publications is 14 percent.

Radio is 7.7 percent.

That overall $5.35 million includes publications such as the

accommodation guide, which we produce a million of; the travel planner,

a million of those; all the road maps which are tourism-related; the

freshwater-fishing guide; the salmon-fishing guide; the outdoor

recreation guide. Those kinds of publications, of which we have ten to

13 in total, are major publications.

It is because of the success we've had in drawing some of the

private sector into some of those publications that we now get a larger

volume of production

[ Page 7394 ]

than previously in relation to the taxpayer's dollar. The private

sector invests in some of the advertisements in those publications, so

we get a wider range. But we also continue to go back to Treasury Board

and my colleagues for additional money for marketing. If I had my

druthers, this would be double, because there is evidence that for

every dollar you spend in marketing, internationally and provincially,

you get about seven in return.

I can tell you that my staff works diligently to make certain that

every dollar that is allocated gets the biggest bang for the buck and

the biggest return for the dollar. I am convinced that, in comparing

the kind of money we put into international marketing and our tourism

marketing program, we probably are the most successful in the world.

MS. PULLINGER: Given the fact that the vast majority — I

think something like 46 percent — of tourists come from British

Columbia, I am surprised that the tourism budget is so small for

British Columbia. I would be interested to know if the present

allocation of funds in terms of geographic advertising is a change from

previous allocations. Can the minister answer that?

HON. MR. REID: In simplistic terms, we don't package in the

total marketing budget of Partners in Tourism. Partners in Tourism

money relates to British Columbia promotions for British Columbia

industry and small regional promotions. That $3,350,000 is matched

dollar for dollar in the regions.

You asked about allocations for the regions. I'll read you the list.

In 1988-89 the Tourism Association of Vancouver Island had $610,600 of

our money, and in 1989-90 we're allocating exactly the same amount. The

Tourism Association of Southwestern British Columbia had $847,400; this

year it's $847,400. Okanagan-Similkameen, $600,000 in 1988-89 and

1989-90. Kootenay Country, $222,000 in 1988-89 and this year. You must

know that all of these matching dollars are generated by programs from

the local regions. When the project meets the criteria of the Partners

in Tourism program, then we agree to match the production money. High

Country, $242,000 last year and this year. Cariboo Tourist, $222,000

last year and again this year. North-By-Northwest, $162,000 last year

and this year. Peace River-Alaska Highway, $101,000 last year and this

year. Rocky Mountain region, which is the one from the Kootenays — you

should pay attention to this one — is probably one of the most

aggressive tourism regions now as it deals with the Partners in Tourism

allocation; last year they received $343,000 matching dollars, and this

year they'll receive the same.

MS. PULLINGER: We seem to have moved to Partners in Tourism

and the tourism councils. I was asking more specifically about the

advertising budget of $5 million for radio, television and brochure

advertising, the vast majority of which appears to be going to the

United States when in fact our biggest market for tourism is British

Columbia and the second largest is Canada generally. The United States

is, I believe, the third. Is the allocation of that $5 million changed

from last year, or is it the same? If so, why is it disproportionate to

where our tourists come from?

HON. MR. REID: I was trying to give you the whole answer. If

you only want half an answer, you can have half an answer. Half an

answer is that the money we provide for tourism promotion within the

marketing budget — described as marketing, period — in British Columbia

is not a significant number. The close-in marketing that we do, which

we match dollar for dollar, is Partners in Tourism, and that's $3.5

million. Three and a half million dollars is spent on what is called

close-in marketing. Regions of British Columbia visiting other regions

or the closest state or province to British Columbia is used to bring

in that close-in market. That market emanates from British Columbia. We

spend $3,350,000 to do that, plus another $500,000 generically for

radio.

The publications and maps that are used from region to region are

not broken down. Provincial usage of the publications is probably 80 to

20. If you want to divide up the publication costs, provincial use

versus external use, you'd probably be surprised to know that

three-quarters or more of the money is utilized within the province. We

don't have to make a special product for British Columbia. It's

generically in among the overall publication budget.

I can tell you that we're doing a very effective job with internal

tourism. Every time we get more British Columbians seeing British

Columbia we win twice, because we keep the economy at home and we help

our home product. It's certainly in my ministry's interest to do the

best we can with the dollars expended. It's the collective opinion of

my ministry staff — which, as I told you before, are the best in the

world — that we're increasing the fastest in both visits and dollars —

doing the best we can with the dollars.

If you're being critical of the number of dollars in the provincial

budget, I'm saying to you that if you want it broken down into how many

travel guides are distributed to each tourism centre across the

province, that would probably give you the effective number that you

want.

MS. PULLINGER: I was questioning, rather, the amount of

advertising money spent in the United States versus in Canada. Can the

minister confirm that in spite of the fact that in raw dollars tourism

income has risen, our market share has decreased, particularly in the

northwestern United States?

