1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4207 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 19). Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Introduction and first reading –– 4207

Oral Questions

Sheriffs' responsibilities. Mr. Blencoe –– 4207

Park and Tilford distillery closure. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4207

Incentives for B.C. liquor production. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4207

Costs of Expo 86. Mr. Cocke –– 4208

Ministerial statement

RCMP report on Ministry of Tourism. Hon. Mr. Smith .. 4209

Mr. Cocke

Assessment Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 7). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 16 –– 4210

Mr. Mitchell

section 42 –– 4212

Mr. Davis

Mr. Howard

Third reading –– 4214

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates.

On vote 60: minister's office –– 4214

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Lockstead

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Brown

Mr. Howard

Mr. Davis

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm very pleased today to take the opportunity

to welcome 56 grades 10 and I I students from Seaquam high school. Mr. Speaker,

I know that it's very familiar to you; they are from North Delta. They are

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Kilpatrick. I would ask the House to make

them very welcome.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon we

have four people from the great state of Hawaii visiting us in British

Columbia, representatives for the American Association of Retired

Persons. They are Gilbert Gibson, George Birtton, Catherine Whiting and

Lora Johnson. I would ask this House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today are representatives of

the B.C. Central Credit Union: Mr. Harry Down, chairman; Mr. George

Viereck, first vice-chairman; Michael Betts, second vice-chairman; and

Lyndon Berner, a member of the executive committee; along with staff

members Peter Podovinikoff, an old and dear friend of mine, who is

chief executive officer, Wayne Nygren, chief financial officer and

Richard Thomas. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the members' gallery today are two old

friends from Kamloops, Gordon and Myrna Dittberner, and I would ask the

House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. McGEER: Earlier we had some people from Hawaii

introduced to the House, and just to establish that this is a two-way

street I'd like the House to recognize two British Columbia physicians,

Dr. Graham Bryce and Dr. Cicely Bryce, who are going to Hawaii to do

postgraduate medical work for a time, before coming back to British

Columbia.

Introduction of Bills

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

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

a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Act.

Bill 19 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

SHERIFFS' RESPONSIBILITIES

MR. BLENCOE: Yesterday I posed three questions to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I have some further questions for

the minister in light of the fact that he remained silent yesterday.

B.C. municipalities have been hoping that the Minister of Municipal

Affairs would finally take action to prevent the Attorney-General

forcing local police officers to carry out provincial sheriffs'

services. Will the minister advise whether he has raised this subject

with his cabinet colleagues, and with what result?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The question should be directed, I would say, to the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith).

MR. BLENCOE: It's clearly a Municipal Affairs situation. The

costs are to the municipalities, and he is the minister. The costs will

be millions of dollars. He has some responsibility to answer.

Supplementary, Mr Speaker. Will the minister advise whether he now

realizes that he has unfairly forced these provincial functions onto

local police officers?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, Mr. Speaker. Again, the question should be directed to the minister responsible, the Attorney-General.

MR. BLENCOE: This lack of response on behalf of the minister is shameful.

I have a supplementary for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Has

the government decided to at least compensate municipalities for the

extra work by highly trained police officers in pushing paper for the

provincial government?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, again, the question should be directed to the minister responsible, the Attorney General.

PARK AND TILFORD DISTILLERY CLOSURE

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, first I have a question to the

Minister of Labour. Will the minister advise whether he has met with

Park and Tilford to determine what action can be taken to prevent the

closure of that company's North Vancouver distillery and the loss of

employment for a workforce which varies between 65 and 115 people?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, no, I haven't.

MR. GABELMANN: Would the minister, if asked?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If I was asked, I'd be happy to, Mr. Speaker.

INCENTIVES FOR B.C. LIQUOR PRODUCTION

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister advise why the

liquor control board offers no incentive in its pricing policy for B.C.

production of spirits and liquor?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the liquor distribution branch

does offer incentives with regard to alcoholic beverages produced

within British Columbia's boundaries.

MR, GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, that may be true in terms of wine

but, according to the ministry's own information, not true in terms of

spirits. B.C. wines, for example, receive incentive pricing through a

B.C. markup which is less than half the markup for wines from other

Canadian provinces. What consideration is the minister giving to

providing an incentive markup on B.C. spirits and liquor in order to

save jobs in B.C.?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I refer the member to the

liquor distribution board's annual report; he'll see the difference in

markup and taxation with regard to beer, wine and spirits. With regard

to what incentives we might be looking at, that of course would be

future policy.

[ Page 4208 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that the

markup on spirits and liquor produced in British Columbia is 115

percent, and on those produced elsewhere in Canada 115 percent, and

that that would indicate that no preferential treatment is given to

production in British Columbia?

HON. MR. HEWITT: With regard to markup on domestic spirits, I

refer the member to page 8 of the liquor distribution branch's annual

report: LDB markup on the 710 ml bottle is $5.68 domestic; imported

spirits, $7.34.

MR. GABELMANN: I may not have made myself clear. I'm not

talking about imported from outside of Canada; I'm talking about the

difference between products produced in Quebec or Ontario as compared

to British Columbia, where there is no incentive for British Columbia

produced spirits. Will the minister look at that to try to save these

jobs at Park and Tilford?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Member, I'll look at anything we

can within the realm of government policy with regard to saving jobs in

British Columbia.

COSTS OF EXPO 86

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister

of Tourism. On May 20 the then minister responsible for Expo 86 world's

fair published a preliminary master budget showing the total capital

cost of the fair to be $75 million. Will the minister advise what the

current capital cost estimate is for Expo 86 world's fair?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. That budget has not been made public as yet.

MR. COCKE: I guess the people of B.C. love to be kept in the dark, but it's about time it was made public.

On April 1, 1982, the same minister published a revised current

dollar estimate for the combined capital and operating costs of $283

million. Does the minister have a current figure for the combined

capital and operating costs of Expo 86 world's fair?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the chairman and board of Expo will bring in that figure and make it public as soon as possible.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, maybe I can give him an alternative

choice question. Will the minister advise, since he is unaware of the

details — or indicates that — whether the current capital costs are in

excess of $700 million?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I answered

the member's question with my previous answer: that the board of Expo

86 Corporation will make that information public in due course.

[2:15]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Jim Pattison is to

advise the government by Monday, April 9, whether Expo 86 is

financially viable. Is Mr. Pattison preparing new capital cost

estimates? Can the minister confirm that there have been major cost

escalations in Expo 86? The Premier will give you some help; just give

him time.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The premise of the member's question is entirely incorrect.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Tourism

kindly indicate what is proper perspective in this whole situation?

Just give us some corrections if everything is incorrect.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain that the

people of British Columbia are well aware of the mandate given to the

chairman of the board of Expo 86 Corporation, and I repeat that the

member's premise is entirely incorrect.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, is the minister denying the Premier's statement of last week?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. BARRETT: Who is out of order, the minister or the Premier?

MR. COCKE: I'm just asking the minister if he is now saying

that the Premier was incorrect last week when he made the statement

that he did.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say anything of the sort. I said the member for New Westminster was incorrect.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I should never have listened to

the Premier. I gather that the Premier is therefore incorrect, because

I am just paraphrasing exactly what he said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) rises on a point of order in question period.

MR. LEA: I was just wondering whether someone had asked the Premier a question.

MR. SPEAKER: That matter was canvassed at a previous time, hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I detected the same sort of

question in that exchange from the member for New Westminster, as much

as there is a question in almost anything he poses to the House during

question period. The question, as I understood it, was: did I give Mr.

Pattison a mandate to make a recommendation because of the economic

feasibility of Expo. That was not what I said. His mandate to bring in

an economically feasible fair is already there, and he has been charged

with that along with the directors of Expo, some of whom are from the

city of Vancouver and some from the federal government, for these last

three years. What I did say very clearly on television was that if

there were disruptions that would threaten that fair or embarrass us

internationally and prevent it from being carried out on time and on

[ Page 4209 ]

budget.... I asked him to hold negotiations and

then make a recommendation to me and the government this weekend, in

order that we can make a determination on whether that fair could

continue. That recommendation will be his.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that was a marvellous rendition by

the Premier, and I would just like to ask the poor, confused Premier

whether or not he asked for a report — not a smokescreen — as of April

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the statement I made on

television asked for a report to do with the industrial relations

aspect of Expo and whether it could be held up at any time through

disruption, blackmail and the ability to deliver. If he can't get those

sorts of guarantees, I'm sure that would be contained in his

recommendations. That mandate he has, and that mandate he has publicly.

What the people of British Columbia are going to be concerned with is

why the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) tries to put his own

interpretation on what was on TV when they understand clearly. I expect

from this they'll suspect those things he says in this House, as

they've learned to do in the past when he poses questions on supposed

medical crises that never happen.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this is the jolly hour, obviously.

Can the first minister tell us whether or not — he seems to know all

about this situation, including blackmail and all sorts of terrible

things — the capital cost has increased from $75 million to $750

million, or does that include the operating costs, which would have

been $150 million to $700 million or better?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker. the Expo budget, as the

Minister of Tourism said, will be made public by the chairman and

directors, but I would tell the member for Now Westminster what their

mandate is in the fair that they've been undertaking to produce and

carry out for British Columbians, and that is, within the framework of

the Lotto 6-49 revenues and the revenues they calculate from the fair,

that the fair will be able to be produced on budget on time and at a

figure in which those sources will be able to finance it, without it

coming to government for tax review.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, was the public misled, therefore, at the original suggestion of $150 million for Expo 86?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, Expo has been charged with

putting on a fair. As it has been developed as professional capacity,

the chairman of Expo.... The fact that they've hired the professional

staff that can do the accurate type of calculations.... I'm sure a

number of things have changed in the size, the extent and the revenue

picture, plus the cost picture for the fair. I'm sure the chairman of

Expo would be very pleased to share that information with the people —

and I hope that it's of interest to the people of British Columbia —

after the weekend.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period.

MR. LEA: I'd just like to answer a couple of questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LEA: No? I thought we were all equal members, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

RCMP REPORT ON MINISTRY OF TOURISM

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have a ministerial statement to make about the RCMP investigation into Tourism.

On July 27, 1983, senior officials in the Ministry of the

Attorney-General referred to the RCMP Vancouver commercial crime

section for investigation the matters that have been raised by the

auditor-general in her second report dated July 18 on the matter of

expenditures in the Ministry of Tourism. The auditor-general's report

dealt with matters arising from expenditures in 1981-82, and examined

departures from established government policies and procedures in the

ministry, particularly as those procedures affected the ministry's

relationship with its advertising agencies. All these matters that were

covered in the auditor-general's report have now been reviewed by the

RCMP to determine whether any criminal charges are warranted.

I should tell the House that the RCMP investigation was conducted

under Insp. S.F. Payton, a senior member of the RCMP Vancouver

commercial crime section. He was assisted by Mr. David Hooper, a

chartered accountant and highly experienced criminal investigative

accountant. The investigative team sought the assistance of counsel and

obtained the services of Leonard T. Doust, a senior criminal lawyer in

private practice in Vancouver, who is also well experienced in the

field of commercial crime, having had a number of cases for both the

Crown and the defence. Mr. Doust has thoroughly reviewed all aspects of

this investigation, and he has reported directly to me in this matter.

