1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7713 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Knight Street Pub investigation. Mr. Sihota –– 7713

Sustainable development. Mr. Kempf –– 7714

Export of raw logs. Mr. Miller –– 7715

Tabling Documents –– 7715

Committee of Supply: Ministry of International Business and Immigration estimates. (Hon. J. Jansen)

On vote 38: minister's office –– 7715

Mr. Perry

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Gabelmann

Hon. S.D. Smith

Mr. Clark

Ms. A. Hagen

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and

North Coast, Responsible for Parks estimates. (Hon. Mr. Huberts)

On vote 61: minister's office –– 7732

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Long

Mr. Miller

Cemetery and Funeral Services Act (Bill 42). Second reading

Hon. L. Hanson –– 7741

Mr. Blencoe –– 7743

Hon. L. Hanson –– 7744

Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1989 (Bill 35). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Michael) –– 7744

Ms. A. Hagen

Third reading

Environment Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 34). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 7745

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. Edwards

Mr. G. Janssen

Third reading

Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989 (Bill 20). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 7756

Mr. Blencoe

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Rose

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Miller

Third reading

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

(Bill 21). Committee stage. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 7763

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

New Westminster Redevelopment Act, 1989 (Bill 36). Second reading

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7764

Ms. A. Hagen –– 7764

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7764

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989

(Bill 38). Second reading

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7765

Mr. Blencoe –– 7765

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7765

University Endowment Land Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 49). Second reading

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7765

Ms. Marzari –– 7765

Mr. Perry –– 7765

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7765

University Endowment Land Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 49). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 7766

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and

North Coast, Responsible for Parks estimates. (Hon. Mr. Huberts)

On vote 61: minister's office –– 7766

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Lovick

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID :

I am pleased to introduce in the House today two teachers, Mrs. Martin

and Mr. Rogers, who have with them 56 grade 6 students from Laronde

Elementary School in my constituency of Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale.

Would the House make them especially welcome.

MR. BARLEE :

There are two of our American cousins here somewhere in the precincts

of the House: George and Fran Blankenship from Davis, California. For

those people who don't know where Davis is, it's near Sacramento in the

old gold country of California. I'd like the House to accord them a

warm welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : In the precincts

are about 40 grade 3 to grade 6 students from the Sek Lep Elementary

School in the Kamloops area. On behalf of the Attorney-General (Hon.

S.D. Smith) and myself, I would like the House to welcome their

teachers, Connie Trepanier and Janice Michel-Billy, as well as three

parents, Daniel Gaspard, Lorna Seymour and Dora Iwanchuk. They're

visiting the capital city for two or three days, and I'd ask the House

to make them very welcome.

Also in the gallery today are

half a dozen senior people from my ministry. It's their first visit to

the House, and I'd like the House to welcome Maurine Smibert, Vera

Paterson, Sandra Bryant, Judy Duncan, Cynthia Maier and Kay Lewis.

HON. J. JANSEN :

In the Speaker's gallery this afternoon are nine grade 7 students from

Chilliwack Christian School. They're accompanied by their teacher, Mr.

Norman Brouwer, and also two adults, Mrs. Brenda Bakker and Mr. Andy

Maarhuis. Would you please make them welcome.

MR. CASHORE :

In the gallery today is an alderman from Richmond, Mr. Doug Sandberg,

formerly with the Ministry of Environment. Would the House please make

him welcome.

Oral Questions

KNIGHT STREET PUB INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Labour.

The former Attorney-General, the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith),

has said it was he who approached the Minister of Labour in early May of 1988,

urging him to investigate how Mr. Giordano's firm got on to the approved

list of firms for pub referendums. That contradicts what the minister said in

this House on Monday.

question to the minister is this: is that what happened, or does the

minister stand by the version of events he outlined to this House on

Monday?

HON. L. HANSON : On Monday last I tabled a

quite comprehensive statement on all the issues of the Knight Street

Pub. In that, I placed before the House my recollection of the events

as they occurred, and I referred to a conversation. I believe the

member will agree that the former Attorney-General referred to a

conversation, and the fact that there was a conversation is confirmed

by both.

MR. SIHOTA : There's a great difference, in

terms of those conversations. The Minister of Labour said in this House

that it was he who approached the former Attorney-General to discuss it

with him informally, after a cabinet meeting. The former

Attorney-General says he approached the Minister of Labour, when he

first heard news stories about the matter, urging him to investigate

Mr. Giordano's company. The question to the minister is: which was it —

the version you outlined on Monday or the version which has been

recited here that came from the former Attorney-General?

HON. L. HANSON :

I am certainly satisfied with my statement that was made on Monday. In

the

preamble to his question, the member makes some assertions that are

just not correct, and maybe the member should go back and read Hansard again.

MR. SIHOTA : We've read Hansard

very carefully. I'm sure the Minister of Labour has listened very

carefully to what the former Attorney-General said outside the House.

The question to the Minister of Labour is: is he saying that the

version of events outlined by the former Attorney-General outside the

House are inaccurate?

HON. L. HANSON : Mr. Speaker, I

reiterate that I made a very comprehensive statement on Monday. It was

my recollection of the events, and that is on the record.

MR. SIHOTA :

A question again to the Minister of Labour. Did the former

Attorney-General approach you urging you to take a look at the matter

of placement of Mr. Giordano's company in advance of any discussions

which you had with him?

HON. L. HANSON : Again I have

to question the hearing of the socialists opposite. I made my statement

on Monday, and that is my recollection of the events.

MR. SIHOTA : I take it that the minister is now saying he stands by the statements that he made on Monday.

question to the Premier is as follows. You now have the minister

publicly stating that he stands by the version of events that he

outlined on Monday; the former Attorney-General has contradicted that

ver-

[ Page 7714 ]

sion;

and the Premier has said he believes both men. Does the Premier still

stand by his position of yesterday that both men are right?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I understand that both are attempting to recollect exactly

what it is that might have been said or where they met a year and a

half ago. I have no reason to disbelieve either of the members, and I

trust their word. Frankly, the member from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, as

is so often the case, asked the questions on a whole lot of wrong

assumptions that he makes up in his own head for his own political

purposes.

[2:15]

MR. SIHOTA :

It wasn't myself who uttered the statements; it was the former

Attorney-General and the Minister of Labour. The Premier can't have it

both ways. It's their statements, Mr. Premier, not mine. Could the

Premier tell this House what steps he has taken to determine which of

those two versions is true?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, it's a simple question of truth. If you don't have the

facts, you can't tell which one is right. What steps has the Premier

taken to ascertain which of those two versions is accurate?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, they are both honourable members and I'm satisfied with the information that I have received.

MR. SIHOTA :

There is a cloud of integrity hanging over this government. In light of

that, does the Premier not think that he has a responsibility to

determine the truth?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr.

Speaker, I'm again saying that I'm satisfied with the whole process

that we've seen related to the whole matter. All of what's being asked

has been canvassed, and certainly we've seen a thorough investigation

of all the allegations that have gone before. Frankly, I realize that

this time in the House is for us to deal with important and urgent

matters, and I would hope that the opposition — although I realize many

are away, and I look forward to seeing the Leader of the Opposition —

will attend to those so-called urgent matters.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

MR. KEMPF : I have a very urgent matter. A question to the Premier. Yesterday

in question period your Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) turned down a

request to allow public scrutiny of the renewal of eight existing tree-farm

licences. Has the Premier now decided to overrule his minister's disregard

for public concern and allow for public hearings into the renewal for ten more

years of these eight existing licences, the list of which includes: TFL 25; TFL

39, the controversial tree-farm licence on the Queen Charlotte Islands; TFL

44, in which exists the Carmanah Valley; and TFL 46, the TFL that was under

scrutiny with respect to the Fletcher Challenge fiasco? Has the Premier decided

that it's time to scrutinize, through the public, these kinds of renewals

of tree-farm licences?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I realize the member deems this to be an urgent matter, and I would

like to respond, but not having the benefit of the question from

yesterday or the answer given, I would like to defer to my minister and

ask that he perhaps provide the information again. Then I'll have a

better appreciation of the urgent matter before us.

HON. MR. PARKER :

I'd like to remind the House of the process for tree-farm licences in

the province. Before a tree-farm licence is granted, there are

substantial public hearings. Once a tree-farm licence is granted, every

five years there's a management and working plan — that is, a public

process every five years. Out of the management working plan arises a

development plan. That is a five-year development plan that is updated

every year. The updates, too, are a public process. There are two

opportunities after a licence has been granted for public input.

Then

comes the pre-harvest silviculture prescription for each of the

proposed harvesting areas. That too involves the opportunity for public

input. You still can't cut a tree. You need a cutting permit to be able

to cut a tree. In the cutting permit application process, there is

another opportunity for public input. That same process takes place

with forest licences — the other major tenure in the province. In the

timber sale major licensing system, that same process takes place:

management and working plans, development plans, pre-harvest

silvicultural plans and cutting plans. There is substantial opportunity

for public input into the harvesting programs and the licences in this

province.

MR. KEMPF : We are talking about the

renewal for ten years of very controversial tree-farm licences in

British Columbia. To the Premier: what is the government afraid of in

providing further scrutiny, particularly of these controversial

tree-farm licences that I've noted? Is this working together? Is this

your new blueprint? Is this your new comprehensive strategy? What is

the government afraid of?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Do you have a question?

MR. KEMPF :

Yes, I have. Why is the government afraid of providing public scrutiny

into these tree farm licences before they are renewed for yet another

ten years?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : It seems to me that

the outline given by the minister indicates a fairly extensive public

scrutiny in the whole process. Although I'll find out more about it and

speak to the minister again, I can well appreciate why this system is

as it is and has been — when the member asking

[ Page 7715 ]

the question was responsible for that ministry and as it continues to be with our Minister of Forests today.

EXPORT OF RAW LOGS

MR. MILLER :

Further to the Minister of Forests regarding the log export question,

is it the policy of the minister to allow private companies to develop

their industrial plants through the export of unprocessed public timber?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The member is alluding to a joint interview that we had yesterday on

CBC in Prince Rupert and to a sawmill in Prince Rupert that at this

time is unable to process the larger-diameter wood on their forest

licence. They have made a request through the proper procedures for an

export permit, the cash flow from which will help them finance the

equipment they need to process the large butts instead of selling them

off to the lower mainland at less than cost.

The member

opposite should be the first to realize that when we see timber move

from the north coast to the south coast, for those who live in the

north coast area it is, for all intents and purposes, export, because

those manufacturing jobs have gone to another part of the province and

are not happening in our neighbourhood. It's a feeling that most of his

constituents have and that certainly most of my constituents have.

Hon.

Mr. Vant tabled the consolidated financial statements of the British

Columbia Railway for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1988.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INTERNATIONAL

BUSINESS AND IMMIGRATION

On vote 38: minister's office, $317,646 (continued).