HON. MR. REID: I can't confirm that, because it's incorrect.

Our market share, in relation to any other province in Canada, has

increased in that particular market. The answer to the question of why

we concentrate on California, for instance, in the U.S. market, rather

than Idaho, Montana and Texas.... We do a limited amount of marketing

there, but there are 26 million people in the state of California,

which is

[ Page 7395 ]

more than the population of Canada. So it's certainly incumbent upon

us to go after that market and see how many of them we can attract to

B.C. Those are external dollars. We get a bigger hit for our marketing

dollar in California than by spending it in New York, Dallas or

wherever. It's our intention to continue to do that: to monitor where

our returns are, to find out where the advertising dollar gets the best

return and to continue to spend it there.

MS. PULLINGER: It's interesting that you say that our market

share isn't down, because that conflicts with information I get from

the industry. I'm quite surprised.

I'd like to move on a bit to the Provincial Tourism Advisory

Council. I understand that there have been some changes in the council

and that there are now 18 members, all of whom are appointed, and that

they've been appointed by the ministry. Before that, I would like to

ask for a more specific breakdown of the marketing budget. Perhaps you

could give me a breakdown of the percentage spent on research, the

percentage spent on promotion and special events, and the percentage

spent on the marketing budget. While you're doing that, I would also be

interested in knowing what the budget is for the Provincial Tourism

Advisory Council. Is that funded 100 percent by the ministry?

HON. MR. REID: The last question first: PTAC does not have

its own allocated budget. PTAC is made up of volunteer representatives

from the eight regions and the industry across the province. We provide

them with a meeting-room, tea and cookies, and that kind of thing when

they meet. That's twice a year, so it's not a major expense to my

ministry. They are volunteer advisers, private sector advisers and

regional advisers to the tourism industry.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Chairman, is the minister saying that in

fact there are no travel expenses — no expenses other than tea and

cookies — provided for PTAC?

HON. MR. REID: No. We do pay travel expenses twice a year for

all of the representatives, and we pay, out of an allocation, the room

rental. If it's an overnight meeting, I presume we pay for the room.

It's not a large item, so we carry it under our general administration

budget. The Provincial Tourism Advisory Council operates as an advisory

body, and it meets twice a year. It's not something that's been a big

burden financially to the ministry.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MS. PULLINGER: I would be interested to know just what that budget is. You must have allocated some kind of funding for it.

Perhaps you can tell me what the tourism industry council of B.C....

What's the entire amount, or what percentage of the budget...? Where

does it come in the budget? Under which part — marketing, services or

administration? The third question is: what percentage of the funding

for those does the government pay?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I'm at a bit of a loss because

I'm not sure what she's describing. The Tourism Industry Association of

B.C. is not under the umbrella of the ministry. Is that the group

you're talking about?

MS. PULLINGER: My understanding from those involved is that

each of the nine tourism regions receives some funding from the

ministry for the elected tourism body that represents the region.

That's the funding that I'm talking about. I believe it's the numbers

that you gave me earlier, but I'd like to know where that is and where

it comes from.

[4:30]

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I think I know now what the

member is alluding to. I don't have the breakdown, but it's around

$80,000 per region for administrative costs, plus we provide them with

a tiny supplement to pay their Challenge '89 kind of employee in some

of those outlying regions. It's around $80,000, give or take a small

component depending on the jurisdiction of the office. If you want the

exact number, I can certainly get my staff to bring it down, but it's

in that neighbourhood.

MS. PULLINGER: I'm interested to know as well how the Tourism

Advisory Council works with the tourism industry council of British

Columbia. I understand that those are two separate and distinct bodies,

the latter being elected by the people in the nine tourism zones and

the former being appointed. How do the regional tourism council and the

provincial body work together?

HON. MR. REID: I'm trying to be a little generous with the

member, knowing that she's fairly new to the portfolio. All these

terminologies can be confusing, and I can appreciate that. I think what

you're asking is relative to the council of regions. Each of the

regions appoints a member, they then meet, and they then appoint a

chairman. The chairman from that council of regions is then an

automatic member of the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council. They

automatically sit; that's a part of the structure. That is at the

discretion of the council of regions.

I've just been given the actual number. Our contribution to the nine

regions across the province is a total of $740,000. If you divide that

by nine, you get a little over $80,000.

MS. PULLINGER: I'd like to ask a few questions about the

Tourism Advisory Council. The minister just stated that a person was

appointed by the regional tourism associations to be on the Provincial

Tourism Advisory Council. Is that correct?

HON. MR. REID: Let me just read the status of the councils, to break it down for you.