I should tell you a bit about this investigation and its ambit. The

investigative team began with a full briefing from the auditor-general

and the comptroller-general of this province and then examined the

massive documentation that was provided by the auditor-general. The

investigators then decided to proceed beyond a normal investigative

audit, and they obtained search warrants to allow examination and

review of all available additional evidence. Coordinated searches were

conducted of two advertising agencies doing business with the Ministry

of Tourism: McKim Advertising Ltd. and Vrlak Robinson Advertising Ltd.

Substantial documentation was obtained from these agencies on August

16, 1983, and was catalogued and reviewed in detail by the commercial

crime team. The new evidence was coordinated with the documentation

that had previously been obtained from the auditor-general.

The investigators also received a full background briefing in the

operations of the Ministry of Tourism from the Deputy Minister of

Tourism. Dr. James Rae. The team personally interviewed all senior

staff of the ministry. They interviewed the then Assistant Deputy

Minister of Marketing, Mr. John Plul; the director of administration

and finance, his accounting staff and the personnel in the Tourism

marketing office in Vancouver; and also the Minister of Tourism during

1981-82, Mrs. Patricia Jordan. The information obtained provided the

[ Page 4210 ]

investigators with an understanding of the

procedures that had been followed in processing invoices in accounts

and documentation that flowed from the Vancouver office to the

accounting branch in Victoria. Investigators also interviewed the

senior personnel of the two advertising agencies which dealt with the

Ministry of Tourism: that is, both McKim and Vrlak. These firms

cooperated with the investigators by providing information. They also

made their staff members available for interviews. A number of

suppliers who did business with the Ministry of Tourism and the

advertising agencies were also interviewed. Additional interviews were

held and evidence obtained under the direction of Mr. Doust, and care

was taken to explore all available evidence and to interview everyone

who had relevant information.

At the beginning, this investigation centred on the internal

financial and accounting systems of the Ministry of Tourism and McKim

and Vrlak, the expenditures in the Ministry of Tourism and their

advertising agencies, and the financial relationship between the

Ministry of Tourism, the advertising agencies and their employees. The

investigation also focused on alleged irregularities in the expenses of

some officials of the ministry.

As I've indicated before, Mr. Doust has reported to me directly his

findings and conclusions. He has reviewed with me carefully both the

scope of the investigation and details of his opinion.

Mr. Doust was most critical of the system of financial control that

was in place during 1981-82 in the Ministry of Tourism and those

advertising agencies with which it conducted business. In this he is in

agreement with Mr. Hooper, the accountant, who reported and concluded

that there were very inadequate systems controls on the part of the

ministry, extremely poor and uncontrolled accounting in recording

systems in Vrlak and poor expense or docket control on the part of

McKim.

Mr. Speaker, as sloppy and as incomplete as these financial controls

may be, they do not in themselves provide grounds for involving the

criminal law process. Mr. Doust has given me his opinion on the

question of criminal charges, and he has particularly considered the

offences of theft, fraud, false pretences and breach of trust. It is

Mr. Doust's opinion that no single instance or combination of instances

examined by the RCMP team in this investigation would support the

laying of charges under the Criminal Code. Mr. Doust is unanimously

supported by the investigative team in his opinion that there is no

evidence that would justify the laying of a criminal charge against any

of the persons or companies involved.

I have spent some time reviewing with Mr. Doust the substance of his

advice and the findings of his investigation. I accept the

recommendations of Mr. Doust and the RCMP team, and the criminal

investigation is therefore concluded.

[2:30]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I read the gist of the report this

morning in Jim Hume's column, so I'm not all that terribly surprised. I

will say this: it would appear to the opposition — or certainly to this

member of the opposition — that there certainly have been major

irregularities. I'm pleased that the report has finally come down. It's

a kind of saving grace, it would appear, by listening to the minister's

report, that an inadequate system in the Ministry of Tourism, which is

admitted there, and poor systems in both Vrlak and McKim.... That

combination led to this terrible situation where there's been a cloud

over all these people for all this time.

We would very much like to see a copy of the report, if the minister

is prepared to table it. Having said that, I guess maybe we'll see

where it goes. We know where it started: it started under the then

Provincial Secretary, who is now the Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mrs. McCarthy).

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It was restricted. According to Hume's column this

morning it goes back to the 1800s somewhere. In any event, we will see

what we have in this report, if the minister would make it available.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, yesterday in second reading I

implored the minister to revise this

section 26(4) which they are

amending by allowing the benefits that are enjoyed by people who owned

homes prior to January 1, 1959.... I think it's important that we

review some of the problems that this particular

section has caused in

the community. As I've said before in debates,

section 26(

l) of the

Assessment Act was brought in in 1964 by the then government because in

areas of the West End of Vancouver and James Bay there was a flurry of

construction of highrise apartments. The price of land in those

particular communities started to skyrocket. Assessments on homes that

had been family homes for years were getting out of hand. The

government at that time felt that anyone who had lived in their home

for five years should not be affected by a skyrocketing assessment

because of a change in local zoning. I feel that that was an excellent

amendment. The only problem, as time has gone on, is that there are a

lot of people living in other parts of British Columbia whose

communities are coming under the same attack as the areas that I

mentioned earlier. Developers are going into an area, buying up

property and paying an inflated price for lots that have been used for

many years as residential homes.

One case affected one of my constituents very strongly. He was a

veteran who bought his one and a half, I believe it was, under the

Veterans' Land Act. Now he is a retired senior citizen. A developer

came in and attempted to buy property all around him. He approached my

constituent and he approached other immediate neighbours. He offered to

purchase the property for in the vicinity of $300,000. All the

[ Page 4211 ]

other neighbours accepted a $20,000 option to

purchase. My constituent, who had lived there since 1960 and had

remodeled the home — his wife is an invalid and he had built ramps —

did not want to sell. When the first six months of the option ran out,

one of the neighbours went to the developer and said: "Either he's

taking his $20,000 or the developer has to buy it." The developer did

buy it for a price around $300,000. In that particular situation,

because of a recent sale in the area and under the present Assessment

Authority Act, the assessment of all the properties in that particular

area went up. The assessment on his property was in the neighbourhood

of approximately $70,000, and it went up to $104,000, I believe, in the

first year. In the next year the assessment on his property went up to

$240,000, and that worked out to approximately $200,000 an acre.

This particular individual is a senior citizen on a very limited

income, and his taxes went from $1,000 to $2,800 a year. I find it very

interesting, Mr. Speaker, when less than two blocks from my

constituent's property — and his property is assessed at around

$200,000 an acre — there is a new 30-acre shopping centre going in.

When I say a new shopping centre, I mean that it's opening in the next

month or so. It's a large shopping centre with a large Safeway and a

large K-Mart and 40-odd other viable businesses that will be opening

shop in that area. The assessment on that particular piece of

commercial property is around $25,000 per acre.

Here we have, Mr. Speaker, one individual who got trapped because a

developer offered and paid $300,000 — or a figure in that range — for

property next door to him. It was not a viable operation, because since

then the particular developer has gone bankrupt. Because of the

legislation, the people who were caught in that little part of the

community had their assessments and their taxes raised to an

astronomical figure. There is nothing in the Assessment Authority Act

that any of those in the ministry can or will do that will roll back

that assessment to a figure that people can live with. In this

particular case, under the present legislation, the assessments of the

properties are not frozen at 1959 levels. The general assessment and

increase in value of property over many years has increased the value

of the land and also the tax level. In 1960, when my constituent bought

his property and built his home, he was paying something like $95 a

year now he's paying close to $2,800 a year for the home. As I say, a

year or two years ago, before the assessment went up, he was paying, I

believe, around $ 1,000 or $1,200.

1 brought up in the House on another occasion the case of a

gentleman living in Toronto who was in a situation where they were

building highrises and large apartments all around his particular area.

Because he had an argument with one of the real estate people, who

wouldn't pay.... At one time, I believe, he wanted to sell his home for

$3,000 and the real estate wouldn't come up to that figure. He's

sitting there and he will not sell, and all around his home there are

highrise apartments. His property in the Toronto area is presently

valued, I believe, at $1 million. Under Ontario law his taxes are only

$1,800 for a piece of property that is valued at close to a million

dollars. I am using just one case, but I know there must be hundreds of

other cases throughout the province of people caught by the greed of

others who are inflating prices because they want to get property

rezoned for another type of development than it is presently being used

for; so they have inflated the value and the prices paid for particular

pieces of land. I feel there must be a change in the attitude of the

government to look at changes that will protect people.

1 do have an amendment that I would like to propose to the minister.

Mr. Chairman, although I would have preferred it if he had brought one

in.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is it on the order paper?

MR. MITCHELL: No, I didn't realize it was coming up this fast. We only got through second reading yesterday, Mr. House Leader.

This is an amendment to Bill 7, Assessment Amendment Act, 1984:

section 16: by striking out clause (

b) and substituting "(

b) in

subsection (4) by striking out 'since January 1, 1959' and substituting

'for a period of five years prior to receipt of the notice.'" As to

clause (c), by striking out "since January, 1959" and

substituting "for a period of five years prior to receipt of the

notice." I would like to have the minister's reaction.

[2:45]

1 realize that what we are doing is to give that leeway that was

built into the legislation in 1964 so that it will protect people who

are caught in this trap and unfortunately cannot afford to pay the high

increases in taxes. In this particular case my constituent is forced to

defer his taxes, but it is costing him $150 a year interest on the

taxes he is forced to defer. I know that by continuing to allow people

to own their own homes, this amendment will save a lot of traumatic

situations, and I implore the government to give it serious

consideration and bring it in.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the government cannot accept the amendment, but that is not to say....

Am I speaking to the amendment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That is not to say that I would not want to

explore this matter with the member, and with other interested members,

for an amending act in a subsequent year. The Union of B. C.

Municipalities offered a compromise proposal on this very topic, which

precisely is in

section 16(c); that was examined and found to be

wanting in certain respects. The member has made this point before. In

fact, the member and I have exchanged correspondence on this particular

parcel. I believe.

I don't want to enter into lengthy debate with the member, but it

should not be overlooked that the homeowner so affected has of Course,

in my view — and I underline that point in my view only — a very cogent

argument to present to the court of revision which is held each year.

The member has alluded to the Land Tax Deferment Act. I won't speak on

that since it is not before us, but while I understand the member's

concern, I regret that today the government cannot accept the amendment

he has proposed.

MR. MITCHELL: I know the minister might feel that at times

I'm fighting lost causes. I'm not asking the government to make any

change in policy on the original legislation, which was brought in by

another Social Credit government in 1964, and which gave this five-year

buffer. To say that it's going to cause some confusion.... I've talked

to people on the Assessment Authority and they agree with me that it

[ Page 4212 ]

should have been built in in 1964. All I'm asking

the government is not to turn it down. I'm not interested in getting

political Brownie points, and that is why I brought it to the minister

on many occasions. I would prefer to see the government bring it in and

get the Brownie points. All I want to see is an opportunity for

citizens in British Columbia to have some protection so they can

continue to own their own homes.