MR. PERRY :

I'd like to follow up with the minister some of the comments made at

the end of the evening session last night. I've perused the Blues, and

I'd like to begin by drawing to the attention of Hansard

an error at page 48 of the Blues where I think my colleague the member

for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was referring to me, the second member

for Vancouver-Point Grey, and in the Blues it appears as the member for

Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat). That may just avoid confusion.

Interjections.

MR. PERRY : I wish it were otherwise, but I think it was probably me he was referring to.

There's a serious issue here....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Chairman, I take it from the reaction of members opposite that some

of them agree with the point I was raising in my question on May 29. If

it was the intention of the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain

to ask the same question, far be it from me to take the words out of

his mind. I think that would be wonderful and would reflect the wishes

of his constituents. So I thank the members opposite for correcting me.

Since he took the question on notice, let me review with the minister my question of May 29, at page 7035 of Hansard .

I'm going to take the liberty of reading the dialogue back into the

record, because I think it's quite important. I asked the minister: now

that he had returned from ARMX '89, could "he inform this House how

much taxpayers' money was spent to host the British Columbia delegation

at this international arms export mart in Ottawa?" The response of the

minister was that he did not have the figures available but would "take

the question on notice and get back to the member" — which was me.

Maybe I can ask the minister if he has those figures now and would be

prepared to divulge them.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before we proceed to the minister, the second member for Vancouver East asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Chairman, I have the honour today to introduce my wife's parents,

May and Frank Babish, and the two visitors accompanying them, who are

friends of theirs and ours, Ayako Endo from the Philippines and Akiko

Endo from Japan. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. J. JANSEN :

The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey has indicated that he would

like to have an answer to a question that I've taken on notice. I'm not

sure what the procedure of the House would be in such a case, but I

would be pleased to give him some general indication. He asked the

question: how much did the province of British Columbia spend to host

the 14 participating companies that were bidding through BID B.C. and

participating in ARMX? The strict answer to his question is: we spent

approximately $3,700 on hosting those companies — lunches, coffees and so on.

[2:30]

MR. PERRY :

I'd like to explore that in a little more depth. I'd like to ask the

minister for not just the strict but the full answer. Were any

subsidies or air fares paid to any of the companies involved? Were

there any other costs to the British Columbia treasury for

participation in this event? What were the costs or the estimated

costs, if those are available, of ministerial time attributable to this

exhibition? What was the cost of sending the British Columbia

delegation of officials to ARMX?

[ Page 7716 ]

Interjections.

MR. PERRY : I think the public would like to know this information.

HON. J. JANSEN :

Well, Mr. Chairman, I responded to the question that the member posed

in the House. He asked how much we paid to host these companies, and

that is certainly the answer to the question. If we go further into his

new line of questioning, I don't have those figures because they're not

finalized yet. They didn't attempt to construct those figures from that

point of view. Suffice it to say in answer to his question that we did

not subsidize air fares. We participated in coordinating the booth

areas and did some publicity and some promotional work. We haven't got

the final accounting of those figures yet.

MR. PERRY :

I'd just like to ask the minister if I could have his assurance that

the full figures on all government expenditures relevant to the ARMX

exhibition....

HON. MR. BRUMMET : On a point of

order, we've had this happen several times. The member asked the

minister a question about an amount. The minister gave him the amount,

and then the member stands up and says: "Can you give me your assurance

that that is the correct figure?" I think that type of questioning is

out of place in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you, minister. I don't believe that's what the member said.

MR. PERRY :

I certainly correct any misunderstanding. I think the record will make

it clear that I wasn't questioning the answer, and I think the minister

made it clear that he was responding to the precise question I asked. I

really appreciate that he can't have these figures at his fingertips

now. I'm just asking for an assurance that in due course — within the

next weeks or months — we could have an accounting of that.

HON. J. JANSEN : I have no problem with giving you a full accounting of those costs when they're available.

MR. PERRY :

I now want to explore in a little more depth the line of questioning my

colleague from North Island began last night, because I think there's a

serious issue here. I would, with respect to the more senior members of

the House, like to ensure that some of this discussion is on the public

record. I think it calls for some precision in discussion.

What

in my view elicits public concern is not support by government for

British Columbia industries or even subsidy for deserving British

Columbia industries. The issue of public interest, I believe, is

whether a provincial government should begin to tread down the very

dangerous and slippery path of supporting military, arms or weapons

industries which ultimately lead to the production of devices, weapons,

bombs, electronic gear and guidance systems for munitions that are used

to kill people. I think it's very important that government should

understand which road it is embarking on on behalf of the public.

think it's critical that we use advisedly and precisely the words

"defence," "offence," "military" and similar terms, which have many

different meanings to many different people. I don't think there's

anyone on this side of the House who would question the legitimacy of

genuine defence for Canada or of government support for the genuine

defence needs of this country.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY : The real question is exactly as the Attorney-General (Hon.

S.D. Smith) says: "What does that mean?" Well, what does defence mean?

I think there's great concern on the part of the public that the word defence

is often used to camouflage activities which really mean the dispatch of weapons

to nations, large or small, which use them against their own people — as we've

recently seen the Chinese government do — or against people in other countries.

I don't think the public of British Columbia, any more than members on this

side of the House or on the other side, want to see our public revenues being

used to help finance the production of weapons which will be used to kill people.

Let

me give the House a specific example, because it's so relevant to the

present problems in British Columbia. We don't know how much it will

cost the taxpayers of Canada or British Columbia, but it's a good

example of the semantic confusion and the importance of using words

carefully.

We've been told recently by the Premier that

he's advised by our federal government that low-level military flights

in British Columbia will be made for defensive purposes. I think this

is a serious issue, open to very serious debate — whether an American

strategic bomber flight at a low level over British Columbia,

practising for the delivery of nuclear weapons in the second or mop-up

phase of a nuclear war, is defensive.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On a point of order, I know that in this House, when we're discussing

the vote of the minister's office, we allow wide-ranging debate on the

operations of the ministry. I wouldn't want to change the tradition of

this House, but I think the member has strayed far beyond the bounds of

relevancy to the estimates of the Minister of International Business

when he's talking about bomber flights.

MR. CLARK :

We've heard evidence in the House that this ministry is funding the

provincial government to participate in arms exhibitions in Ontario and

maybe elsewhere. It's entirely appropriate to discuss those kinds of

questions of defence. If the government is going to fund those kinds of

ventures,

[ Page 7717 ]

we certainly have a right and are entitled to ask questions, particularly when the bomber flights are over British Columbia.

HON. MR. REID : Mr. Chairman, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REID :

It's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce to the House this

afternoon the balance of Mrs. Martin's and Mr. Rogers's class from

Laronde Elementary School in South Surrey-White Rock. Would the House

give them a special welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN : With

respect to the points of orders that were just raised, it is the

Chair's opinion that certainly the member has the right to ask

questions of the minister with respect to any support that might have

been given through that ministry to the exhibition to which he refers,

but I do believe we're stretching the point a little when we start

referring to specific flights of bombers or other military aircraft

over the province. Perhaps we could proceed, bearing that in mind.

MR. PERRY :

I recognize the problem. I was trying to answer the Attorney-General's

question really as to the semantics. I was using that example of the

bomber flights as an example of the confusion, I think, in the language

between what is defence and what is offence. There lies the nub of the

question.

I would like to ask the minister what, if any,

safeguards or provisions the ministry or the government has or intends

to establish to ensure that industries in British Columbia which

receive government assistance will not be involved in offensive weapons

development. I think this relates again to the question I asked on May

29. The response — which I agree with the member of North Island was

rather alarming — was that he could not assure us that the government

will support only businesses engaged in developing non-weapons

technology and not those directly involved in the arms trade. That's at

page 7035 of Hansard .

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I had no intentions of getting involved in this debate, but I feel, in

light of some of the comments made previously and today by the member

for Point Grey, that we should put a few things on the record just for

clarification.

First of all, there isn't a member in this

House, I'm sure, or anybody whom I've ever met who believes in war.

It's a motherhood issue with most of us; we just do not believe in it.

I have yet to meet anyone who does. In fact, I know very many people in

the military in Canada — members of NATO and NORAD — who serve

diligently, and the last thing they ever want to see is a war. Yet the

member continually refers to war machines and offensive weapons.

Maybe it would be a good time to put on the record where he and his party stand

with regard to NATO and NORAD. I would like very much to hear this, because

it seems to me....

MR. CLARK :

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the minister

wanting to engage in this debate, but I think there is a simple

question of hypocrisy in this chamber. The minister rose on a point of

order just a few short minutes ago and accused us of wandering into the

realm of national politics, and he's now wandering into the realm of

international politics. But we're certainly happy to have that debate

in this chamber if the minister wants to continue.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Then both sides of the House would agree wholeheartedly with the

Chairman when he suggests that we deal with vote 38 as opposed to

dealing with everything else.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : As

I said, Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of wandering into this field

of bomber flights, war machines and all the rest of it. I brought the

point of order to the House to bring that to an end, but the member

persists. If the floor is open for him to talk about it, then the floor

is open for me to talk about it, and I intend to proceed unless I'm

ruled out of order by the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'm sorry, hon. government House Leader, but I'm afraid you're ruled out of order by the Chair.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Since I have the floor, maybe I could ask that member to define a

statement he made. I would like him to explain what he means by

legitimate expenses for defence. Does it include our commitments to

NATO and NORAD?

MR. GABELMANN : Mr. Chairman, what is

in order this afternoon is the government of British Columbia's

participation in the ARMX trade exhibition in Ottawa. The government of

British Columbia, led by the Minister of International Business and

Immigration, participated in that exhibition and encouraged British

Columbia businesses to participate in that exhibition. What was at

question — and what is at question from this side of the House — is

that prominent international arms dealers were not only present, but

were also active in ARMX. The kind of war machine that we're talking

about on this side of the House, which the government is completely in

bed with, is the industry that promotes terrorist activity and supplies

the armaments for wars that are conducted in various parts of this

world. The Syrians are....

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On a

point of order, nobody minds a good, legitimate, heated debate, but

when the member says that this government is in bed with terrorist

warmongers — to paraphrase him — or with terrorist organizations, I

think he should withdraw that remark, because it is not true.

[2:45]

[ Page 7718 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Prior to dealing with the point raised, I would ask the hon. member if

he in fact was impugning the government as being associated in this

way. If that is what was said, I suppose it would be in order for it to

be withdrawn.

MR. GABELMANN : Maybe I need to clarify what I said. If something I'm saying needs to be withdrawn, then I'd be the very first to do that.

Let's

just go through it slowly. There was a trade exhibition in Ottawa

recently. The government of British Columbia participated actively in

that trade exhibition. At this trade exhibition, Canadian manufacturers

of various commodities, many of which are used in the war industry — or

as President Eisenhower called it, "the military industrial

complex...." Nonetheless it is a war industry.