[ Page 7396 ]

The membership and the structure of PTAC has been revised to enable

the council to more effectively carry out its role as an adviser to

government on a broad range of tourism issues. Membership is 16, and a

chairman and members are appointed by the minister. The chairman of

that council will appoint two other PTAC members to serve with him as

executive.

Where have I got the member of the council on here? I'm sorry, it's

not in my speaking notes. But in the structure and the mandate, it has

the chairman of the council of regions, which is all the regions

together.... The chairman is automatically appointed a member of this

committee, as the structure is made up.

MS. PULLINGER: What I was interested to know was where the

appointment came from, whether from government or from the regions. I

understand you to be saying that whoever is the chairperson of the

regional groups is automatically on the council. My understanding was

that the past chair is on the council, not the present one, so there is

some confusion there. Will that change now that the chair has changed?

HON. MR. REID: I'm reacting fast. The council just sat a week

ago for the first meeting. It was ironic, but the outgoing chairman of

the council of regions sat for one day as chairman of the regions, and

he attended the meeting. If he had been confirmed as the chairman of

the regions, he would have continued to sit, but I understand they

appointed a different chairman. That new chairman will automatically be

the sitting person representing that organization on PTAC.

MS. PULLINGER: Thank you for that clarification.

I would like to ask about PTAC. What criteria are used for choosing the members of the council?

HON. MR. REID: The selection committee and the selection

group perused previous participants in the council and the eight

regions of the province for people with strong knowledge of the regions

to be appointed on particular expertise, particularly in the overall

tourism industry, if possible, but with some strength towards the

region they were representing We also appointed a group of direct

representatives who were strong in the industry. For instance, the

skiing industry in British Columbia deserves somebody with a lot of

knowledge about that industry And we needed somebody who was strong in

the small-hotel industry — outside of the regional perspective, they

had a provincial perspective. So we looked at experts throughout the

whole province that we could call on to advise government and the

industry on the best interests and needs of that industry across the

province.

MS. PULLINGER: Can the minister tell me how many of the council members

are owners or operators of tourism businesses, and also what organized bodies

representing the tourist trade are represented on the council? I'd be interested

to know the numbers of each, and if there's an overlap, how many people

represent both.

Perhaps another question. Why has PTAC been explicitly reorganized

on the basis of the eight development regions rather than on the nine

established tourism regions which have, of course, a long history of

successful marketing of the different tourism corridors?

HON. MR. REID: It may be key to that member's comment that in

her last statement as she sat down, when she talked about corridors,

she didn't really want to emphasize the strength of the regions as such.

I recently spent three days with North-By-Northwest on a seminar at

sea dealing with the North-By Northwest concerns and with the corridor

question — because that's all that that whole subject deals with, the

corridor; it doesn't deal with the overall perspective of the tourism

industry in general. I met with the North-By-Northwest group to talk

about the relationship we are now developing with Alaska and the Yukon

and tying in the whole northern area of British Columbia in total,

without dissecting it in such a way that you create inequities in the

areas.

For instance, in that member's riding, as she should know, there's

an inequity with the current system of corridors not servicing the

regions north of Prince George, I'm sorry to say. The question that

keeps coming to me as a minister is when this government and this

minister will deal with questions of the inequity of the transient

tourist who does not get a chance to be exposed to some of the other

regional opportunities across the province rather than by corridor.

There's only one corridor in the province where that exists, and it's

Highway 16. All the other highway corridors in the province are divided

by other regions, and the highways and the corridors service more than

one region.

The only one that doesn't, and, of course, the one that has a major

selfish concern, is North-By-Northwest, because they represent almost a

quarter of the whole province with that region. They start at the

Alaska-Yukon border, go south to Prince Rupert, west to the Queen

Charlotte Islands, north to Masset and all the way east to the Alberta

border. All the other areas which they cross, Cariboo, Peace River

North and the Okanagan, do not have an opportunity of servicing that

clientele. So there are some strong cases made by those particular

regions which the corridor crosses, and we feel, from a ministry point

of view, that there is a better and larger opportunity for the whole

province to be serviced by every corridor.

If we don't take that attitude, then one day down the line you're

going to have to question such things as whether we have a solid

corridor which represents the Coquihalla Highway, that goes from one

end to the other and doesn't service the other regions. And that's not

fair. So it's a case of fairness.

The questions of regional disparity and regional diversion. The current lines in the old haphazard

[ Page 7397 ]

regions are 15 years old, as the other member said. I don't argue

with that. But as the minister I have a mandate to be fair and equal to

every area of the province for every industry of the province, and to

try to do better for the regions that do not have at their fingertips

the opportunities for border-crossing access.