It is very simple, and I find it hard that the government takes the

position of the typical bureaucrat: "We can't change it, because it

will do something." This is a human need for a small

section of the

community. In that

section the majority are senior citizens. In my

particular constituent's case he is a senior citizen, a veteran who

fought for his country, but because the government will not budge he is

going to lose his home. His property is assessed at around $200,000 an

acre, and down the street less than three blocks there is a viable

shopping centre whose property is assessed at $25,000 to $30,000 an

acre. And the government says there is no injustice! It's such blatant

injustice.

I stress to the minister that he should look at it and give the

protection that is needed for the little person who is caught in the

squeeze — the type that falls between the cracks in our regulations. It

can be corrected. It is a minor correction. It will take the heat off

the Assessment Authority, who see this going on all over the province,

and there's nothing they can do about it. It just happens to be so

blatant a problem for my constituent that not only was the land forced

up but the company were so incompetent that they went bankrupt. The

other people in his neighbourhood got the $20,000 that was given for

the right to purchase, but in his case he got nothing, and he's going

to lose his home because he cannot afford to pay the taxes, or he's

deferring the taxes; it cost him $150 last year, and as that compounds

it will go on and on. I sincerely ask the government to table that

particular section, look it over and give it some serious consideration.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Having said that I can't accept the

amendment today, it is not a question of whether the member for

Esquimalt wins some points or whether I win some points. The matter is

relatively complex; I'm satisfied on that point. This is not a question

of asking officials and having them say: "Well, it's complex, and

therefore you can't examine it." There are certainly a number of other

factors. I invite the member, as I did before, to meet me at his

convenience — we both live in this region — to discuss this at greater

length, and perhaps to find some way in which a compromise can be

reached. I restate that invitation today.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 16-41 inclusive approved.

section 42.

MR. DAVIS: The

section to which I object is the transitional

section. Substantially what this

section says is that any appeal which

succeeded in the courts in the past is rendered null and void insofar

as its effectiveness is concerned, and the appeals are those which were

launched by several corporations beginning in 1981 and continuing

through 1982 and 1983. In other words, this is a

section which reaches

back over a period of several years; it's retroactive, covering past

appeals which succeeded in the courts.

It further says that a taxpayer, presumably the taxpayers who

succeeded in the courts, shall not bring an action for the recovery of

the moneys in question. In other words, it is both retroactive and is a

denial of the individual's right to access to the courts in the future,

with respect to successful appeals.

This is perhaps more a matter of law than anything else, but I would

like to know from the minister what the point is in appealing

assessments. I gather the practice for many years, as he has outlined

it, is that one must not only appeal orally or in writing or by not

paying their taxes and continuing to protest, but in order that their

appeal be successful they must go to court and stay in court until

there is a final decision rendered. If it is indeed the practice of the

province to annul a successful appeal through the courts, what's the

point of appealing ever? You cannot win. At least that's the principle.

In my own situation, let's say I am concerned about the assessment

on my home, and I protest and don't pay. The argument of the minister

seems to be that because a resolution in my favour might involve others

on my street also appealing and also succeeding, this results in an

exposure to the treasury which is intolerable and therefore there's an

economic rationale for effectively denying the successful appeal,

should it succeed, through the courts.

So I have real difficulty with this section. I know that the

politics of it relate in large part to the fact that the successful

appellants were several large corporations as well as several small

ones — Cominco, MacMillan Bloedel and Scott Paper, notably. Their

appeal related to specific installations in specific locations; they

didn't cover all of their operations. They did appeal, did follow the

process and did assume that the law of the land obtained and that if

they were in court their appeal continued to be recognized as a valid

appeal, and they expected that if they were successful as far as the

Supreme Court of Canada they wouldn't be liable to tax. Now clearly

they're liable to tax if this

section passes. Clearly also they have no

recourse to the courts in respect to these matters. That's the

substance of it.

From correspondence I've had with the minister I am of the

impression — and perhaps he can correct me — that if the monetary

problems of the province and/or the municipalities are significant,

then the rulings of the courts are no longer relevant; that the Crown

can reach back and recover its balance, so to speak. The rationale is

one of economic or financial necessity, and it's a matter of economic

or financial policy that rules. The question of principle I have

essentially is that if financial policy is the criterion, financial

policy essentially relates to the majority, the large number out there.

The large exposure, presumably, of the government — which I don't agree

with — overrules the rights of the individual, be it a person or a

corporation. This is essentially why I disagree with what I regard to

be an important principle being offended by this section. It'll be

interesting to see whether anyone else in the chamber is concerned

about this matter.

[3:00]

MR. HOWARD: In order for those who may read Hansard

to see what it is we are talking about, it may be necessary to quote a

few of the words from this particular

section and the second line of

it. It starts by saying that certain

definitions "shall be conclusively

deemed always to have included" certain other things. In other words,

this act is extending itself into the past — to the year of the birth

of Christ or whenever the Assessment Act came into existence, or

forever into the

[ Page 4213 ]

past. It's a type of retroactive feature that is completely unacceptable.

Let's also look at subsections (9) and (10) of

section 42. There are

some protective devices in here for transgression against common sense.

Subsection (9) says: "This

section applies notwithstanding

section 10

of the Assessment Act." In other words, this is absolute. Then

subsection (10) says: "This

section is retroactive to the extent

necessary to give it effect." It is deemed that certain

definitions of

improvements will always have been in existence, will always have had

force and this

section is retroactive forever into the past in order to

give it effect. That's a kind of retroactivity that's completely and

absolutely unacceptable.

The minister, as I understood his comment in closing debate on

second reading yesterday, indicated that there had been a number of

meetings held throughout the province and that no objections had been

raised about the proposal of the government to do what it is now

seeking to do. But I think that the simple fact of no objections being

raised should not give licence for this kind of ethical transgression,

should not give the minister carte blanche to run against common sense

and common decency and against everything that we've held dear in terms

of legislation. It was bad enough on Bill 18 because that sought to

make individuals lawbreakers on a retroactive basis, but this wipes out

any right that anybody might have had, as another member said, about

appeals of assessments or anything else. It just says that the

government's view is supreme and absolute, and that's it.

I understand this came into effect as a result of a court decision

that declared that a certain aspect of the Assessment Act should not

prevail and that taxes couldn't be levied on an incomplete building, or

something to that effect. One could probably accept the retroactivity

of this to the time of that court decision, but the court's decision

should be accepted up to that time. We have a perception and a

structure and an inheritance in our law that says that the Legislature

makes the law, writes the words, passes them into statute, and that the

courts, if called upon. Interpret what was the force or intent of the

law. There have been many times when courts have determined that the

law is to be interpreted in a way that may not have been in the minds

of the legislators when they legislated that particular law. I suppose

common sense and respect for the rule of law could lead us to accept

retroactivity to the time of that court decision, to say: "Okay, the

courts have determined that the previous

interpretation is wrong as of

this particular time." If the Legislature, in a political decision,

were to say, "As of that time we want to correct it, we want to change

it, we want to allow for a different

interpretation," retroactivity to

that time would probably be an acceptable course. But to be retroactive

forever, to be deemed always to have been in existence — to wipe out

the common right of appeal, as another member said earlier — is, I

think, most improper. I'm sure that the minister, with the expertise of

his department, or even by himself, could include an effective date in

here, say as of that particular court decision, if that was the time

that the policy change should be made — but not a retroactivity of this

nature.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, there are two other points. In

second reading the minister did say that there were no objections

raised during a very extensive tour which he and another minister had

of the province, in which they discussed assessments and property

taxation within various municipalities. That tour was held during 1981,

as I recall. He was surprised that this matter was not raised at that

time. There are two reasons why it wasn't raised. One was that the

matter was in the courts and several firms who were continuing to

protest the assessment realized that and weren't likely to come into

another forum — essentially a political one — to discuss their

situation, or what they regarded as the true meaning of the existing

legislation. The other is that the vast majority of people who attended

those meetings were elected municipal people or municipal officials,

people generally concerned about matters of assessment. I doubt very

much whether industry — even small business — attended those meetings

in any numbers. So there are two reasons why it wasn't protested in

that particular forum. Again, whether or not it was raised at that time

seems to me to be irrelevant.

There is one other point I want to make. The hon. member for Skeena

(Mr. Howard) mentioned Bill 18. He might also have mentioned budgets

and finance bills. There is an element of retroactivity in that kind of

legislation, but it's only to the date of the government making a clear

announcement of intention in the case of Bill 18 and the case of

finance measures during the introduction of the budget. The minister

announces that as of midnight, or as of a certain hour today, or as of

this moment, the law will be deemed to be thus and so. Generally

speaking, the matter is usually widely publicized. One knows what the

law is henceforward, even though the bill itself may not pass

immediately. It might pass a few days later or a few weeks later. It's

retroactive in terms of the legislation actually receiving royal

assent, but it's not retroactive in terms of the notice given to those

involved. In this case, notice is being given when this bill receives

royal assent and reaches back to 1981. That is true retroactivity, and

that's my principal concern, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the remarks of

the member for Vancouver-Seymour and the member for Skeena, the

opposition House Leader. I can appreciate that there are strongly held

views with respect to this section.

It is important, I think, to state again, as I did yesterday, and as

I did at the time that I indicated this legislation would be brought

forward, that we have about 38 to 40 years of practice where what this

section corrects has been accepted. So we are restating it. There were

a series of court cases, and we now must emphasize this. I think that

the argument would be more telling for me if we were attempting to

change retroactively a practice which had been in place for quite some

time. There's a very significant difference there. People have paid

property taxes for, let's say, 38 years on the basis that this

particular aspect of property was assessable and taxable. After

repeated assaults in the courts, finally a few companies succeeded in

one court. The retroactivity is only to 1981 — let there be no

misunderstanding about that — for the 1981 tax year. Anything before

that is not at issue here. Now a member may say: "Well, even 1981 is

too far back." But we are clarifying and restating that which has been

the practice and the system under which both parties, the taxpayer and

the collector have functioned for a good long time.

The member for North Vancouver-Seymour said: "What's the use of

appealing?" Mr. Chairman, I don't have the figures readily available,

but it is correct to say that since the Assessment Act was introduced,

there have been hundreds of thousands of appeals at the court of

revision level where a correction has been made, where the appeal has

been

[ Page 4214 ]

allowed, and if not there, then a much smaller

number obviously at the level of the Assessment Appeal Board, and some

in court as well. So the fact that we are restating this should in no

way discourage any property tax payer from appealing when he or she

feels aggrieved.

Sections 42 and 43 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 7, Assessment Amendment Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

On vote 60: minister's office, $141,801.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few opening

remarks in my estimates — they will be brief — and then I will gladly

take any questions from members. I'm pleased to rise once again and

have the opportunity to report to the Legislature on the activities of

my ministry. First, I would like to re-emphasize to every member in

this House and to the residents of British Columbia the importance of

tourism to our economy. Over too long a period we as British Columbians

have suffered from the economic downturn, from which, fortunately, we

now see the road to recovery. Helping in this recovery, of course, are

the contributions made by tourism, which many refer to as a primary

resource of this province. It is my belief and that of many others in

the community that tourism will lead the economic recovery of this

province. While other sectors are suffering, all indications point to

tourism being a leading edge in our provincial recovery. The benefits

of tourism don't just accrue to the government, Mr. Chairman, but

accrue to all residents of our province. The tourism sector, of course,

is made up of a variety of private entrepreneurs — whether it be the

small motel in the interior or the large, multimillion-dollar hotel in

downtown Vancouver. The tour operator, the fishing guide, the taxi

driver — each in his own way contributes to our economy.