Many

others participating in this trade show were undercover

non-governmental arms dealers. These are arms dealers who provide

armaments to people who are fighting wars in Africa, in the Middle

East, previously in Afghanistan and in various parts of the world.

These arms are supplied by a variety of armament manufacturers on both

sides of the Iron Curtain. It's an international business that produces

great amounts of wealth to the industrialized world, including British

Columbia. The position we're taking in this debate is that the

government of British Columbia should not participate in that aspect of

wealth creation. That aspect of the business has only one effect, and

it is to take the lives of innocent people around this world.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I have a question for the minister — a

series of questions, in fact. There's nothing that warms the cockles of

one's heart more fully than to hear a righteous socialist in full

voice, and that we have just done. I know that the cockles of my heart

are going to be warmed even more when the second member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) gets up, because no one in this

chamber can rise to the levels of righteousness to which he is

accustomed.

Nevertheless, I would like to ask, as a point

of information from the minister when he's answering some of the

questions that have been put to him from across the House, that he

might apprise the House of the extent to which the democratic socialist

country of Sweden — about which we hear much in this chamber as a place

to which we ought to look for guidance and as a role model for us to

follow and as an example in all things.... We have heard in this House

about how we should organize our economy, our social system and our

value systems, and I don't know what all wouldn't improve British

Columbia, if only we'd follow the example of Sweden.

The question I have to the minister is this: would he advise the House...?

MR. PERRY :

A point of order. Frankly, the Attorney-General is escaping me. I'm

having trouble with the relevance of these remarks in the debate. The

point of order is that really we're debating the minister's estimates.

I'm flattered that the Attorney-General and others are posing questions

to this side, as if we were already the government. Unfortunately we're

not yet, and I think we should go back to posing questions to the

minister from this side of the House on relevant issues.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

The Chair certainly appreciates what the member has said, because the

Chair has been striving to get both sides of the House to deal with the

vote in question, which is vote 38.

If members insist on

pursuing the matter of any participation in the exhibition in Ottawa on

behalf of the government, the Chair is going to have to insist that the

questions asked be absolutely relevant to that particular point. I

would suggest to the House that it's one of those subjects where it's

going to be very difficult for this to take place, and therefore it

might be difficult for us to accomplish anything during this afternoon.

The very topic, I would suggest to all hon. members, invites the very

subjects that have been discussed and have been the points of order

within the House.

Perhaps we can move along. Did the Attorney-General have another question?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I was trying to direct a question to the minister which, I think,

really goes to the heart of what the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) was trying to express. Perhaps we could find out from the

minister, on a comparative dollar basis, the amount of armaments sold

to all countries in the world by the democratic socialist country of

Sweden, which is held up to us as a role model that we ought to follow.

What is the dollar volume of the contribution of Saab and Volvo — and

we see many of their products in democratic socialist parking-lots in

this community — to

armament, and does the minister have a breakdown of whether those

armaments are of a defensive nature or otherwise? That's the first

question.

This is important, because it has been raised in

a provocative way by the member for North Island. In terms of the

support system and things like clothing, food, radios, rubber rafts,

snowmobiles and those sorts of thing, which carry for many countries,

including this country, a very significant lifesaving component in

terms of the Coast Guard and so on, what is the dollar amount of those

items from Canada and from manufacturers in British Columbia as a total

proportion of their wares on sale as compared to Sweden in terms of the

Saab jets, attack jets, tanks and the other carriers of destruction

that form the largest single part of the production of these benign

democratic socialist countries to which we are always pointed as role

models for ourselves?

HON. J. JANSEN : That's an

interesting question. It extends a little bit beyond my ministry. First

of all, may I say that Sweden, although a neutral country, has a very

extensive defence force. In fact, their

[ Page 7719 ]

defence

industry has developed over a number of years and is one of the major

defence industries in the world. Here we have a neutral country which

has the defence industry as part of its economy and manufactures that

equipment and sells it throughout the world, such as the Saab fighter

jets the Attorney-General referred to.

Furthermore, Mr.

Chairman, I might point out to the members opposite that their

counterparts in Manitoba, while they were in office for a time, had as

one of their corporate entities in their province a firm called Bristol

Aerospace. Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg produced, as part of their

manufacture, CRV-7 air-to-ground rockets. I am wondering, in the terms

expressed by the second member for Vancouver Point Grey (Mr. Perry),

whether air-to-ground rockets really are a legitimate defence

expenditure.

We have indicated in this House that the

attendees at the ARMX '89 show were not munitions people; in fact, they

were referred to, I think, by some as merchants of death. There were 14

companies who dealt in such things as lifesaving equipment,

communications, radar equipment, and so on. Their primary objective was

to access the market that is there for Canadian defence spending — of which there is some $1.5 billion — and

the market that exists in defence spending with both NORAD and NATO

allies. We have had success stories in those categories. We have had

contracts committed or signed relating to that participation.

would also add, Mr. Chairman, that in the province of British Columbia

defence plays a very important

part in our economy in that we have some

12,500 DND personnel. Curiously enough, the largest base in the

province is in Esquimalt, where we have 9,200 civilians and military

personnel employed. Are we now suggesting that these people are not

legitimate defence people? What are they? We didn't get a definition of

what legitimate defence means. Are we suggesting that the province of

British Columbia should not avail itself of defence spending, and that

we should lobby the federal government to reduce our defence

expenditures and close our bases in the province of British Columbia?

I'm

not sure where the opposite side is coming from. I refer again to their

own situation in Manitoba, where they had this type of expenditure and

this type of industry existing. We do not have that in the province of

British Columbia. I take offence at having those 14 companies that

participated in ARMX '89 referred to as merchants of death.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Just before I recognize the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey, I

think that what's transpired in the last four or five minutes, and

certainly the minister's response, is a clear indicator of the

Pandora's box that we open up when we start into this subject. I trust

that the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey is almost ready to

launch into some other subject under the same ministry's estimates.

MR. PERRY : Mr. Chairman, as usual, you have read my mind. Can you read the result of the next election that's rippling in there?

Actually,

I was somewhat reassured by that answer from the minister In a

circuitous way. I think he indicated that his thinking wasn't so far

removed from mine on this issue. Since we all know that we're all

honourably motivated here, that shouldn't surprise us.

You

will see, Mr. Chairman, perhaps, the relevance of the initial example I

cited, because of the confusion that language brings into this issue.

Let me simply say — I'm not sure if the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) was asking a genuine or a rhetorical question — that

I don't think we should look to Sweden for guidance on getting involved

in the arms trade. The Bofors Company was involved in a major scandal

with the Swedish government on exporting deadly weapons to Iran and

Iraq during their war. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Even the government of Sweden, which is in a unique position in the

world, despite attempts to avoid incidents like that, got into that

situation. The French-built Exocet missiles that were used against

British ships in the Falklands or Malvinas war killed young British

soldiers — sunk them to the bottom of the South Atlantic Ocean. Those

were French Exocet Aerospatiale missiles subsidized by the French

government. That's what we're worried about.

I find it

somewhat reassuring that the minister has indicated, if I interpreted

him correctly, that he doesn't want to see us getting involved in

British Columbia in making weapons that will kill people. I would find

it more reassuring — just to bring this to a close — if I could ask the

minister to commit himself to providing us within a reasonable time

with a written list of the companies involved in the ARMX exhibition,

the products that were advertised and the products that were sold at

ARMX '89. I know in the papers that he's holding up that there was some

listing of companies. I can't recall if it was comprehensive. I think

the most revealing would be the listing of the products that were

actually on sale at the exhibition and any contracts concluded. We

would be very reassured and we might even be prepared to cease and

desist our criticism if we were reassured in writing that those were

essentially non-dangerous goods used in search and rescue or lifesaving.

[3:00]

Let me just move to a somewhat different question, if I may, very

briefly. Newspaper reports at the time of the conference in Davos,

Switzerland, reported on rather substantial expenditures by the

government of British Columbia in an attempt to secure new business

from businessmen from all over the world who attended that meeting,

Coming from a riding where the University of British Columbia is

situated, I had a particularly keen interest in one of the projects,

which, according to the press at the time, was nearly a fait accompli

for British Columbia. That was the so-called toxicology institute,

which was a proposal for a major Swiss pharmaceutical firm

[ Page 7720 ]

build a basic science research institute at the campus of the

University of B.C. to foster for the first time, really, the

development of very basic animal toxicology studies — and in vitro

toxicology studies, I hasten to add; not exclusively using animals —

for the long-term development of a pharmaceutical industry in British

Columbia.

This

is something that I thought it was very commendable for the government

to pursue. I was therefore very disappointed to read somewhat later in

the press that the pharmaceutical company had decided to locate

elsewhere. I wonder if I could ask the minister to describe some of the

negotiations. Why were he and the Premier so optimistic in February

that this institute would be sited in Vancouver, and what happened?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Part of the Davos initiative was to focus on several sectors. We

certainly did focus on one of those, as the second member for

Vancouver-Point Grey had indicated, and have subsequent discussions

with that particular company. Unfortunately they have decided to locate

their facility elsewhere However, we are actively talking to a number

of other contacts, a number of other interested parties, and hopefully

we can have something to report on fairly soon.

MR. CLARK :

I don't want to go on and belabour the arms question, but I just have a

couple of questions I would like to raise. It seems to me, just in a

general sense, that British Columbia businesses do participate in arms

manufacturing in indirect ways. I know a company in Richmond that, for

example, built these absolutely huge.... They look like boat carriers.

They were for the MX missiles in the United States when Ronald Reagan

was going to move them around the country and hide them. Then, of

course, after spending millions of dollars, they decided that wasn't

very feasible.

What concerns me is that because of the

amount of money spent in the United States on armaments, it's a bit of

a slippery slope. One of the things that I — and, I think, the other members on our side — certainly

don't want to see is the provincial government buying into that

military expenditure complex and getting more and more industries

involved in it. It's seductive. Once one gets involved, one becomes

part of that industrial complex, and I think that's happening to some

extent in British Columbia. It certainly concerns me and, I think, many

British Columbians We on this side don't believe that the provincial

government should be participating in, or at least promoting, that

industry; we think there are other industries, or the same industries

producing other things, that are more productive. That's why we have

such concerns about the participation of British Columbia in the ARMX

exhibition.

I understand that there is also a trade show

running in connection with Abbotsford. First of all, I wonder if the

minister could tell me what British Columbia's participation is in that

trade show.

HON. J. JANSEN : The show the member is

referring to is the Airshow Canada exposition, the first such event to

happen in Canada. Hopefully it is an event that is reflective of a

calibre that is going to represent the North American market. Airshow

Canada does two things: it highlights our interest in the aerospace

industry through promotion, getting buyers into our province and having

exhibitors display the units they are selling; also, a major part of

our show is going to be a symposium dealing with issues relating to air

travel and air transportation.