If we as a ministry don't look at all the opportunities for all the

areas, it's unfair, it's inequitable. It's my conviction, if I can, to

try and do that fairly across the province. We're not trying to do it

in a dictatorial way. We are asking for input from all the current

regions that are out there, and if the current regions want to exist on

their own, that's fine, but if they want to exist within the structure

called government and they want government assistance and funding, then

they have to look at how they fit with the tourism marketing in British

Columbia. I find it difficult — if I could elaborate a moment further,

so you can understand the complexity of it — to explain to somebody in

Dallas, Florida and southern California about an area called High

Country. I can sure talk about the Okanagan, the Kootenays and

Vancouver Island, but I have trouble putting together a product which

has the words "High Country" in it, because you can't find "High

Country" in anybody else's map except the Tourism region of High

Country.

It's our hope that we can get these people to talk about the global

product called British Columbia, in which they have infrastructure

combinations and connections. They have something that is compatible,

and that is compatible regions. If the Queen Charlottes, Prince Rupert,

Terrace, Smithers, Vanderhoof, Skeena and Stewart have compatible

products, it's our intention that they work together.

If they're not compatible with the Cariboo as it relates to an

overall product, then we should talk about it. It's in the discussion

stages right now. With the research my ministry has been able to do,

it's without a doubt that we must research and revisit the question of

the boundaries. That's why my ministry fortunately has the luxury of

going back to our people and saying: "Look, if the lines that are

currently existing in some of the regions don't quite fit, for whatever

reason, let's make some recommendations back through your people to my

staff and to cabinet about some adjustment."

If we're going to adjust them, let's adjust them so they make more

economic sense as it relates to our ministry. We may be told at the

eleventh hour that we can have all the input we want, but we're not

going to change them. I don't believe that. If you talk to the whole

industry, you'll find that they're really excited about the opportunity

of adjusting the lines. There are a couple of regions that aren't, and

that's democracy. It's seven to two at the moment.

We're saying to them: "If you don't agree, take another look at it.

If it didn't make sense to you, what will make sense?" If you're going

to leave it entirely up to us, we'll come down with a decision. But

it's not entirely left up to us. We're asking for some input, and

that's ongoing right now.

MS. PULLINGER: I find it interesting that you're asking for

some input, yet you said earlier that you had already decided to change

to those boundaries. When the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was

speaking, you said that you had decided to change to the eight economic

zones. It was a very clear response. It's a little bit late to get

input at this stage of the game, I would think.

[4:45]

My information from talking to people in the industry is that there

are some very definite and specific reasons why those nine tourism

regions were formed as they were. For instance, in the southeastern

part of the province, the Rocky Mountain area is not all that much

different geographically from the Kootenays. However, in the sense of

tourism, the Rocky Mountain area has destination resorts, and it caters

more to an international market than does the Kootenay country, where

the advertising has to put together different facilities and products

in that region. They are catering to a very different market in one

than the other, and they have to advertise their different products

differently to different markets because they get different people

using them.

Putting those two together, which will happen if these zones are

imposed, will break down something like 25 years of marketing that has

gone on there. The division, according to the people there, has been

for very good cause. They've obviously found some common reasons to

market the way they do. Quite frankly, I have a problem with the

ministry imposing what appears to be an arbitrary set of boundaries on

some very well-established regions with a historic reason to exist the

way they do.

The minister stated that advertising "High Country" didn't have a

lot of appeal. Personally, I find that has a whole lot more appeal than

"economic region No. 4." High Country would definitely be easier to

advertise in that way.

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER: High-handed country.

Similarly, I'm concerned that the Provincial Tourism Advisory

Council appears — and correct me if I'm wrong — to lack any

representation from that High Country area. Will the minister tell me

if that's so? Will he confirm that there is no representation from that

area? If not, why not?

You mentioned government funding as well. I would like to know if

the consensus among the nine present tourism regions is that they

prefer to stay the way they are rather than change to the Social Credit

boundaries. Does the minister plan to use government funding to, in

essence, force these regions to change to your boundaries? Is that how

you intend to make the change, if the consensus is different than what

you're saying it might be, if they don't wish to have those eight

economic zones?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I thought I made it abundantly

clear that we were awaiting response from the council of regions about

their suggested

[ Page 7398 ]

boundary alignments. I am troubled when I see the member from

Omineca come back in, because he promised that if I gave him an answer,

he'd go away and leave me alone. But he's back. I don't have anything

to hide from him. In fact, I'd like to take him aside and give him a....

Anyway, the question you want answered is: are the current boundaries of the

eight regions firm and solid? The answer as far as I am concerned is no. When

I say that it is my intention as minister to bring into focus a regional concept

across the province as it relates to tourism and to every other ministry of

government, I will do it economically. In other words, my ministry has the money

to distribute, and if I have been part of a cabinet and a government which are

trying to create economic development and diversification across the whole province

fairly and equally, part of that has to do with tourism and the designation

of expenditures towards regional development of tourism across the province,

which require that regions talk to each other about highway usage, healt