[3:15]

The final numbers for 1983 are now in, and an analysis of

performance in the tourism industry indicates an increase over the

previous year. Nine of the 15 indicators normally used in developing

the ministry's statistics include entries from the United States and

overseas countries, and they have increased over 1982 levels. An

example of these increases is U.S. vehicle entries, which have

increased by 8.6 percent. U.S. resident entries increased 7.2 percent;

one-or-more nights U.S. resident entries, 9.3 percent; overseas

entries, 1.5 percent. Restaurant sales throughout the province showed

an increase of 9.7 percent. In addition, hotel occupancy in Vancouver

registered an increase of 2.3 percent.

However, hotel occupancy throughout the province registered a 1.2

percent decrease. While our indicators show that there is a turnaround,

we must recognize that problems still do exist in this particular

sector of the industry. I am confident, however, that 1984 will be a

year of substantial growth in the industry, and all British Columbians

will benefit from it. As I have said, the outlook for 1984 is very

positive, and the pattern of improvement in growth is expected to

continue at a modest rate for 1984 and 1985 — 1986, of course, will be

the year of Expo 86.

The level of the Ministry of Tourism's estimates this year reflect a

modest decrease in the operational costs of the ministry, which is

consistent with this government's policy of exercising restraint. The

leadership shown by this government in restraint benefits each and

every taxpayer in the province and provides a proud example for the

rest of the country in these times of difficulty.

The commitment to the marketing of the province of British Columbia

by my ministry has been enhanced, and greater effort is being exerted

to maximize that potential revenue source in offshore markets. I have

led two trade missions to the Pacific Rim countries of Japan and Korea

in which the private sector took a very active role. In addition, I

recently returned from the ITB in Berlin, and must report that British

Columbia was well represented in that very important market — not only

by me and by Mr. Willis of our London office but also by the private

sector from British Columbia.

At this time I would also like to advise the House that I will be

leading another trade mission to southeast Asia in June of this year,

in which many representatives of the private sector will be

participating. The potential for British Columbia from this market is

enormous, and by taking the lead we are ensuring that British Columbia

receives its fair share of tourists, which will also contribute to our

economic recovery.

The revenues generated from our U.S. visitors contribute to a

healthy economy in British Columbia, including payments for many social

services such as education, health and human resources. Speaking of our

American friends, I was pleased to have an opportunity to discuss many

matters of mutual interest with Governor Spellman on his recent visit

to British Columbia. In the state of Washington the recognition of the

importance of tourism has changed their approach to marketing, and

British Columbia will benefit from many of their efforts.

However, it is essential to remember that the neighbours to the

south of our province contribute to our industry's health and

well-being. In this regard, my ministry has continued to promote what

is known as the friendship exchange program, whereby the difference

between the American and Canadian dollars is given as a benefit for

spending their money in British Columbia.

However, one must never forget that approximately 50 percent of our

tourists are our own residents, and their demands and requirements are

as important as those of visitors from outside our borders. In January

I met with the ministers of the Yukon and Alberta and a representative

from the Northwest Territories, who are all members of what we call

Canada West. Canada West represents a geographical region which is used

in many external markets. Each participant experiences common problems,

whether it be the abandonment of Via Rail service, customs difficulties

or general lack of awareness in some of our developing and foreign

markets. The progress this informal organization is making will benefit

the participants not only collectively but individually, and

[ Page 4215 ]

British Columbia will continue to use this as another important marketing tool.

I also recently had an opportunity to discuss concerns pertaining to

the tourism industry with the Hon. David Smith, the federal minister,

and I must say that I have received some very positive feedback.

In closing, I wish to re-emphasize the importance of Expo, not only

to the lower mainland but to every region in this province. We in the

Ministry of Tourism will assist in every way to ensure that the

benefits are spread throughout the entire province through every

tourism region, so that all residents of British Columbia can benefit

from this world's fair. Expo will be a lasting legacy, and the returns

and prestige throughout the world will be invaluable. Not only will

many jobs be created but the visitors during 1986 will increase far

above our normal levels, and therefore every resident should make an

effort to project our best image and create a situation where these

visitors will return many times over because they have received good

value for their money and a warm welcome in British Columbia. We know

that in '87, '88 and '89 they will return many times to Super Natural

British Columbia.

That concludes my opening remarks. I will sit down now and gladly

answer any questions that any of the members have. Oh, before I do, my

deputy has now joined us, and I would like to introduce Dr. Jim Rae,

the Deputy Minister of Tourism.

MR. COCKE: My God, it's lonely in here. It's not only lonely

in here, it's boring. But let's get some answers from the minister,

just for the fun of it.

The minister, incidentally, made a suggestion to the rest of the country that

they should follow British Columbia's lead in this restraint proposition.

I think it's a marvellous suggestion. If they all want to go broke like

we have, then they should follow our lead. Here we are vying with Newfoundland

to see who can have the most unemployed. We have 15.5 percent unemployment,

and that's not including all those who have finally become apathetic because

they can't do anything about it; it is probably much closer to 20 percent.

That's where the minister wants to take us, but no thank you, Mr. Minister.

If I were....

See, it works every time. They listen on the blower.

In any event, I do challenge the minister not to make that

suggestion too loud or too clear, because it could carry some other

jurisdictions into the same quandary that we have here. Restraint has

been a disaster. The restraint that is carried on in this province is

epitomized in the poor, pathetic, little Ministry of Tourism. What can

they do with the amount they are expending in Tourism?

Now I know what is troubling this government. The Premier today

showed what was troubling this government, Mr. Chairman. It is Expo 86,

among a number of other things. Northeast coal has been a living

disaster, and then we got Expo 86 carrying us down the tube so quickly

that we don't know whether we're coming or going. You'll notice how the

Minister of Tourism was silenced when the Premier got up and quickly

started to answer questions in his inimitable fashion, saying precisely

nothing.

MR. REID: Be positive for a change. Try and be positive.

MR. COCKE: I'll be positive for a change, Mr. Chairman, when

something positive starts coming over the horizon. I will give you all

the credit that you deserve when something positive finally happens in

this province.

Mr. Chairman, let's deal. Let's ask a couple of questions about this

monumental disaster that seems to be approaching us. In the first

place. when it was announced that Lotto was going to look after it, we

were hearing such things as: "Expo 86 is the winner, thanks to revenue

from a new dollar lottery, B.C. Expo Lotto." Which, incidentally, is

now Lotto 6-49, I gather, or at least their participation. At that

time, Evan Wolfe, who was then the minister in charge, felt that over

five years we would accumulate $100 million in the Expo Lotto revenue,

which would be directed toward Expo. Can you imagine now, Mr. Chairman,

when we see the numbers that are obviously before us? The Premier

didn't admit today that it's $750 million, but he sure didn't deny it.

Did any of my colleagues hear him deny it? I didn't. I don't think he

knows. I think what he was trying to tell us was that Jimmy Pattison

better come in with a figure that will be somewhere near the estimated

revenue of the lottery; otherwise it's down the tube. And if it's down

the tube, we will be sued by country after country, by those people who

are already spending significant sums of money to come here and display

their wares. We're in serious trouble on this thing, and the first

minister tries to blame it on the labour costs, or the fact that the

building trades are naughty boys. They haven't had a significant

increase in the building trades for the last couple of years, and I

certainly don't see very much of an increase in the foreseeable future

in terms of their earnings.

I don't think that the smokescreen the government is blowing is

washing. The fact of the matter is that they've got themselves into a

very rough situation by underestimating what they were doing in the

first place. They suddenly made a change from a small sort of state

fair to a huge world's fair, and now they're in the big leagues and

don't know what the blazes to do about it.

MR. MACDONALD: They're trying to beat Drapeau.

MR. COCKE: That's right. And good old Drapeau showed exactly

what happens when you get into the big leagues and you haven't been

planning properly.

[3:30]

Just before I ask some questions, I'd like to recount an interview

with a very responsible British Columbian, certainly in the eyes of the

government, because he's Chuck McVeigh. Now Chuck McVeigh, of the

Construction Labour Relations Association, was interviewed on CBC by

Gail Hulnick on March 30 — just six days ago. She said to him: "Do you

think that a satisfactory deal can be worked out in this 10-day

period?" She was referring to the 10-day period that the Premier was

talking about and sort of danced around; but the fact is that we heard

him say on television that they had to come back with a report within a

10-day period. McVeigh said:

"That's very difficult to answer, based on the

position that the building trades appear to take, and I understand

clearly where they are coming from. I think that type of approach is

going to have some difficulty. I am optimistic that they are going to

work seriously at it and look at it as realistically as possible, and

I'm hopeful something can be worked out; but as I said at the outset, I

do believe it's an uphill battle."

[ Page 4216 ]

That's a difference of opinion.

Then Hulnick went on:

"Some analysts have said that what's happening here is

that the government is using Expo 86 as a sort of club. Do you feel

that it is being used as some sort of lever to change the relationships

between union and non-union people within the construction sector?

"McVeigh: 'I don't think so. Obviously it's a very

high-profile project, and if it were to be cancelled over an issue like

the building trades refusing to work with non-union people, it would

appear to be a disaster. But if that were the only reason for its

cancellation, I'd suspect there must be more to it than that, because

they could hardly find that as sufficient cause for cancellation of the

project.'" That's Chuck McVeigh!

"There must be some way that the government could see that that project must go ahead."

That's it. Chuck McVeigh says it's a smokescreen. He said it in gentle terms, but then....

Let's go on. Later in the program Marjorie Nichols was commenting on

what Mr. McVeigh had said. I won't read her comments on his specific

statements because what is there to comment about? The fact of the

matter is, he says that this labour-bashing trip down there is purely a

smokescreen. But Marjorie, in this discussion, said: "It seems like

something out of another century, but that same fair three and a half

years later, according to the latest estimation provided by Expo

itself...is that the capital costs — just on the site — are going to be

$750 million. So you can see what's happened, Gail; it has already

incurred a 650 percent increase.... We don't have a report on what the

capital costs are going to be. I'm not sure where Marjorie got her

figures, but I do know that her figures of $750 million have to be

significantly closer than the capital cost of $75 million and the

estimated operating cost of $75 million at the outset. So there's a

very significant increase.