The participation by the

participation is hosting the event and sponsoring it, to ensure that

over time this event can become self-sufficient and fund its own

operations. It's going to be held in Abbotsford. We have approximately

300 booth commitments to date, which, although this is a first show,

indicates its popularity. Combined with the Airshow component, it is

certainly going to be an outstanding success.

The issue is

to promote aerospace procurement in the province and to encourage the

development of viable aerospace industry. By getting the buyers and

those who manufacture aircraft in, we hope we can do that.

MR. CLARK :

I share the minister's optimism about the aircraft parts manufactured

in British Columbia. We do actually have quite a growing sector, and I

think it's appropriate that we try to encourage it. There does seem to

be real potential.

I am concerned, however, that a large

number of aircraft manufacturers, certainly in North America, have been

also connected to the military. I wonder if the minister could tell me

whether military buyers or procurement people are invited to the show

or are in any way involved; or whether in fact it is entirely a

domestic or aircraft manufacturers' facility. Are there any military

procurement people there?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before we proceed, hon. members, the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. McCARTHY :

Today in the House we have some 30 grade 7 students from the

Shaughnessy Elementary School. They are accompanied by Mr. T. Brunker

and Mr. D. Scott. On behalf of my colleague from Vancouver-Little

Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and all members of the House, I would ask that

they be welcomed. We are going to be meeting with them in the next

little while, and I hope they will have questions to ask on this debate

and will be able to tell us that they have enjoyed their stay in the

House.

HON. J. JANSEN : The question, if I recall,

was whether there will be any military buyers. We haven't indicated

that we want to preclude military buyers from attending this event.

Military buyers will be those who buy radar and communications equipment

[ Page 7721 ]

and provide the type of things that we want to see developed in our province — the

high-tech type of equipment. We are also going to get significant

representation from Boeing and buyers that are coming up here to search

out markets for their significant order-book profile, which is fully

booked, I understand, till 1996.

To answer your question,

we've said this is our chance to display our industry, which, as I said

before, is an industry that deals with communications, radar and the

type of equipment necessary for aircraft — companies such as Ebco and

MacDonald Dettwiler and companies that are highly developed technical

companies that will certainly have access to this big market.

MR. GABELMANN : I want to move on to some other issues, but before I do, just a closing comment about the last 40 minutes.

think it's easy for passions and emotions to run high on these

questions. When one reviews the list of B.C. companies involved in the

ARMX exhibition, one doesn't have a concern; they're all good and

effective British Columbia companies. The concern that a lot of us had

with that trade show was that it was not just well-meaning governments

and efficient and productive companies who participated in ARMX, but it

was also an opportunity for a nefarious group of what I would describe

as international criminals who make their fortunes buying and selling

arms; they were there too. If we could find a way — and I guess in a

complex, complicated world like we live in it's very difficult to find

that way — of

dividing people of that ilk off from these kinds of enterprises, then

we would be far better off as a society. We raise the question because

we're concerned about those aspects of the kind of show that ARMX'89

was.

Clearly, the so-called military effort — whatever terms you want to use to describe it — that

countries embark upon leads to inventions and gains for society that

are really quite magnificent. Radar is a simple example of that,

developed in a wartime environment. We don't seem to be able to

shift.... When I say "we," I'm thinking of western society. The

Attorney-General is right: Sweden is as guilty as and in some ways more

guilty than many other western countries. But we don't seem in our

societies to find a way to develop the technological advances without

always having them funded and financed and a part of the military

industry. It's the military industry which drives technology, in large

measure. We're not going to change it, and even if we were government

for a decade we wouldn't change that basic fact in our society; it's

there.

But we raise these questions because it's so easy,

as the other member said, to get seduced by it all and to say we're

making guidance systems, life-rafts or unmanned submersibles which deal

only with repair of underwater equipment; therefore we're not involved.

The fact is that every single one of us — all of us — in one way or

another are implicitly involved in activities. We just need to remind

ourselves of this Not that we can solve it overnight, not that we can

turn the world around; I don't believe that happens very easily. But it

won't happen at all if we don't raise the questions.

So we

felt it important to express our concern, not about British Columbia

firms trying to sell their products to other governments around the

world, but about the next stage, which is the international arms

dealers who are also involved in these same conferences. Whether

they're there formally and approved and accredited or whether they're

there on the sidelines, they're there and that is a concern. I think

it's a concern to an overwhelming majority of Canadians and definitely

a concern to an overwhelming majority of British Columbians, who, if

asked, would like to do whatever they could to change the direction of

the world in terms of the way we've been going.

[3:15]

I want to turn, if I may, to immigration questions and ask the

minister, first of all, whether or not the provisions contained in the

Meech Lake accord — which is obviously yet to be agreed to — in respect

of potential powers that this province has over immigration.... I want

to ask whether or not that role is being exercised now by the

provincial government — whether or not the powers accorded to provinces

under Meech Lake are already being exercised by the province in terms

of immigration.

HON. J. JANSEN : It's a difficult

question to answer, Mr. Chairman. We have been seeking to negotiate an

immigration agreement with the federal government, which would be one

of the factors enabled under the Meech Lake accord. I suppose it can be

enabled now, as long as both the federal government and the provinces

agree on this type of agreement. As you know, the province of Quebec

has had an immigration agreement for some time. Although we're not

seeking the same type of agreement, we are seeking some control over

immigration.

MR. GABELMANN :

I'd like to explore a bit further with the minister what kinds of — I

think he used the word "control"; maybe the word "influence" would be

more appropriate — areas of immigration to British Columbia from

outside Canada he wants the province to have influence in.

HON. J. JANSEN :

First of all, the agreement is ongoing, and it's very difficult for me

to comment on what the agreement will eventually look like. We are

seeking to — and the member is quite right; I think the word "control"

is not the appropriate word — influence some of the immigration

factors. We're trying to have greater input in terms of selecting the

skills that come into the province, and how that impacts on our

second language, settlement costs and services to immigrant women.

There are a number of areas that we're working on. So there are a

number of issues that we've identified. There are about 15 issues that

we want to become involved in and to discuss with the federal government — how they will eventually look, I don't know

[ Page 7722 ]

— in terms of having some impact and some influence over the type of immigrant skill entering the province of British Columbia.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN :

In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, is the government trying to have

some influence over the numbers of immigrants that would come to

British Columbia?

HON. J. JANSEN : No, Mr. Chairman. We would have to stay within the national policies and the national quotas.

MR. GABELMANN :

Within those national goals, would the province accept...? Let's say,

for example, that we're 12 percent of the population of Canada. Would

the government of British Columbia want to have approximately 12

percent of the immigrants, or would we seek to have a higher number or

a lower number than the average?

HON. J. JANSEN : We

are currently getting approximately 15 percent to 16 percent of the

immigrants. Of course, it varies substantially by country of origin.

But on an overall basis, we are getting 15 percent to 16 percent.

Again, it would be a federal matter and a federal allocation of numbers.

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Chairman, it's interesting, looking at the statistics, to note that

we appear to be getting even more than 15 percent or 16 percent in the

1988 numbers — marginally more. Only two years earlier we were getting

just over 12 percent. It's interesting to see the difference between

1986 and 1988 in total numbers. Just so everybody knows what I'm

referring to, it's provincial figures from the central stats bureau of

the Ministry of Finance.

British Columbia received — in terms of what they call immigrant landings — 12,500

in 1986 and 22,750 in 1988. That's a significant increase. I happen to

be one of those people who believes that immigration is good, and that

immigration in fact creates jobs and doesn't take jobs away.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I agree.

MR. GABELMANN :

I'm delighted to hear the Minister of Environment agrees with me. It's

something that many people in the public don't understand or agree

with. I suspect those of us who take that position are a minority. But,

in fact, all of the evidence is that immigration has a net benefit in

economic terms and in employment terms. Having said that, we really

need to look at numbers in respect of the kinds of changes that can

happen in a society with unregulated, massive immigration, which can

really create some difficult social problems in the short term. I don't

think it does in the long term, as evidenced by the kind of immigration

that took place in Canada just after the turn of the century. In fact,

it is the descendants of those people who are now the strongest in

their opposition to any more immigrants, which I always find an irony.

It's only we immigrants who complain about more immigrants.

However,

leaving that aside, I wonder if the ministry — recognizing the federal

powers in this, but nonetheless, with provincial influence increasing —

has

determined an appropriate number, in ballpark figures, of immigrants

that British Columbia can easily handle in any given year.

HON. J. JANSEN :

No, Mr. Chairman, I don't think we have those numbers. It's very

difficult to say. Immigration into the province is not very

substantial. We had an overall growth figure of 72,000 people, of which

just under 23,000 were immigrants from other parts of the world. I have

no idea whether that figure should be 15,000, 23,000 or 100,000. I

think that kind of figure is related to the opportunities. If there is

a certain sector of our economy needing skills that we currently do not

have and that we could attract.... Again, I think the numbers would be

dictated by how large the market is. So I think it's a difficult

question to really give a specific answer to.

MR. GABELMANN :

The minister talked about, among other things, skills. Earlier he

talked about that being a major element in the negotiations with

Ottawa. May I ask what kinds of skills? What does the minister mean

when he uses the word "skills"? Sometimes all of us tend to hear

different things from the same words.

HON. J. JANSEN :

When the national government sets its skills requirements as they

determine their immigrant-processing, they inventory the skills needed

in the Canadian economy, whether they're welders, nurses, doctors or

whatever type of profession. That's what I mean by skills.

submit our requirements on the basis of what we see those needs to be,

and they are put into the national process. If Ontario needs far more

of a certain category than we need of another category, our request

gets watered down. So we're trying to suggest that when they establish

the national requirements, they look at it from a customized point of

view by province so that we have access to those skills inventories,

those human resources that we need to develop our economy.

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Chairman, when we define categories of immigrants, they're broken

down into several segments. A significant one in British Columbia is

social or family; well over a third are under that heading. So there

clearly isn't a question there of seeking skills; these are people who

come in because family are here, and it's a question of, in effect,

reunification.

Then we have the so-called humanitarian

categories, which total approximately 10 percent of the immigrants to

British Columbia, including refugees. Then we come to the so-called

economic immigrants. Of the economic categories, the first is assisted

[ Page 7723 ]

relatives.

As I understand that one, there's more priority there to your family

relationship than to particular skills that you might have.

Nonetheless, skills are a factor there because you must have a job to

go to or be able to fill.