I want to know what is making the government so nervous about this

situation. Will the minister assure us again, as he did in his opening

statement, that something's happening out there? He indicated that Expo

86 is the most significant thing that will happen in this province in

terms of attracting tourists; it's going to be the greatest thing on

earth. Yet all these stories are out there, and they're stories that

worry me because of the fact that government seems to be dancing around

on this labour issue when it is not really a factor, according to the

president of the CLRA, Chuck McVeigh. He said it very clearly. So how

about it, Mr. Chairman? Will the minister tell us what's going on? Talk

about your confidence. Is your confidence warranted? It doesn't seem to

me that the Premier is very confident that Expo is going to happen. I

think it would be a good idea to let us know at this point.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. VEITCH: In the Speaker's gallery today are four people

who are accompanied by 56 students. Their leader is Mr. Wayne Axford, a

friend of mine, who is a teacher at Moscrop Junior Secondary School,

and Mrs. Nancy Fader. We are hosting 27 students from Moscrop Junior

Secondary, and they are somewhere in the precincts. As well, we're

hosting 25 students from Polyvalente D'Albé-Viau in Lachine, Quebec.

Their teachers are M. Jean-Pierre Michaud and Mme. Gertrude Duclos. I

would ask this House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting to note

that the member's opening remarks were that the figures I gave for the

increases in tourism in 1983, which I thought were fairly good news for

the people of British Columbia, were ones he found boring. I didn't

find them boring at all. I thought that in these tough economic times

they were very significant and heartening figures.

I think it's also important to note that that member's solution to

all of our problems is to throw money at them. He makes light of this

government's restraint program, which, I might add, is being emulated

in other jurisdictions across the country. I don't have any qualms

about standing up here and talking about it; he seems to suggest that I

shouldn't. I'm very proud of some of the savings we have made for the

taxpayers of British Columbia — in particular, in my ministry. We have

been able to pare down the operating side of the ministry, while not

affecting the marketing side, which to me is all-important.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Questions on the world's fair. I don't know if there was a definite

question there. There was a question as to whether there was any

confidence in the fair, and I would answer that by saying that I have

every confidence in the people who we have charged with the

responsibility of bringing to British Columbia a first-class world's

fair. We have put together a board of directors of leading business

people from British Columbia. It is chaired by one of the leading

business people in the country, Mr. Jimmy Pattison, and several others,

whom I won't name. Also, we have some members from the federal side,

appointed by the federal government, and some members appointed by the

city of Vancouver. These people have been charged with the

responsibility of putting together a first-class world's fair. I should

add here, on their behalf, that they give unstintingly of their own

time and energies, with absolutely no remuneration of any kind. I think

they should be applauded by all British Columbians for the time and

effort that they put into this fair.

They in turn have put together a team of people who they consider to

be the very best available; their reputations speak for themselves.

They have charged this team with the responsibility of putting on a

world's fair — using money from Lotto 6-49, as the member has said, but

also using the considerable moneys that will be generated by the fair

itself. I won't go into all those sources, but I'm sure that people

will realize that a fair of this size.... They have already signed up

31 nations from around the world, and several large corporations will

generate many millions of dollars in revenue which, when added to the

Lotto funds, will offset the expenses of the fair.

Earlier today the member mentioned the budget for Expo. I am certain

that when the chairman and board of directors of the Crown corporation

of Expo 86 are ready with the budget, it will be made public. I would

anticipate that they will be bringing a budget to the government and to

the public in the very near future.

As for his other comments regarding third-party comments heard on the CBC, I guess the people who make those

[ Page 4217 ]

comments are entitled to their opinion. I don't know what some of them base their opinion on — only they know that.

As for the labour problem that could possibly exist at Expo, I can

only correct the member again and say that the Premier charged the

chairman of the board with the responsibility of working out an

arrangement with the building trades so that we and the people of

British Columbia could be assured that we could bring this fair in and

that we wouldn't expose the people of British Columbia to a

multimillion dollar liability when it was not necessary to do so. For

that reason, the chairman of the board is right at this moment holding

up well over $100 million in building contracts. I think that's a wise

move, and I commend the Premier and the chairman of the board for not

exposing the taxpayers of British Columbia unnecessarily at this time.

I'm sure that the chairman, Mr. Pattison, is doing his utmost to

extract a satisfactory agreement so that we can assure those countries

— which may number as high as 45 — and the corporations and the

taxpayers of this province that as far as can be determined we can

bring this fair in on time. And of course the board is charged with the

responsibility of bringing it in on budget.

I trust that has answered the questions thus far.

MR. COCKE: The minister talks about great public-spirited

people sitting on the Expo board. May I ask a direct question? The $35

million contract for the B.C. Pavilion won by Dominion Construction:

was that untendered, as I understand it? And is Clark Bentall, the

chairman of the board of Dominion Construction, the same Clark Bentall

who sits on the board of Expo 86?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can't give the member the details of

everyone who tendered on the contract, but yes, it went to tender, to

the best of my knowledge. I could bring in the details. To the best of

my knowledge it went to tender, and I'm reasonably certain that it did

go to Dominion Construction, if my memory's correct.

MR. COCKE: I gather that the minister is suggesting that it

was a tendered project and he would bring back the information. There

has been some fairly significant talk around that it was not tendered,

and that it was a contract placed directly.

[3:45]

The whole question of restraint with respect to Expo.... Because the

minister seems so determined that restraint is the way to go, I'd like

to ask him whether it's true that the founding father of restraint —

also the founding father of Expo — allowed a Michael Bartlett, the

president of Expo, a $100,000 salary and membership in the Shaughnessy

Golf Club. We feel, I guess, that it's very difficult to accept words

of restraint and of acknowledgement of restraint from the minister when

under his auspices we have this Expo going absolutely berserk, it would

seem, from an original suggested $150 million to.... I'm sure that the

word is bandied about that it's $750 million, but I bear from sources

fairly close to the whole thing that it'll be running close to a

billion. It will be a shame if it's Jean Drapeau revisited.

It's a further shame that, as I understand it, to date there are

only two.... Now there are a number of countries, as the minister

suggested, that have committed themselves to get involved in Expo. But

do you know how many corporate exhibitor commitments they have so far?

The minister may correct me if I'm wrong. You will correct if I'm

wrong, won't you? How about two?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You're wrong.

MR. COCKE: Will the minister tell us whether it's two or three?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I will.

MR. COCKE: Go ahead.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I haven't got it right at my fingertips. I'll have it for you in a minute.

MR. COCKE: He hasn't got it at his fingertips. Mr. Chairman,

there's a lot that isn't at the minister's fingertips. There is a lot

about this whole question that isn't at the Premier's fingertips. When

Marjorie Nichols made the suggestion that Expo is going to cost us over

$750 million, I believe she was probably on the lean, or conservative,

side.

Mr. Chairman, has the minister recently received a revenue estimate

from the lottery that is supporting Expo? How much will that provide

the government in the next three years?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the member has asked three or four different questions, and I'll try to take them in order.

I'm not going to comment on the salaries of all the people at Expo; those will

become public knowledge in due course.

I don't have the number of corporations right here. I have that in

my office, and I will have it for the member momentarily. But he is

wrong on the number.

The commitment to Expo from the lottery hasn't changed since day

one. Again, I don't have here the numbers that are projected over the

next three years. I suppose I could get them for the member, if he

feels it is important, but I don't have them right at my fingertips.

I want to make one other point, as the member commented on Drapeau

revisited. I want to make the distinction between two events that were

hosted in Montreal under the stewardship of the same mayor. One was

Expo 67, the world's fair, and the other was the Olympic Games. I want

to put this on record so that the public is not confused between the

two, because while Expo 67 was very successful in every way.... It was

one of the proudest moments in Canada's history, and it was five and a

half months long, as our world's fair will be. It was very successful,

especially when one considers the up side of the equation and the

numbers of dollars that that fair generated and the wealth that it

pumped into the economy of Canada. But one should not confuse that

world's fair, or any world's fair, with the Olympics held in that same

city a few years later, which are quite different. The Olympics are a

two-week-long event, and if memory serves me correctly — although I

can't quote the number off the top of my head — it was what one would

call a financial disaster. I just wanted to straighten that out when

the member refers to the mayor of Montreal.

MR. COCKE: We're having a marvellous time this afternoon, Mr.

Chairman; we're getting answers rushed at us like nothing on earth. "I

don't know this; it's in my office." Or "I

[ Page 4218 ]

don't know that; it may be upstairs." And "I don't

know something else; it may be over town." But he does know that one of

the Expos was a success and something else was a failure, and why would

I have the audacity to liken this to that? Well, maybe I'll give the

minister some opportunity to do some research in his own area, and I'll

go to some other areas in Tourism.

This afternoon we received an interesting report from the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) of our province. That report said

that there were no criminal acts with respect to the Ministry of

Tourism or the two advertising agencies that were involved in this

seven- or eight-month investigation. It has been going on for so long

that I can hardly remember. Anyway, it's got some time behind it. I

want to ask the minister: is McKim still acting for the Ministry of

Tourism? The second question: is Vrlak Robinson still acting for the

Ministry of Tourism? I want to couch that question in what was said in

the report. The report said that the bookkeeping systems used by the

Ministry of Tourism were totally unacceptable. It went on to say that

the procedures used in both those agencies were totally unacceptable.

Nobody's going to go to jail. Nobody's going to be charged. We're

talking about taxpayers' money that has to go through that kind of a

grinder, where there are totally unacceptable procedures used by the

suppliers in both cases, according to their own reports, and totally

unacceptable procedures used by the ministry. So much for restraint.

The, best way in the world I've ever heard of to blow taxpayers'

dollars is to have those taxpayers' dollars siphoned through

unacceptable procedures.

We all saw the report from the auditor-general showing where people

had been paid twice and three times for the same service. No wonder the

Royal Canadian Mounted Police — fraud squad, I gather — were used. No

wonder they said unacceptable procedures were being used. Is the

minister still using the services of McKim. Advertising? Is McKim

Advertising still the government advertising agency? I guess I'd have

to ask that of the Provincial Secretary. In any event, I asked the

Ministry of Tourism whether he's working for them and whether Vrlak

Robinson is working for the Ministry of Tourism. I would also ask

whether or not Valerie Vrlak has a responsibility with respect to the

Ministry of Tourism.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'll back up and give the

member some of the answers that I didn't have right at my fingertips

earlier but have now. One was on the question of the British Columbia

pavilion. Did it go to tender? My answer was yes, and I was correct.

There were three companies that bid on the British Columbia pavilion.

Their names are PCL Construction Ltd. of Richmond, Cana Construction

Co. Ltd. of Richmond and Dominion Construction Co. Ltd. of Vancouver.

So the project did go to tender, and I believe the winning tender was

Dominion Construction.

On the number of corporations, the member asked if there were two.

The answer is that there are six that have signed up so far, and

several more are pending. I won't mention the ones pending, because

negotiations are still going on. Some of those firms are very large and

some of the dollar amounts involved are very large, and I would not

like to prejudice any negotiations. Those corporations that have signed

up so far, in addition to the 31 countries, are Canadian Pacific Ltd.,

Canadian National, Via Rail, Royal Bank, CP Air and Telecom Canada.

MR. COCKE: Marvellous.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't know what it would take to excite

that gentleman over there. Perhaps someone else could answer that

question better than I.

The member referred to the report tabled today in the House by the

Attorney-General, and I for one am very pleased that this report has

finally come in. I agree with the member that it has taken a very long

time, but I also feel, after having read it, that a very thorough job

was done. Like the Attorney-General, I am satisfied in my own mind that

there was no criminal intent, no evidence of fraud or any wrongdoing.

The member asks about McKim Advertising. I'd like to point out to

him that since last year the advertising dollars for the Ministry of

Tourism now come under the Provincial Secretary's ministry and are

placed by government information services. His question was: does the

Ministry of Tourism still directly use McKim Advertising? The answer is

no, not directly. The same answer goes for Vrlak Robinson, the other

firm referred to.

Yes, Mrs. Valerie Vrlak does work for the Ministry of Tourism in

Vancouver. She is a very valued employee of this ministry, and her

day-to-day job description does not call for her to become involved in

any advertising dollars spent by or for the Ministry of Tourism. I

think I have answered all the members questions thus far.

I can elaborate a little bit further on the contract for the B.C.

pavilion. Ten firms were asked for pre-qualification submissions and,

out of those ten, three were asked to submit proposals. I've named the

three that submitted proposals, and one of them was the successful

bidder.

MR. COCKE: Well, we're getting a few answers, and I'm very excited.

Will the minister tell us who is agent of record or the advertising

agency now used by the Ministry of Tourism? His answer is a little bit

confusing, because he said we're not using them directly. I gathered

from that that we can use somebody indirectly; in other words, it would

be something like shades of the past, because I remember that one of

the criticisms before was that one agency would get the job or would be

agent of record, so to speak, and then pass it off to another agency,

and that's where all the confusion began. Now is it that same sort of

thing? Have you involved a third agency that will take the business and

then that third agency will pass it on to McKim, if they so will, or

Vrlak? It's a very confusing thing. The minister says, "We're not using

them directly," so therefore the corollary to that, I gather, would be:

"Yes, we are using them indirectly." Otherwise he would have said: "No,

we're not using them." So I would wonder what the minister has to say

about that in terms of the response to the report.

[4:00]

Secondly, when the question was asked this afternoon about the

availability of the report, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith)

nodded to me that the report would be available. Well, he walked out

into the hall and he handed those two or three sheets of paper that he

read from in the House this afternoon.... I hope that he has talked to

his colleague, because we'd like to see the report — not the

Attorney-General's report on the report, because it says nothing of

great consequence other than that everything is lovely in the garden

except that there is a lot of incompetence

[ Page 4219 ]

around. What can the minister do to assure us in

the opposition that the report will be available so that we are able to

read it and report to the public our feelings with respect to the whole

question? I'm not arguing — as a matter of fact, I never did think —

that there were criminal activities around this situation. I did think,

however, that it had to be a proper report, and I said in the House

that it was very unlikely.... But at the same time, when that kind of a

report comes out, the air has to be cleared. I'll tell you something of

consequence in this: the entire handling of the taxpayers' dollars and

the way they have been over the years. So I think that we'd better hear

that there have been some significant changes made before we can have

any feeling of confidence.

I'll ask the minister again: is our utilization of the two

advertising agencies indirect, and what has been done within the

ministry to see to it that this sort of thing doesn't happen any longer?

HON. MR. RICHMOND . First of all I want to clear up any misunderstanding

that the member or anyone else might have when I said that indirectly, yes,

we do use McKim. Technically — and I want to be technically correct — the dollars

that are spent in the advertising end of Tourism now appear in the Provincial

Secretary's vote. There is nothing to hide; nothing ulterior, as that member

usually alludes to. It's plainly and simply not booked through my ministry.

Yes, we do use that agency, but the dollars are in another vote. The agency

of record for the Ministry of Tourism through the Provincial Secretary's

vote is McKim Advertising.

I want to put it clearly on the record, because of the innuendo that is always

here, that this report the member is dealing with, which came in today, deals

with events in the Ministry of Tourism prior to my getting there. I want to

assure that member, and all other members of this House — and the taxpayers

of British Columbia — that since that time there have been no more incidents

of multiple agencies being used. These are a thing of the past.

MR. COCKE: How do you know? You just told us that Jimmy Chabot's doing it now.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can assure that member that that's not

happening. As I told you, the dollars for the advertising come under

his vote, but as is reported in the report that the Attorney-General

tabled today, the systems that were in place when these events took

place were not adequate. Those systems have since been changed. I've

assured the people many times outside this House — and now I'd like to

assure them inside this House — that the systems that were in place and

that were the cause of a lot of this confusion have been changed and

tightened up. In fact, I asked the Minister of Finance to send people

into the ministry from the comptroller-general's office, which he did,

just to reassure me and everyone else that the ministry was functioning

as it should, according to the Financial Administration Act; and the

comptroller-general, through the Minister of Finance, assured me that

that was the case.

So I just want that clearly on the record. These things are in the past. The

systems, as is said in the report, were weak, and the checks and balances were

not there. I can assure people that they are now there, and that these things

are not happening now and will not happen in the future.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister holds up the report on the

auditor-general's report and says: "I've read that report and I've come

to the conclusion that I agree with the final recommendation." But

there's no suggestion that the members of this chamber or the public of

British Columbia will be able to read that report and see whether they

agree with the minister. I don't think there's much use arguing the

point, Mr. Chairman. We're here to ask questions and express

disagreements. It's a strange kind of investigation where the report is

seen by the minister and he says, "I come to the conclusion that it is

supportable." but it can't be seen by the public. It's kind of a police

state we're getting into, where investigations are shuttled off in this

manner. Of course, a public inquiry is never permitted.

I just say that. My opinions are pretty well known on that subject;

I've got a basic disagreement with the government in terms of the kind

of secrecy they practise and their refusal to let the public into these

things. But I want to ask a question of the minister. My recollection

of the auditor-general's report is that a lot of money had been

misspent — and I'm not talking about the criminal aspects, because

we've dealt with that. Are any moneys being recovered now by the

department of Tourism, or by some other department of government acting

for the department of Tourism?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, the member, when he first

got to his feet, mentioned the auditor-general's report. I think he was

referring to the Attorney-General's report.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I said the report on the auditor general's report.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, I just want to make it clear that

the report tabled today was not from the auditor general, it was from

the Attorney-General.

MR. MACDONALD: I know.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I understand, Mr. Member, that you have a

quarrel with the way these reports are handled. That's one you'll have

to take up with the Attorney General, not with me.

MR. MACDONALD: I won't get very far with him.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, that's a problem you'll have to

solve; it's not one I'm going to solve for you. I refer you to the

Attorney-General if you wish to see the report. I can assure this

House, that member and everyone else that I have not seen the RCMP

report: I have seen exactly what the Attorney-General read into the

record today, and I saw it at the same time as you did.

MR. MACDONALD: Then I misunderstood what you said.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The only report I've seen is what was tabled in the House today; I just want to make that clear.

As far as the auditor-general's earlier report goes, yes, there were

incidents of double payments and other irregularities, and I can assure

the member that all of those moneys have been recovered. We are

thankful that they were pointed out. Of course, the auditor-general's

function is to find those

[ Page 4220 ]

things. The systems have now been improved and

tightened so that.... One can't say that it will never happen again —

that nobody will ever make a double payment — but the likelihood of its

ever happening is very much less than it was.

There were many things in her first report that were pointed out to

us. We have since filed a report back with her, outlining to the

auditor-general just what steps we have taken in the ministry to

correct those things which were wrong and which were weak. I have seen

that report, and I am very satisfied that we have complied not only

with her suggestions but with the Financial Administration Act. To

repeat, the comptroller-general is also satisfied, as I am, that the

systems in my ministry are now much better and much tighter, and are

functioning as they should.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I was under a misapprehension. I

thought that the minister had said he had read the RCMP report and the

one that Mr. Doust had topped up, but apparently he hasn't. It's kind

of a shame, isn't it, Mr. Chairman, that even the minister can't see

these super-secret inquiries to see if he agrees with the conclusions

reached, to see whether there isn't some other money that might be

recovered and that should be gone after? We really do live in a very

strange kind of a democracy where even the minister doesn't have access

to these pertinent pieces of information.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: It is, isn't it? A great form of investigation

we have going in this province, I suppose, where somebody talks only to

his wife and his wife talks only to God about these things. I don't

know what it is, but I do know it's totally unsatisfactory, and it

cannot allay public disquiet. Any member of the public or any member of

this chamber who is prepared to take the dictate of a minister — the

Attorney-General or anyone else — is supinely acquiescing in his own

uselessness.

The minister said they had got some money back. That's good, and I

hope the Minister of Finance knows it, because we're in very bad shape.

We're in a period of restraint. I'd be better off if I was in restraint

myself — a straitjacket. But how much money was recovered, and from

whom, Mr. Minister? I don't want the details in full, but I want to

know if you got any money back from McKim or from some of the

employees. How much did you get? The Minister of Finance wants to know.

I want to know.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To deal with the member's last question

first, the dollar amounts that were recovered, because of double

payments and discrepancies, have all been recovered and it has been

dealt with in confidence with the auditor-general. I have no intention

of making those figures public at this time. I imagine they will be a

matter of public record in due course.

MR. MACDONALD: No, the public might hear. You'd better not say it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm certain, Mr. Member, that if the

auditor-general is satisfied, then I'm satisfied and the public is

satisfied. I have the same regard for the Attorney General and his

decision, and for the RCMP. You don't seem to hold them in as high

regard as I do. I am satisfied that if the RCMP say there is no

criminal intent.... That's good enough for me. When you say that I

haven't seen the RCMP report and that's a shame, I don't think it is. I

think it's the way it should be. I don't really think that I need to

see everything that's in that report. I am satisfied that if they and

private counsel assure the Attorney-General that there was no criminal

wrongdoing or evidence of fraud, that's good enough for me. I have

every faith that the RCMP is impartial and has conducted a very

lengthy, very thorough investigation. So you may question them if you

like, Mr. Member. I'm not going to question them. Their report had

nothing to do with the recovering of money, as you alluded to in your

first remarks.

MR. MACDONALD: It might have.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: If it had, I'm sure they would have

pressed charges. But I am certain that their investigation had nothing

to do with the recovery of money. The auditor general's report did and

the moneys have been recovered.

[4:15]

MR. COCKE: This is a revelation. The minister stands in the

House and indicates to us that we should have total confidence.... Sure

we have confidence in the RCMP, but we also have confidence in our own

ability to read, and what we got from the Attorney-General was an

inadequate report — apart from its saying that there was incompetence

all over the face of the earth. But you know, the minister then goes on

to tell us about his confidence in the auditor-general. It's not

shared, colleague, because the most recent remark made by the

auditor-general was the fact that the more she digs, the worse it gets.

That's just a matter of less than a month ago. The more she digs into

that whatever, the worse it gets. The auditor-general is not going to

make a remark like that unless it's pretty bad.

No doubt behind the scenes, as the Socreds always love to do,

they're trying to clean up their act. They're doing this and they're

doing that, but the fact of the matter is they shouldn't do it behind

the scenes. Once there's an admission that there have been bad

procedures or.... I call it bad behaviour, to tell you the truth; it's

behaviour that demands that money be repaid. The minister has admitted

that money had to be repaid. If that money has been recovered, then why

was it lost in the first place? I had to say to the press that it

disappeared into the blue. I can't say anything else.