Then there are other

independents. Again, this is not spelled out as to what it means. This

accounts for over a quarter of our immigrants. I wonder if the minister

would tell me what he understands this category to mean in terms of its

relationship to skills. There are three others I want to pursue a bit

later: the entrepreneur program, the self-employed, and the recently

developed investor program. I'd like to get some sense from the

minister, out of these economic categories, as to which of them relates

specifically to encouraging people with particular skills to come to

British Columbia. How does it work?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Chairman, as the member has indicated, there are a number of

categories under the general economic category of immigrant: assisted

relatives, which includes relatives who are.... All independent

immigrants are assessed against economic selection criteria. I'm not

sure if the member has it, but there is an immigrant class description

which outlines in detail each class and under each class makes

reference to what is called a point system. The point system takes into

consideration the skills that the individual has to offer, and that's

how we get back to the skills selection process, which gives higher

points to those we want to see because of their skills and contribution

to our economy.

MR. GABELMANN : I have the

descriptions referred to by the minister, and I can read them, too

Maybe I didn't frame this properly. Do the negotiations with the

federal government for this ability to have more influence or control

over kinds of skills that are wanted here in British Columbia involve

any attempt to redefine these class descriptions? Or is it simply

taking what the federal government determines are the class

descriptions and trying to get more of one or more of another?

HON. J. JANSEN :

No, there is no attempt to change the immigrant class descriptions.

However, what we're trying to do is give added emphasis to the

weighting system in terms of attracting those immigrants that relate to

our skills requirement.

MR. GABELMANN : Would there be any weighting or consideration to what part of this province immigrants might wish to settle in?

HON. J. JANSEN :

No. It's impossible to do that under the Charter, first of all, but I

don't think it would be practical, either. Once a person comes into the

country, he or she is portable and can live in any part of the country

he or she wishes.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Minister of Transportation and Highways requests leave to make an introduction.

[3:30]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANT :

It's not too often I get a chance to welcome a vast number of

constituents from the Cariboo. Today we have no fewer than 45 students

from Buffalo Creek School, grades 5 to 7. They are accompanied by Mr.

Jim Craigie; their principal, Mr. Bob Bergen; and Mrs. Colleen Van Dyk,

who is a parent and a member of the board of school trustees for School

District 27, and also happens to be the daughter of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mrs. Johnston). We also

have parents of the children here: Jack Willie, Elaine Hazlehurst,

Eleanor MacEwen and Joe Pacheco. Also a good friend of mine, the bus

driver, Mr. Fred Schoennagel. Would the House please make this huge

group from Buffalo Creek in the Cariboo very welcome.

MR. GABELMANN :

Is the government concerned at all about the proportion of immigrants

to British Columbia who locate in the Vancouver area as compared with

the rest of the province? The '88 figures indicate that just over

18,000 of the 22,750 located in Vancouver. In '86 it was just short of

9,000 out of 12,500. There is an increase in percentage terms. Given

what's obviously an issue in British Columbia, which is growth in the

urban area and not enough in the rural areas, I wonder if the

government has any concerns about these patterns of settlement.

HON. J. JANSEN :

The province has been promoting decentralization and regionalization

for some time, so the question is appropriate, given that initiative on

our part. We would like to see as much as possible the skills that

immigrants bring into our province dispersed throughout the province.

We would encourage it wherever possible, but again, if an immigrant

lives within his community grouping and wants to live in a certain part

of the province.... My family came here in 1953, and we settled in the

community of Chilliwack, which had a number of Dutch people already

living there. It was that type of influence, I'm sure, that my parents

looked at to determine where they were going to settle.

It's

a question that has a wide-ranging impact on our economy. We would like

as much as possible to see those resources and skills and that

entrepreneurial spirit being utilized throughout the province. The

answer to the question is: we would hope that as much as possible we do

see the result of that decentralization.

MR. GABELMANN :

In formulating policies on skill levels and who should come, given the

desire for additional or increased settlement in the non–lower mainland

areas, would some extra emphasis or weight be given to people who might

settle in, say, Prince George, Kamloops, Cranbrook or Prince Rupert,

rather than in the lower mainland?

HON. J. JANSEN : To my understanding, the federal government.... Again, you have to understand

[ Page 7724 ]

that

this is a federal responsibility; we currently have little or no

participation in the immigration question. While we are seeking an

immigration agreement, we don't have any influence over the immigration

policies of the federal government. I can't defend them or explain

them; I shouldn't be doing either of those.

understanding is that they do not give extra points for living in any

other area than, say, Vancouver. I don't think that's permissible nor

is it defensible under the Charter.

MR. GABELMANN :

The other day the Premier appeared to be presenting government policy.

I want to read the quote from the Premier and ask the minister whether

he agrees. In response to questions concerning Meech Lake and the

suggestion that there would be more control over immigration given to

the province as a result of Meech Lake, the Premier is quoted as saying

in the Saanich News , June 8:

"That's important." That's in response to more powers over immigration.

"For example, many people from Asia are coming, but they all want to

live in Vancouver. We want immigrants to go to the other regions of

B.C. as well. Europeans will go to the interior, but Asians want to

stay on the coast. Don't get me wrong, but we want those people who

will move to other parts as well."

The Premier is saying,

it seems, that Meech Lake will give the province additional control

over immigration and will enable the province to determine, or to have

not just some influence over, where people live — although I don't

think the province will have that control, but an ability to select, by

some racial criteria, immigrants to this province on the theory borne

out by the statistics that immigrants from Hong Kong settle in the

lower mainland and a higher proportion of immigrants from Europe settle

in the interior. The Premier is saying that Meech Lake will enable the

government to have a policy to attract more Europeans. I wonder if the

Premier was expressing government policy when he said that.

HON. J. JANSEN :

The immigration possibilities come from throughout the world.

Currently, British Columbia is the number one immigration target for

German immigrants. We hope to see that continue, because they,

generally speaking, do live in areas other than Vancouver. It's the

decentralized approach that we talked about previously. It's difficult,

given the conditions I mentioned previously, to say that a person

should live in Prince George or Vancouver. The bottom line should be

that immigrants should live where they are going to be comfortable,

where they can integrate well into society and be a valued member of

our society and our economy. That's really the bottom line.

MR. GABELMANN :

I'm always careful about issues relating to race. What you say can be

misunderstood and, if people want, misinterpreted by selective

reference to parts of it. I have to say to members of this House that

an attitude expressed by the Premier of the province which is

characterized by a sentence that says, "Europeans will go to the

interior, but Asians want to stay on the coast...we want those people

who will move to other parts as well, " is a clear indication that

there is a bias in favour of European immigrants. The minister shakes

his head. I have no reason to accuse the minister of a racially

inspired immigration policy or belief. I'm not suggesting that at all.

Nor am I suggesting that the government, as a matter of policy, has a

racially inspired immigration bias. But the government is going to have

to do something about the guy who leads them, because too often he says

these kinds of things, which have only one

interpretation.

The headline in this particular newspaper, Saanich News ,

is: "Immigration Control." That can be read many ways. The subhead is:

"We want immigrants who will settle in all regions, not just the

coast." When you go further, it turns out that these are Europeans. I

am not suggesting, because I don't think the government is as

politically stupid as that, that this is government policy. Nor am I

suggesting that this kind of statement is a deliberate and overt

setting forth of a viewpoint.

MR. MILLER : It came from the Premier, after all.

MR. GABELMANN :

It came from the Premier and was obviously inadvertent. It was

unplanned, spontaneous, like so many of the other comments he makes

that get not only him in trouble, but his government, and too often all

of us. We all pay a price for these kinds of headlines, these kinds of

stories.

I'm not going to pursue that any further, because

I think I've said enough about it. In the same context but in another

area, I want to ask the government whether or not it is concerned about

whether the increasing number of entrepreneurial and investor

immigrants who are settling on the lower mainland is a particularly

useful feature of changing immigration patterns in British Columbia, in

particular the investor immigrant. I wonder if the minister is

comfortable about this being an increasing focus of immigration policy

and a focus which inevitably leads to additional immigration into the

hot spots, the high growth areas, because that's where the investor is

likely to settle. I will ask the second part of that question at the

same time: whether the government wouldn't consider a philosophical

view that has been expressed by, among others, Robert Reich, who talks

about collective entrepreneurism.

It appears to me as if

both the federal and the provincial governments, in developing

immigration policy, are trying to find the individual who has some

money or an entrepreneurial record, on the theory that bringing people

with those attributes to the province will lead to entrepreneurial

activity and to growth and development, when the evidence is building

that the kind of people who in fact create new industries and create

new developments are groups of bright, well-trained people working

together. The days of Howard Hughes doing it on his own are gone. The

new technological changes come from group activity — people working together in

[ Page 7725 ]

research centres. That's why the universities are playing such an increased role in actual development, not just in research.

[3:45]

It seems to me that the government relies heavily — not in overall terms but in increasing terms — on

this entrepreneurial and investor class, which essentially says you can

buy your way into Canada; if you are rich, you can come. I think it

would be a better policy to bring in people who have educational

skills, research skills, brains and energy in research. Those kinds of

skills, in my estimation — and, I think, in that of increasing numbers of people who look at this topic — will

bring more tangible results to our society than allowing people who can

buy their way into the country to come in. I wonder what the minister's

reaction is to those general comments.

HON. J. JANSEN :

First of all, I might indicate that the entrepreneurial immigrants who

came into the province last year created 5,400 jobs and brought with

them approximately $813 million of net worth. Under that category,

there are two types of visas issued: one is conditional and the other

is unconditional. The conditional visa takes into consideration more

than just the net worth of the individual. It takes into consideration

the skills to organize an industry and the skills to enter into a

business venture that would provide employment for the province and the

people who live here.

Out of all those jobs that were created — the 5,400 jobs I referred to — we

only had 868 of those immigrants out of the 23,000 we got last year. It

is not a major part of the total immigration into the province, but it

definitely does provide very substantial benefits. In the investor

category, the number of people who came in was about 156, again out of

a total of 23,000. They have brought into the country funds in excess

of $300,000,000.

The question the member asked is whether we shouldn't be increasing the emphasis on people — I think that was the question — who

provide us with skills that are perhaps a little bit outside of

business but are related to specific disciplines. I think these people

do provide that, and in fact, as I said before, the numbers under this

business category are not that substantial. The numbers for the skills

you are referring to fall into other categories.

The areas

in which we have received investment are wide-ranging: aquaculture,

communications, the film industry, manufacturing, finance, energy,

tourism, and so on. It is a wide-ranging involvement in the economy,

and it's fairly substantial.

The investments that the

investor immigrant bring into the province created, according to our

estimation, about 1,500 permanent jobs for the fiscal year ending March

31. We anticipate further that an additional 1,500 to 2,000 indirect

jobs can be expected from the spinoff benefit that results from those

permanent jobs being created. It's a program that does bring much

benefit to the province.

Many of those people bring specific skills. Regarding the disciplines — the

question that was raised — think it's sort of a general environment. It's

very difficult for me to pinpoint precisely which areas of interest would primarily

come into the province, other than those that come under the economic class.

MR. CLARK :

Just to follow up on the member for North Island about the investor and

entrepreneur immigrant class, I really have some questions about

entrepreneurial immigrant funds. It seems to me that the theory in

terms of an entrepreneurial immigrant is that such an individual is

going to create jobs in British Columbia or in Canada. I think I can

understand the logic behind it, but it seems to me that what has

happened is that local entrepreneurs have taken advantage of the

program by creating funds and then going and soliciting wealthy people

in other countries, basically saying: "Invest in our fund and you get

into Canada." It seems to me, intuitively anyway, that that's a

subversion of the initial intent.

I wonder whether the

minister might, first of all, talk a little bit about the question of

immigrant investor funds and the provincial government's role in that

area. I'm not clear on this, but it seems that both the federal and

provincial governments have to approve immigrant funds. I appreciate

that the minister is conferring, and that is certainly desirable. Maybe

the minister can clarify that the federal government and the province

must approve an immigrant investor fund. Maybe I could have some

understanding about on what basis and how those decisions are made by

the province.

HON. J. JANSEN : What the member is

speaking about is not the entrepreneurial investor; he's talking about

the investor immigrant category, which is a little different from the

entrepreneurial category. The procedure as it now stands is that we

take the application and we send a recommendation to the federal

government recommending the fund or not recommending the fund. We do

that essentially on the basis of wealth creation. I talked about the

number of jobs being created in the areas that these investments have

happened. That's the criterion we use: we establish what kind of a

positive economic impact that particular fund would have on the

province, and on that basis put forward a recommendation. But the final

decision is a federal decision. Again, as in all immigration matters,

we don't have any influence without an immigration agreement.

MR. CLARK :

I'm sorry, I stand corrected — investor immigrant fund. Is it

essentially correct to say that the investor immigrant simply must

invest in the fund to get into Canada? Is it correct to say that the

investor immigrant simply must deposit whatever the number is —

$250,000 — in the fund and that is sufficient to get into Canada?

HON. J. JANSEN :

First of all, he has to have this investment of $250,000; that's one of

the factors. Secondly, he has to bring with him a net worth of

$500,000. Thirdly, he goes through the normal processing that any other

immigrant would have in

[ Page 7726 ]

terms

of health, criminal record and any other thing that the federal people

feel is necessary to evaluate before they issue any visa. While you're

focusing on this particular category, all the other elements of

approval are still there. It's safe to say that the $250,000 and the

$500,000 are the elements of the category this immigrant would fall

under.

MR. CLARK : Are there limits on the investment

from the fund? Does the fund have specific terms of reference whereby,

for example, they must invest in British Columbia? What about interest

on the fund and those kinds of questions?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Yes, the investment must be in the province of British Columbia. It

must also be invested in job creation industries — industries

I referred to previously, such as aquaculture, film and so on. Those

are the areas focused on what we feel are the sectors in the economy

that are going to benefit from investment. So it has to be a job

creation type of environment.

MR. CLARK : Does the

fund have to get preclearance for investments? Or do they file some

kind of annual report every year which is approved or disapproved of by

the ministry?

HON. J. JANSEN : It's an offering

memorandum, like a prospectus. It's a normal type of process like that

which gets approved and then gets submitted to the federal government.

MR. CLARK :

Does the provincial government actually approve the investment? Does

the provincial government peruse the investment intentions of the

company and give a recommendation? If the ministry or provincial

government decides that they don't think the investments contemplated

by the fund are within the category, what process takes place?

HON. J. JANSEN :

The guidelines are available for this category. I would expect that

when we have an offering memorandum, they would fall within the

guidelines that have been established and that I outlined previously.

MR. CLARK :

As in all investments, it seems to me that those are not always that

easy. There must be a degree of latitude given on both sides. I would

suspect that it's not that clear. I just wondered what the process is

if a fund is investing in ventures which the provincial government

finds are beyond the purview of the program. What kind of remedial

action can take place? Maybe the minister can also tell us whether in

fact there has been a case where such action might have taken place.

HON. J. JANSEN :

While I've been answering all the immigration questions, Mr. Chairman,

I've been answering on behalf of the federal government to some extent,

because we currently don't have that responsibility. We have some

involvement, but the policy questions should be asked of the federal

government. The federal government monitors the investor immigrant

category and the investor immigrant funds, so it's their responsibility

to ensure that they stay with the offering memorandum.

MR. CLARK :

I wonder if the minister or his staff could tell me what the

relationship is between the sort of management operations.... This is a

large growth industry in British Columbia, it seems to me — not just

investor immigrants and not just the fund, but there are now businesses

formed to manage such funds. The biggest one, I think, is Canadian

Maple Leaf Fund, which is in part managed by two distinct groups: the

Canadian Maple Leaf management arm and also First Generation Resources.

just tell you, quite frankly, that I'm not trying to get into anything

nefarious or any great political point. But I'm concerned about

ventures now taking place and a growing kind of industry of management

arms of the funds. I'm a bit concerned about the funds being used for

certain different circumstances. I just wonder whether there are

guidelines for the management arms of the funds; and we get rather

complex structures related to these funds.

[4:00]

HON. J. JANSEN :

As I said before, the responsibility to monitor these funds is within

the purview of the federal government. We would expect them to.... We

have encouraged them to ensure that they do monitor as well the

management of those funds, so that we don't create an industry just for

management of investment funds. I agree with what you're saying. Were

we to see that happen, we would recommend to our federal colleagues

that they take action. To this point in time, unless the member has a

specific example, we're not aware of an outstanding example of this

that we can take action on fairly quickly.

MR. CLARK :

At this point I won't pursue that aspect. Let me back up. On the

Vancouver Stock Exchange, for example, there are currently companies — as you know, this is a classic exchange technique — which

are listed as exploration or mining exploration companies, and then

sort of shift gears and decide to move into another venture. There is

one called Morris and Grey, which, as I understand it, has applied to

be designated as an investor immigrant fund, and I understand that

application is before the provincial government. I wonder whether the

province has taken a position with respect to recommending or not

recommending to the federal government the approval of Morris and Grey

as an investment fund.

HON. J. JANSEN : Mr. Chairman, we haven't seen that application yet. It hasn't come to our desk yet.

MR. CLARK : I appreciate the answer.

Would

such an application.... The reason I mention it is that, at the VSE, of

course, there are some 80 or 90 press releases a day on that operation.

A press

[ Page 7727 ]

release

was issued, and it has been stated that they are attempting to pursue

an investor immigrant fund designation. That was some time ago. I just

assumed, obviously erroneously, that that had reached the provincial

government. If one were to pursue that, would it be the appropriate

course of action to go to your ministry first, or would it be to go to

the federal government and essentially copy your ministry? I just

wonder about the process.

HON. J. JANSEN : They could

do it either way. They can come in and consult with the ministry and

make sure they're aware of the guidelines, or they can deal directly

with the federal government. Again, our relationship in this whole

process is a recommendation. The decision rests with the federal

government.

MR. CLARK : How many registered investor immigrant funds are operating in British Columbia today?

HON. J. JANSEN : There are about 20, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CLARK : Can the minister tell me the total value of those funds?

HON. J. JANSEN : About $130 million.

MR. GABELMANN :

The member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) and I want to pursue some

issues relating to settlement policies and settlement services for

immigrants once they arrive. I want to start out by referring to a

report, which the minister may have somewhere, entitled "After the Door

Has Been Opened," which is a federal task force on mental health issues

affecting immigrants and refugees. This report was done early in 1988

and has had fairly widespread attention.

The matter that

reaches everyone's eyes right across the country is a chart on page 20

of the report relating to financial support for immigrant services by

the top five immigrant-receiving provinces. In this list, we're talking

about contributions by the provincial governments in these five cases

for services to immigrants. We're not talking about very much money

even in the best of the provinces.

It's interesting when

you look at the numbers. We in British Columbia spent $8.76 per

immigrant in 1986; Manitoba spent $226.73. Manitoba spent 79 cents per

capita; we spent 4 cents per capita. Now in Manitoba's budget, we're

talking about only $850,000 but B.C., which ranks at the bottom of this

list, spent $110,000 in 1986. Before I go any further, I wonder if the

minister can tell me whether in this budget — because I can't extract

it from the estimates — the $110,000 has been increased, and if it has, to what number.

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Chairman, I don't have a copy of that report, but I'm aware of it

and have looked at it. The concern I have with it is that I don't think

they've done their accounting very well in terms of those comparisons

of costs. Manitoba takes all their costs and focuses them onto one

area, one cost centre; we have our costs distributed throughout our

ministries. We talked about this before; in fact, I think that issue

program costs the government about $18 million, we anticipate. That's a

fairly significant item.

MR. CLARK : Doesn't that come from the federal government?

HON. J. JANSEN : No, this is provincial funding.

well, of course, in the humanitarian category, we provide, a number of

services for the refugees who come into the country. So if we were to

take those figures and compile our figures the way that we saw them

from the standpoint of multi-ministry initiatives, I think the costs

would be substantially different. We haven't done that.

One

of the areas that we're talking about with the federal government is

looking at some of these services and seeing how we can better target

our assistance. That's one reason why it's important for us to achieve

an immigrant agreement — to deal with these issues. As I said before,

when we talked about immigration matters, we saw needs of immigrant

settlement costs. That was the reason, in part, that we wanted to have

an immigration agreement.

MR. GABELMANN : Mr.

Chairman, in the report, it says on page 20: "Some provinces, such as

Alberta, work closely with the federal government to support settlement

agencies. Other provinces, such as British Columbia, are outspokenly

reluctant to fund services which, they argue, fall under federal

jurisdiction." If that was an accurate description of the 1986 or prior

policy of the government, is it still the policy of the government to

argue that these are federal responsibilities?

HON. J. JANSEN :

As I said before, the negotiations that are now ongoing are dealing

with this whole expenditure and assistance program. Hopefully, when we

have completed that, we will have a far more integrated type of

targeting as well as a more beneficial program in terms of providing

those services that have been identified. I can't comment on what

happened in '86. All I can tell you is that we are working on this

agreement, and hopefully some of the concerns that have been voiced to

us will be addressed through this process.

MR. GABELMANN :

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I hope the agreement is reached soon and

that a satisfactory agreement is reached so that immigrants in this

province don't continue to fall between the constitutional cracks,

which appear to be gaping at the moment.

In a speech soon after this minister was appointed minister — and I think it was the first speech that

[ Page 7728 ]

related to the immigration part of his portfolio, in October of '88 — he

said that he wanted the province to spend more time on assisting

integration, not in terms of immigrants losing their distinct cultures

but in terms of assisting them in becoming productive in the workforce.