We get a document today that doesn't really bear fruit in terms of

what we should be doing in this Legislature. What we should be doing in

this committee is seeing to it that the voters in Omineca, New

Westminster, North Island and every other constituency in this province

know what's going on in the Ministry of Tourism. That's what we're here

for: we're here to see to it that the people who are paying the bills

know what they're paying for. They're the taxpayers, to whom we are

totally responsible, and we get answers to questions that are totally

inadequate, under the circumstances.

The minister gets up and says, "That member for New Westminster" —

I'm paraphrasing — "is full of innuendo, makes terrible charges," and

so on. No wonder, Mr. Chairman. Wouldn't you? Give us the facts; give

us the information. We don't need the whole report from the standpoint

of every interrogation that went on, and so on, but we need the report

that the A-G got. He comes in here and assures us that all is well, all

is lovely in the garden, that they have some procedures that are bad,

but surely someday they're going to

[ Page 4221 ]

smarten them up. I believe we should see that report here in this House. It should be tabled.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The minister says: "I'm confident." He's confident

in this, he's confident in that, but his confidence isn't necessarily

shared. That's all we're saying.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I believe that member has

two reports confused. He is talking about the recovery of money, which

I have dealt with and which was dealt with in the auditor-general's

report. The report that was tabled today by the Attorney-General didn't

deal with that; the report was from the RCMP and dealt with whether

there was any criminal intent.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Because I'm going to read to you, Mr. Member, what was said today, just to put it on the record again.

"As I have indicated before, Mr. Doust has reported to me directly"

— 'me' being the Attorney General — "his findings and conclusions.

He has reviewed with me carefully both the scope of the investigation and the

details of his opinion. Mr. Doust was most critical of the system of financial

control that was in place during 1981-82 in the Ministry of Tourism and those

advertising agencies with which it conducted business. In this he is in agreement

with Mr. Hooper, the accountant, who reported and concluded that there were

very inadequate systems controls on the part of the ministry, extremely poor

and uncontrolled accounting in recording systems in Vrlak, and poor expense

or docket control on the part of McKim.

"As sloppy and as incomplete as these financial

controls may be, they do not in themselves provide grounds for

involving the criminal law process."

So I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that the accounts of double payments and

moneys were dealt with in the auditor-general's first report and, I'm

sure, will be dealt with at length in the auditor-general's second

report. But as far as the report from the RCMP goes, I see no need for

that member or any other member to have the full report as presented to

the Attorney General.

MR. COCKE: The more he talks, the more incredible this whole

situation becomes. He says that there was this kind of coincidence, and

we found them all together in one place: sloppy procedures on the part

of two advertising agencies, sloppy procedures on the part of the

ministry. You put that into a mix, and he assures us that we don't have

to see the report. The more he talks, the more I demand to see the

report.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now we find, of course, that it has gone to Doug Heal, the czar of

all that this government has to say in terms of propaganda. Doug Heal,

however, works for the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot). So that

minister uses the Ministry of Provincial Secretary to do his

advertising. But who do we find as agent of record? Holy doodle, we

find sloppy McKim. And I'm not using my words; I'm using the words that

were in that report. It said that it was sloppy and unacceptable. I

wonder if the minister could tell us how much McKim paid back. How much

did Vrlak Robinson pay back for their incompetence? I wonder why they

would use an agency that is described in a report as having

unacceptable procedures. Maybe the former Attorney-General would answer

my question.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He thinks I'm too young. That is the first flattering thing that has been said to me all day.

I guess we've said all we can say. We're sure going to have to go

after the Attorney-General for some fleshing-out of that report. The

minister says that he's satisfied, but that doesn't necessarily assure

me. He may be satisfied with the pieces of paper he read to us, but I

can't see how he could be satisfied with those pieces of paper that

talk about "incompetence" and "sloppy, unacceptable procedures."

Anyway, so much for that.

I have a couple of other questions for the minister. I'd like to ask him about Beautiful British Columbia magazine. I wonder how it's doing. It's interesting that Beautiful British Columbia

magazine went to Jim Pattison. I noticed on the front page of the local

newspaper today that there was some criticism of Jimmy Pattison and his

publishing company. I hope that Beautiful British Columbia magazine isn't going to be part of the pornographic empire that was described in the Times-Colonist today.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's what he's selling — Beautiful British Columbia , Hustler and Penthouse .

MR. COCKE: And other sleazy magazines.

Getting off that and into something that I think is just a little

bit more relevant, I want to ask the minister about his report, where

he indicated that it was a loser for the government — yet Jimmy

Pattison still bought it. I want to ask him about these figures. I have

figures here that say to me that in 1979 the magazine's budget was

$1,594,993 and its revenue was $1,647,741. It strikes me that there was

a profit. In 1980-81 the magazine's budget was $1,777,636, and revenue

was $1,952,925. Is that correct? Incidentally, in 1979 there were

1,686,670 magazines printed, and in 1980-81 there were 1,728,640

magazines printed. I also have information that tells me that the cost

of production of that magazine was $1.45, and the sale price was $1.50.

So it doesn't look like a loser to me; it looks like a winner for the

government. But he sold a loser to Jimmy Pattison, a guy who doesn't

often pick up losers.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: There's an expert businessman over there telling me how you make winners out of losers — you clip them.

MR. REID: Just say something in here that you can say out in the hall.

[ Page 4222 ]

MR. COCKE: That member can sure dish it out, but he can't take it.

In 1981-82 the magazine's budget was $1,792,020; its revenue in

1981-82 was $1,968,495, and that was an estimate. I believe that the

statistics were actually $2,022,000. That's the loser that we sold to

Jimmy Pattison. Now that the first copy has hit the streets, we are

singularly impressed with the work that was done. We do believe,

however, that the magazine will be a real paying magazine in the

future, because the demand that it not carry advertising only continues

for a couple of years, as I recall. I think it was a mistake and a

shame, and that we should not have let that magazine go to the private

sector. There were a lot of other things that we shouldn't have let go

to the private sector, but that is for them to decide, because at the

present time they happen to be the government. One of their members

likes it, but I can remember the days when he wouldn't have.

I'd like to ask a few more questions, Mr. Chairman. I would like to

ask who Cone-Heiden is? He delivers many hundreds of cases of tourism

information in the United States — Ski

magazine, maps and handbooks, all over the United States. I wonder if

the $26,000 that he was paid last year is for delivery or mailing —

however he gets rid of them — to the different chambers of commerce,

and we've got lists of them. Was that $26,000 just to get a thousand

cases of tourism information around the parts of the United States that

we want to impress? Can the minister answer that? I believe that there

were exactly 1,000 cases sent from here to Cone-Heiden, 417 East Pine

Street, Seattle, Washington, and from there they go to such places as

the Allstate Motor Club, Menlo Park, California; the California

Automobile Association, Sacramento; Spokane; and here, there and

everywhere. It sounds like a lot of money, but I'm just wondering

whether or not it wouldn't probably be in our own best interests to

have B.C. House in San Francisco do the job; they have access to the

American mails. You could bulk-mail them there, and then send them from

B.C. House, or do we have to have a fairly expensive, it would seem to

me, mailing outlet that does the job for us?

[4:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to try to take the questions in order.

Again, I think that the member is referring to the auditor general's

report, and all of the numbers he refers to are in there. The operative

word that he uses is "was." He said "there was sloppiness," and yes,

there was. "There were systems that were weak." Yes, there were. The

operative words there are "was" and "were." It's all past tense. When

the member asks what moneys were paid back by McKim and Vrlak, I would

assure him that the auditor-general is satisfied that everything that

was owed to us was paid back. I want to put on record for that member,

this House and the public that every nickel that was owed to us was

paid back, and I don't think the amounts are important at this time.

MR. COCKE: Is there a report to that effect?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm sure there will be. When the

auditor-general gets around to tabling that report, I'm sure you'll

find that it's in there. As I said, we have also responded to her

report and assured her that these things have been done.

The member commented at length on Beautiful British Columbia

magazine, which was the subject of last year's estimates and really has

no place in this discussion of the estimates for 1984-85. But for the

record, I would like to delineate to that member, and to everyone else,

that when you're talking about the costs of Beautiful British Columbia

magazine you must bear in mind that the numbers don't include mailing

costs, many of the staff costs — such as creative overheads — or many

of the joint costs with people on Wharf Street that can't be allocated

to the magazine. The numbers are very misleading, and when you put all

of the costs together you will find that there is quite an operating

deficit. For example, the postage costs alone are in excess of

$600,000, and those do not appear in the figures that the member used.

I honestly can't tell you about Cone-Heiden, which I think is the

name the member mentioned, as I've never heard of Cone-Heiden. But I

feet that it's the company we use to distribute our material into the

United States. It's sent in bulk to Seattle, probably to the address

the member quoted. All of our literature going to all of the foreign

offices in the States go via this one carrier to the address in Seattle

and then are dispensed from there. But I don't have the numbers in

front of me as to what we pay this firm. I can get them for the member

— in fact I think they're on the way now — but that's the best

explanation I can give on the Cone-Heiden incident.

MR. COCKE: I can give you some numbers, Mr. Chairman. In

1980-81 the government of B.C. paid Cone-Heiden $13,692; in 1982-83,

$23,790; and in 1982-83, $26,170. I'm just wondering whether that's

what he got for sending 1,000 cases forward. It sounds like a lot of

money to me, and if B.C. House couldn't do it cheaper than that, I'd be

very surprised.

The minister and I disagree on Beautiful British Columbia

magazine. I'm not sure why the ministry-zoned briefing notes I'm

reading from would say something that isn't all-inclusive. Why would

they say that the thing is a winner if it's a loser? Anyway, that's

neither here nor there; it's gone now, unfortunately, and I guess it's

going to be a while before we get it back, if ever.

In the last month or two, or three, when we were having our little

argument across the floor, I asked about Jim Pavich in California. I

saw recently that his tenure has ended. I noticed that an

order-in-council of February 17, signed by the Premier and the

Provincial Secretary, rescinds the appointment of Jim Pavich. I say

that without comment. You know, the minister told me at the time that

that was one good way of hiring people, because you could always fire

them very easily or quickly. He may have quit; it makes no particular

difference at this juncture.

I have another thing here that I would like to ask about. This is

kind of interesting to me. I wonder why it is that during March 1982

there was a very interesting situation — this is before the minister

was there — in which Grantree somehow or another plays a role. Grantree

wrote to Dave Barrett at the time — the Leader of the Opposition —

copied in the second member for Vancouver East, and also Stu Leggatt,

who was then member for Coquitlam-Moody. I gather that Grantree must be

involved with Welcome Wagon. They kept asking for ministry material,

and I gather were not very successful in getting ministry materials to

put with the rest of the gifts to their people. A Richard Lewis said

that he regretted very much to advise that he was unable to meet their

request for travel literature, considering that over 20,000 new

[ Page 4223 ]

residents arrived in B.C. Well, that's fair enough;

I understand that. He tells how they distribute it, and that's very

straightforward. The thing that bothers me is that he then sends out a

note that's copied to others, and he regrets and apologizes for copying

the Leader of the Opposition in on what I consider to be benign

information. Does Grantree now have any kind of a connection where they

are welcoming people with our information? I would imagine that they

may be something to do with Welcome Wagon. I wonder if the minister has

established whether or not there is a relationship.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'll deal with the last one

first. As the member points out, this goes back to March '82, before my

tenure as the Minister of Tourism, but I'm advised by my deputy that

the answer is no, we never have had, nor do we have at this time, any

connection with Grantree, which I think is a furniture rental company.