He said that if you did a good job in integration, you didn't face

other problems downstream, such as crime and increased health care

costs I didn't hear the speech, nor have I seen the whole speech, but

if the minister said that, I applaud him. Those are noble and accurate

sentiments, and would that government policies reflected those

sentiments.

just want say this, and then I'll turn it over to the member for New

Westminster. I want to refer to a report of June 7, 1989 — just a few

weeks ago — from

the Canadian School Trustees' Association. It is a report of 27 school

boards across Canada. Keep in mind that immigrants do better in other

parts of Canada, according to everything I've seen, than they do here

in British Columbia. I just have a few selected conclusions I want to

read into the record from the CSTA report. Immigrant students generally

get lower standards of education, fewer materials and less staff

attention because of the continuing dispute between the federal and

provincial governments over who is responsible for paying for their

education.

We have seen that in British Columbia in terms

of the arguments about the additional costs of ESL for immigrant

children. The result, according to the CSTA, is that as many as a third

of immigrant students are at risk and many will be unable to compete as

adults in the workforce. If we are talking about as many as a third of

these immigrant children being at risk and therefore unable to compete

as adults in the workforce, we're talking about an incredible burden,

not only to these people as individuals and to their life and the

fulfilment of their own dreams but to the rest of society in terms of

costs. It's from people who are at risk or people who have not had

opportunities for proper education that our jails become filled. It is

from those groups of people that our hospitals become full. It is from

those groups of people that our mental institutions and services become

overloaded.

[4:15]

For very small amounts of money, whether it's federal or provincial

— and I appreciate the minister is talking about negotiations — there

needs to be an understanding that in order to integrate properly we

need to do far more in terms of education, far more in terms of

language skills and far more in terms of ESL than we are doing at the

present time. I suspect the minister agrees with that, but I wouldn't

mind hearing some comments from him about the need for upgrading ESL

programs, the need to increase the number of teachers who can

participate in ESL programs, to eliminate problems such as the one

described by the principal of Strathcona Elementary, believe, in

Vancouver East, who says that ESL training adds between $700 and $1,000

a year to the cost of educating a student. School districts usually

pick up the tab. It is all left to the local taxpayer, and that's

unfair. Our government is welcoming immigrants and we are front-line

people, so we should be given the funding we need to educate them.

in fact we want, in British Columbia, to have an active immigration

policy — which we do, and everybody in this House does — then we need

to have an active settlement policy as well, which I would argue is

dramatically absent at the present time.

HON. J. JANSEN :

We are in agreement with each other. As recently as yesterday we had

one of our staff meetings with the federal government to further iron

out this immigration agreement. You are quite right: one of the key

invested $18 million in this program, and we are negotiating very

strongly with the federal government because we recognize that it is

very important to have that kind of resource given to our young people.

What

the member didn't talk about is the services to immigrant women. I

recall my mother being at home and looking after the family, and it

overlook the needs of immigrant women in our society. They're not out

in business; many times they're at home. They need to get assistance to

ensure that they also integrate and that the children who are at home

with them can learn to integrate with our society as well.

One

of the first things I did when I became minister was to speak to the

Mosaic graduating class. It was the very first thing I did, I think,

the first speech I gave, and it was probably one of my better speeches.

In any event, it was wonderful to see the challenge that had been

presented to these people and their determination to succeed. It was an

invaluable experience for me. I can reflect on how they took an

integrated approach to dealing with the problems of integration and

settlement. That's the type of thing we're trying to strive for as well

on a larger scale.

MS. A. HAGEN : I want to pursue

both of the issues we have been discussing over the last few minutes:

role it plays in the successful settlement of people in our province;

and services to immigrant women.

Let me begin by asking the

minister if he could advise us what perspective he takes into the

as second language and services to immigrant women. Specifically, is it

the approach of this government that the cost of providing those

services should be borne federally? Is that the main focus of the

negotiations taking place at this time?

HON. J. JANSEN :

As I said before the member came into the House, it's difficult to

indicate what the agreement will look like. I'm not prepared to

indicate what our negotiating position is at this point in time.

[ Page 7729 ]

'88-89

academic year, we had 4,375 new ESL students come into British Columbia

schools, and we provided about $18 million worth of services to them.

Of those 4,400 students, 55 percent were from families who recently

immigrated to the province, while the other 45 percent were

Canadian-born children. It's the latter, really, that I spoke about

previously. It's those immigrant women of the second and third

generation who need assistance, and we need them to counsel and to

provide the assistance to get the children to also take advantage of

the program.

I'm not sure if I answered your question. We

are, through the negotiating process, trying to come up with a

stronger, more efficient program. The question of dollars and cents is

really something that is a negotiable item and is ongoing.

MS. A. HAGEN :

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), in some of his recent

policy pronouncements that come out of the initiatives of the Sullivan

commission and the review of education policy in the province, has

indicated that he will be looking to the federal government as the

language, certainly for students or young people when they first

arrive. I have a real concern about that perspective, and let me hasten

to say that I certainly believe, as I think all of us in this House do,

that the federal government should undertake a very significant portion

of the initial costs of resettlement, particularly around citizenship

issues and job training.

One of the things we have learned

over time is that this whole business of learning a language

sufficiently well not only to be able to speak it but to be able to

communicate effectively, to really understand what language is the tool

for... The culture, the ability to work and the ability to participate

in a democracy are a much more lengthy task. Indeed, the minister has

just alluded to that in his comments about immigrant women.

wonder if the minister can, separate from the negotiations with the

federal government, which surely will centre around significant

cost-sharing, give us some idea of his thinking on what he, as a new

minister in this field in the province — we haven't had a minister responsible for immigration before — might

see as the most important initiatives he would want to take around on

the integration of children and immigrant women. Looking at those two

target populations, what would be the initiatives that he would want to

see his ministry taking to assist in the integration, settlement and

productive lives of children and women in B.C.?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Perhaps I should relate to you my own personal experience. When I came

to this country, I was five years old, going on six. The first time I

going to school today." I came into school and I had absolutely no

requirements of academic training as well as understand the culture of

so it was a difficult process to adapt not only to society but also to

the educational system.

What we want to do — as I said before in answer to some of the questions that I had — is

look at a program whereby we can get immigrant women who wish to become

employed into the workforce. We want to provide programs whereby we can

integrate them into society. Many times they are left at home and

forgotten. We want to get them involved in society, involved in

training the youngsters in language, and so on. What services are

available? There's a wide range of initiatives regarding immigrant

women.

As well, as the member has indicated, we want to

as a second language. That's certainly a key item, given that they are

the people responsible for immigration in the Dominion of Canada. We

have said to them that although they share in costs and provide some

settlement costs for a one-year period, it is insufficient to deal with

the problems that we see.

I can't be more specific in terms

of some of the programs, because, as I've said, as recently as

yesterday we were in a negotiating process and that will continue.

We're receiving fairly good response from the federal government, and I

hope we can soon announce an agreement that would meet the objectives

that I think both sides of the House share.

MS. A. HAGEN : I'd like to ask the minister if there are any funds within his budget for this year for programs for immigrant women.

HON. J. JANSEN : No, when we were asked previously about it — a question regarding per capita expenditures in immigration — I

said that we've allocated our costs by ministry. We haven't brought

them together under one responsibility as far as accounting is

concerned. But obviously Advanced Education, the Ministry of Education

as well, the Ministry of Health — a number of ministries — have

responsibilities for portions of the immigration policy, as far as

expenditures are concerned and support services, and it's brought

together by a multi-ministry committee that coordinates the action. I

don't have it within my responsibilities as you go through the

estimates.

MS. A. HAGEN : The needs of immigrant

families for ongoing language training are certainly well documented,

especially when we look at the fact that in the Vancouver school

system, 69 percent of the students who require some assistance with

because of a very different approach from the approach that I know my

husband's family had — his family was an immigrant family....

They

are teaching their children their cultural language as a first

language. Does the Minister of Immigration see as one of his

responsibilities a longer

[ Page 7730 ]

window on this, and has he some sense of the extent of that window?

noted earlier that it sometimes took a very long time for women to

really have the language skills and the doors opened to their

participation in society. We know now from educators that it takes

children not two or three years but four or five years to really be

academically competent in the language. We know now that the

presumption that the particular methodology of having children have a

similar experience to the minister's — namely, that they arrive at

school on the first day in kindergarten and grade 1 not knowing a word

the playground and in the classroom — is not working. Has the minister

some perspectives on his responsibility here or his negotiations over

that longer window, as we really try to develop a policy for

resettlement, integration and a multicultural society?

[4:30]

I ask the question from the perspective that we're in the early

stages of this, and I think it's useful to look at not just the short

term, the urgent questions, but also the long term, because we know

that those long-term settlement needs have a great deal to do with the

productivity of people in our society.

HON. J. JANSEN :

Obviously the government is very concerned about all immigration

matters. In fact, that is one of the reasons why the ministry was

created for the first time in our history, as the member has indicated.

for those who have recently come into our country, but for the 45

percent of the children under this program who are Canadian-born

children. I think the member had different figures, but our figures

indicate 45 percent.

We find that to be fully integrated and to be functional academically — perhaps I've never achieved that level — it

takes an average of seven years, which is a long time. So you're

talking about a window. It's a very long process. We're really excited

that for the first time we're addressing these issues, recognizing how

important they are and receiving good response from the federal

government. As I said before, I look forward to getting an agreement to

deal with these issues, now that we've identified the problems.

MS. A. HAGEN :

There's one specific area in respect to immigrant women. It has to do

with language training being, in most instances, limited to women who

plan to work outside the home — that is, from the perspective of

federal funding. What is the ministry's position on programs for women

who intend to continue to be homemakers? Is there any change that he's

aware of in the federal attitude towards this? It's a very

short-sighted approach, and I think that the minister's earlier

comments would suggest that he agrees with that. Can he give us some

idea of the state of the art with respect both to provincial policy and

his understanding of federal policy, as he negotiates for some of these

shared costs?

HON. J. JANSEN : Mr. Chairman, that's

exactly the focus we're working on: those immigrant women at home. It's

an area that, sadly, has been overlooked. The federal government is

very responsive to dealing with this problem. All I can tell you is

that we've identified that as an important priority. The federal

government has agreed in our discussions with them that this is an area

we need to focus on and address. I think we will have resolution on

this type of program.

MR. GABELMANN : Can I just

assume now that the directory that separated international offices from

Tourism offices...? Let me summarize what I think we have around the

world now. I think we have seven trade offices, three tourism offices,

and the chamber of commerce operates an office in Taiwan. Is that the

situation?

HON. J. JANSEN : There are two tourism

offices: one in Seattle and one in San Francisco. We operate the Taiwan

office through the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. The other offices — I think you have those listings.

MR. GABELMANN : Okay. On this list that I have, the southern California tourism office has been merged into the newly opened trade office.

Not

to make a big issue of it, but can I ask two different questions? What

kind of financial involvement does the province — directly or

indirectly through the Trade Corporation — have in the office in

Taipei? How are we tied in financially with that office? Can the

minister — if he can't do it now, at some point later, by letter

perhaps — indicate the cost of operating each of these offices?