That is probably the prime reason they were turned down as a

distributor of tourism literature.

I have a more full answer for the member on Cone Heiden. They

distribute for us in the U.S. and maintain a warehouse facility, They

save us paying brokerage charges each time a request is made for B.C.

literature in the U.S.A., and they store and ship on our behalf. It's

cheaper than having our own facilities and staff down there. That

answers the question as to the name of that company, and I think that

gives a fairly succinct answer. The accent there should be on the fact

that it is cheaper than having our own facilities and staff. We save

money by employing this company to distribute literature for us and to

take it across the border.

I would like to comment just briefly on the matter of Mr. Pavich. It

is unfortunate in one sense that he developed a health problem and

found that he couldn't accept the position, but I point out to the

member the value of the order-in-council and the simplicity of how it

operates. I do feel very badly about not having Mr. Pavich there, but

that is one of the things that happen.

I think that answers every question that the member has put to me thus far.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think one of my colleagues wants

to ask a couple of questions. I have very little more that I would like

to ask the minister at this time. We had a little chat about a month

ago, and I think probably he's giving a few more answers now. He's at

least endeavouring; I'll give him that much credit.

I want to say this, in winding up my statement: I don't believe that

tourism is being well enough served. I think it was a disastrous

mistake to move the advertising away from Tourism. I think it should be

there. I think the excitement is there. I've always said that Doug

Heal's department is pure propaganda, and I don't think it's a good

place to have that particular responsibility resting. I believe it

should be resting in the Ministry of Tourism, where the preoccupation

is with tourism and attracting tourists to our province. You're not

going to get any criticism from me about who you use down in Washington

or anywhere else to distribute information about this province.

I agreed with your early statement that tourism is a most important

industry in this province. I think we're underplaying it from a

standpoint of restraint or call it whatever you like, and I don't think

it should be downplayed in any way. I think tourism should be a very

high priority at the moment. There are some things we can do nothing

very much about. If they're not building houses in the United States,

then we can't sell them a lot of lumber for a house they're not

building. But the one thing you can't take away from this province is

its beauty, its natural attraction. We're a province with five

different and distinct geographic zones. We've got everything from

desert to rain forest. It's a most remarkable province. The only way we

can really get this thing going in terms of tourism is to make sure

that everybody out there knows about us and that this is the place to

come.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the government should upgrade the

Ministry of Tourism. That should be an absolute priority in terms of

getting the message out. I say it's desperately wrong to have moved

that responsibility into Doug Heal's department, because I don't think

it's right that a propaganda machine like that should be the one that's

dispensing information about this province. We may as well privatize

that too. I think it should be back at home, and I think the minister,

whoever he or she might be, should be directly responsible for

everything that happens with respect to the promotion of tourism in

this province. I do think it's a priority, and I think that right now

we're suffering as a result of the fact that the minister has been

inhibited by this very move of all that information-dispensing to Doug

Heal and his group.

[4:45]

MR. GABELMANN: I'm going to be very brief, and in a sense go

not from the sublime to the ridiculous but from the general to the

specific and raise what in the scheme of things is a small issue — a

local one in my riding. I've been asked by the mayors and members of

councils and the regional district members in all of the communities on

northern Vancouver Island from Woss north — Port Hardy, Port McNeill,

Alert Bay, Port Alice and the regional district of Mt. Waddington — to

raise with the Minister of Tourism an issue that is only indirectly

related to tourism but is also related to the parks branch of a

different ministry.

The problem is that the economy of that part of Vancouver Island has

been very narrowly based on the traditional resources of fishing,

mining and forestry. All three of those resources are in decline

inasmuch as job creation is concerned. The communities have embarked on

a very vigorous campaign to develop the beginnings of a tourism

industry on northern Vancouver Island and have felt that there has been

very little or no support for those initiatives from the province. They

cite as examples of that repeated requests by local government to

improve tourist facilities such as recreational vehicle campsites,

improved maintenance and access to major parks in the area, which

certainly include the Cape Scott Provincial Park in which there is

virtually no maintenance being done except what the Armed Forces happen

to do on occasion in Cape Scott Park. There are no provincial

government campsites north of Campbell River. There are absolutely no

provincial government campsites anywhere on northern Vancouver Island.

With the exception of a couple of small, private sites that are being

developed, there are no facilities for recreational vehicles. It's the

kind of area that attracts tourists who go for the outdoors, fishing

and activities that are very much parks and outdoors related. I simply

want to make an appeal to the Minister of Tourism, on behalf of those

local communities and their tourism agencies and advisory boards and

the various groups that are involved in promoting tourism for that

region, that he, in discussions with the minister responsible for

parks, treat seriously — in a

[ Page 4224 ]

non-ideological way, if possible — the whole question of development, maintenance and improvement of camping facilities.

There's no argument from me, ever, about the issue of encouraging

private camping facilities. I don't object to that. One of the ironies,

I suspect, is that the private campsite developers do better when there

are provincial campsites around, because people go to the provincial

government campsites, they find them full, and they spill over into the

private campsite operator's location. When tourists look at the

provincial government road maps or the parks branch maps of the

province and look for government campsites on northern Vancouver

Island, they find none — any private sites that might exist, and there

are very few and they are only beginning to develop, and aren't

indicated — so they don't go, because people want to go for camping

either with recreational vehicles or tenting. That has a severe impact

on those private operators who are attempting to set up facilities; it

also has an impact of the viability of those communities who depend

upon the diversification of their economies. I would urge that the

Minister of Tourism recognize and accept these arguments that are made

locally — not from any ideological perspective, because they are being

made by councils and regional board members from every political

perspective. Requests are being made sincerely that one of the major

components for improvement of tourism in the northern part of Vancouver

Island would be a response by the parks branch to the creation of not

many, but some provincial campsites, and also the maintenance of the

existing park facilities such as Cape Scott Park, which is a

magnificent tourist destination, but the trails aren't maintained and

are inadequate. I am dramatically understating how bad it really is

there. I make that appeal on behalf of those people who are interested

in developing tourism on northern Vancouver Island.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'd like to thank the member for North

Island for those remarks and for bringing the wishes of the people,

especially the elected people in his area, to my attention. Let me

assure that member and all of the people from the north end of the

Island that I will take his remarks very seriously, and I will meet

with the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) to see

if something can be done to promote the type of facility that he

mentions. I realize their importance too, as more and more people use

this means of travel and accommodation.

I would also like, on his behalf, I know, and that of everyone in

the Ministry of Tourism, to congratulate Campbell River for their

appointment of Mr. Norman McLaren as a full-time convention manager. He

has been a very active member of the Provincial Tourist Advisory

Council. He's been invaluable to me and my ministry. I think they

couldn't have made a better choice. I'm very happy to see Campbell

River actively pursuing the convention and visitor business. I wish Mr.

McLaren well.

Just in closing, I would like to respond to a couple of remarks made

by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) before he left. I think

every member in this House agrees with him that it's a great place to

live; I don't think he has to sell us on this province. I've lived here

all my life and I don't think there's a finer place on earth to live. I

just want him to know that that sentiment is shared by several people

other than himself.

He talks about input to the marketing and advertising of tourism.

Let me assure him that our people do have control of the advertising

and the thrust of it, and the direction of marketing in this ministry.

We've been working very hard and diligently in the past few weeks to

put together our advertising package for the coming year. I would

invite him, and every member of this Legislature, to attend the launch

of our 1984 marketing program next week in the Hotel Vancouver at 9

o'clock in the morning. If he is truly interested in seeing what we are

doing in tourism this coming year, could be please be in the Hotel

Vancouver next Wednesday morning at 9 o'clock. I'm sure that he'll be

very pleased and enthused at what he sees we have in store for tourism

in 1984.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be fairly brief.

Tourism is important to many parts, if not all parts, of British

Columbia. It's certainly an important aspect of the economy in my

riding, particularly the Sunshine Coast, Powell River and Texada areas

— particularly the Sunshine Coast. In that area we've had great

improvements in accommodation and fine places for people to eat. We

have opportunities for fishing, boating, hiking and all of the things

that people have been talking about this afternoon. I know the minister

is aware of that. We do have a problem. I wonder if the minister has

addressed himself to one of the major problems — a 36 percent

unemployment rate in my riding. This is not counting the people out of

work at the present time because of the lockout, which is just about to

end presumably — sometime.

I want to know, in view of the recent horrendous ferry fare

increases and reduced scheduling to areas like the Sunshine Coast and

Powell River, which have had a definite effect on the tourists coming

into my riding.... We can tell by the figures from the B.C. Ferry

Corporation, which are public knowledge, the number of people using the

vessel on each trip — walk-on, vehicles — every day of the week, by the

month or by the year. We can tell very readily. I can tell because from

time to time, believe it or not, I get invited to attend and to speak

at chamber of commerce meetings.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I go. I go to NDP meetings, chamber of

commerce.... I've never been to a Socred meeting. I'm never invited to

them, Mr. Chairman.

MR. REID: You should go to one.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would. If they'd invite me as their guest

speaker, I'd love to go. Anyway, the people who normally belong to a

chamber of commerce are the small business people in a community. They

know very well....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We have some NDP members in the various chambers of commerce in Sechelt, Gibsons, Texada Island and Powell River — a few.

Mr. Chairman, these people know very well the effects of the

increased fares, and particularly of the reduced scheduling. This is

really a killer in terms of the tourist industry on the Sunshine Coast.

I have discussed this on many occasions with the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), who is sitting in this

House at the present time. For example, there's the late sailing to the

Sunshine Coast. It's part of tourism. I want to know if the minister

has approached

[ Page 4225 ]

his colleague, the Minister of Transportation and

Highways, or made any representation at all to the board of directors

of the B.C. Ferry Corporation — you know, Mr. Stu Hodgson, chairman of

the board, and Mr. Baldwin, general manager. I'm able to talk with them

all the time. I get all kinds of information, and sometimes they'll

make small adjustments in terms of assisting the ferry service to the

communities that are served in my riding. They are very approachable. I

want to know if the minister has made any approach at all to these

people on behalf of the tourist industry on the Sunshine Coast.

I have to admit that many people who make their homes on the

Sunshine Coast — I hear this from time to time at ratepayers' meetings

— are not particularly interested in tourists. From time to time

tourists, seem to clog up the ferries and the highways, and they would

rather they stayed home. But that isn't the general outlook in the

area, I must admit. These people who complain about tourists are

usually tourists themselves at least once a year somewhere. It works

both ways.

I do want to make one final point. The Social Credit candidate in

the last election happens to be a manager and part-owner of a very

large tourist facility at Powell River, and he's hurting. He admits

that he's hurting. Here is a good possible candidate for you in the

next election, and you're putting him out of business. You should be

ashamed of yourself over there.

So, Mr. Minister,