HON. J. JANSEN :

I will certainly make that information available to the member. That

information is readily available. The cost for the Taiwan office is

about $250,000, and it's run through the B.C. Trade Development

Corporation. So I think that answers both questions. We'll certainly

make those figures available on each of the other offices throughout

the world.

MR. GABELMANN : Just a minute or two on

Taiwan is a province of China, and therefore we don't recognize Taiwan.

This diplomatic stuff of not recognizing.... We go in there with our

eyes wide open, we eke out all the money we can, and we do all these

things, but nonetheless we don't recognize them. I recognize the

hypocrisy in all that. Leaving aside all of those kinds of questions,

my understanding is that there is not to be any direct government

involvement with Taiwan. It's for that reason that the government

ministers don't go to Taiwan when travel is happening. How can the

Trade Development Corporation, which is a Crown corpo-

[ Page 7731 ]

ration, establish quarters in Taiwan and jibe with the federal policy?

HON. J. JANSEN : Before establishing this relationship we did consult with — and we have the agreement of — the

Department of External Affairs in how to set this up. We are falling

within their guidelines. As you're probably aware, the federal

government also has an office in Taiwan. Although it's not recognized

as a federal office, it certainly is sponsored by them indirectly. ,

MR. GABELMANN :

Just very briefly on China itself, my questions would, I think, have

been very different a few weeks ago than they might be today. We don't

have an office, and we haven't had. Were there — not are there, but were there — plans

to establish an office in the People's Republic? The minister says no.

Is the Trade Development Corporation taking a position in any respect

at the present time about trade with mainland China and what B.C.

companies should or should not be doing?

HON. J. JANSEN :

The marketing effort in the past for China has been the responsibility

of the Hong Kong office. We don't have any projects on the books,

obviously, the B.C. Trade Development Corporation having been

established just recently, but we understand that the federal

government has put a moratorium on, for example, all CIDA and EDC

programs. They have stopped their involvement until the situation in

Beijing has stabilized.

MR. GABELMANN : I want to

move on to the new international competitiveness board coordinator. The

minister mentioned it in his opening remarks last night. From what I

can see, this is useful stuff, and I am not critical of the initiative.

I am curious, though, about the composition of the board, and I wonder

if any effort was made to broaden the scope of a board such as this. It

includes, from a variety of perspectives, a very limited cross-section

of British Columbia. I wonder if the minister tried to develop a better

cross-section and was rebuffed. Did he, for example, ask people in any

of the immigrant communities, or anybody in the labour movement or in

other sectors, to participate on this board?

HON. J. JANSEN :

First of all, this is not a board. This is an advisory committee. It's

simple enough. This is a brand-new initiative of the ministry, and as

we see additional requirements over time we can certainly add those to

that committee. It's an open-ended committee. I haven't formally

structured it as a board or in any other way. It's simply a bit of a

pool of resources that we can call on to give us advice to deal with

this whole question of international competitiveness. Over time, I'm

sure we'll invite views from labour, from the immigration side and a

lot of other people.

It is a new venture for us, and it's

very difficult to determine how you will need the information, or what

information you will need. Until we get into it further, I'm sure we'll

be developing those other resources.

MR. GABELMANN :

I would just suggest to the minister, then, that he should get his

press release writers to take the word "board" out of the press

release. It's entitled: "The advisory board for the coordinator of

international competitiveness." But that's obviously a minor point.

One

of the many areas that an office of this kind needs to address is the

whole question of language training. Asia Pacific Report indicates — this is January '89, so it's not too dated — that

there are only 22 teachers teaching Japanese in B.C. at the present

time, only nine teachers teaching Mandarin on a full- or a part-time

basis, and enrolment in Japanese and Mandarin this year was 962 and 335

respectively. It's not very much, given the kind of initiatives that we

want to take, and need to take, in future years, particularly when you

compare it with Australia, for example, which has many times more

students involved in language training, particularly in terms of

Japanese language training. I would just make that point and leave it

as one of many things that this board or committee or office might want

to look at.

Finally on my list of issues is an issue that

is perhaps more properly the territory of the Minister of Agriculture

and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage), but it's one that is overlapping, and

it's aid to developing countries. The minister will know that I have a

question on the order paper. I appreciate this may take some time to

answer, but I trust we'll get an answer sometime this session. It has

been on there since the beginning of the session, and we have been here

a while now. It relates to aid.

also have the British Columbia agricultural aid to developing

countries, which has been a program — if my memory is correct — which

was established by W.A.C. Bennett in 1969 and has been ongoing ever

since. It originally had a perpetual fund. I think $5 million was set

aside for it, and the interest was used for agricultural aid to

developing countries. In '76 the Bill Bennett government decided to

abolish that fund, but nonetheless money did come out of operating

revenue within for this program. It has not played the kind of

significant role it could play.

I just want to end these

comments by saying that our initiatives in foreign aid, whether it's of

the agricultural kind, health care, education or any number of other

initiatives, I think pay phenomenal economic dividends to us; not only

to those countries and people we're working with but to us in terms of

developing business links and contacts. Everybody knows that the

business world operates on the basis of contacts, and if we can

establish credibility by participating in those kinds of aid programs,

then the province has a role to play, and a significant one. I think

it's to our benefit in the long run, and I would just urge the minister

to pay some attention to the programs of some of his colleagues. Have a

look at it and see whether it should be in that ministry or in this

one, and see whether or not there might be some ways to not only beef

up that program — to make a

[ Page 7732 ]

bad pun — but also to develop additional efforts that we could do through young people.

[4:45]

There are a variety of non-governmental operations, like Canada

World Youth and others, that establish great links between peoples.

While the government shouldn't play a massive role in those activities,

it does have a role to play, and I would encourage the minister to look

at those questions as he continues on in his responsibility as minister.

Vote 38 approved.

Vote 39: ministry operations, $23,333,991 — approved.

Vote 40: British Columbia Trade Development Corporation, $9,250,068 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF STATE FOR

VANCOUVER ISLAND-COAST AND

NORTH COAST, RESPONSIBLE FOR PARKS

On vote 61: minister's office, $290,010.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Provincial Secretary and Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REID :

It gives me a great deal of pleasure, on behalf of the Speaker of the

House, to introduce today from Signal Hill Elementary School in

Pemberton the students from Whistler, Pemberton, D'Arcy and the Mount

Currie area, the finest community in the province of British Columbia.

I ask the House to give a special welcome for these people and students

from Signal Hill Elementary School.

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

It is with great pleasure that I present the estimates as the Minister

of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and North Coast and the Minister

Responsible for Parks for the fiscal year 1989-1990.

would like to begin by acknowledging the support and hard work of my

parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long).

During

the coming year these estimates will enable B.C. parks to secure the

present and to build for the future, and will extend the valuable work

being done in Vancouver Island-Coast and North Coast through regional

development.

Both of these regions are booming. In the past

year 25,000 more people have found jobs in the Vancouver Island-Coast

region. Mining companies have spent more than $20 million exploring and

developing sites in the North Coast.

As minister of state,

it is my mandate to facilitate and coordinate economic development.

However, before I take any action, I listen to the people who live and

work in these regions. Sixty community leaders in each region volunteer

their time to sit on task forces which help establish local priorities.

In the North Coast, I have task forces looking at forestry, health,

transportation and other vital issues. In Vancouver Island-Coast, task

forces are looking at technology and innovation, agriculture,

aquaculture and transportation, plus other vital issues as well.

Regional development is succeeding in these two regions, because my

ministry staff and I are working with and responding to those needs

identified by the people of the regions themselves and not from

Victoria.

The residents and the member for North Island

(Mr. Gabelmann), representing Port Hardy, said that they needed help in

renovating their swimming-pool — the only year-round recreation

facility on the north end of the Island. Last month I had the privilege

of presenting Mayor Al Huddlestan with a Go B.C. cheque for a third of

a million dollars so that this valuable community resource could be

reopened.

Last year I supported the mayors' silviculture

program. Young people on Vancouver Island were employed to improve our

forests through this innovative scheme. The program was such a success

that my colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) has

expanded it to a provincewide program.

Needs were also

identified and met in the North Coast region. Residents said that there

was a serious problem with the emergency medical evacuation from remote

villages. Helicopters were grounded because there weren't enough

approved helipads or flight paths. I supported the funding of an

engineering study of helipads. This summer we hope to build those pads,

so that we can respond to emergencies in a more effective manner.

Regional

development is an ongoing process, and one which my ministry will

continue to actively engage in, in consultation with and never apart

from the residents of the regions themselves.

I would like

to say a few words about our world-class parks system. In a phrase: we

are securing the present, and we are building for the future. Last

December I set out to secure the B.C. parks system by announcing a bold

new policy regarding parks and mineral exploration. I said: "A park is

a park." I stated that there would be no further mineral exploration or

extraction in any of our class A parks. This is the first part of our

commitment to the people of British Columbia.

Following

this, on March 22, I upgraded 12 recreation areas to class A park

status. In five parks I added former recreation areas to the designated

parkland. In four of our largest parks I reclassified recreation areas

to full class A park status. I upgraded Kokanee Glacier Park to a class

A park from class B status. In the remaining areas under our management

and in future park candidate areas we will evaluate other potential

uses before making a designation. This is the second part of the

commitment that our government has made to British Columbians: no

designation before evaluation.

As I indicated in my

December 21 speech, I am committed to legislating the boundaries of our

class A parks. I note with interest recent statements to this

[ Page 7733 ]

effect by my hon. colleagues opposite. I am pleased that from time to time we can look at an issue and agree upon the solution.

This

year we've taken some bold steps in other directions to stretch the

taxpayers' contributions to B.C. parks. We're expanding the number of

parks where contractors provide visitor services. Many employee groups

have taken advantage of these opportunities and have bid on contracts

to provide maintenance services. I want to emphasize here and now that

B.C. parks staff still manage and maintain control of all our parks.

addition, we have reallocated more staff so that we'll have more

back-country rangers this summer. Many visitors tell us that they value

the wilderness experience offered in our back-country parks. We've also

formed partnerships with private corporations which share our

enthusiasm for parks and our marketing audience. Our corporate partners

have strengthened our Open Doors to Adventure campaign. For every

dollar we spent, they spent $1.50 on our campaign. This calculation

does not include what they have spent on their own advertising

campaigns which highlight B.C. parks; it doesn't include distribution

of our magazines in their outlets.

These elements boost our

exposure enormously. We are reaching millions more people through our

partners than we could reach by ourselves. The people we're reaching

are those who enjoy visiting B.C. parks. They are families out looking

for adventure; they are families wanting outdoor recreation at a

reasonable price. As I said before, these partnerships allow us to

broaden our audience without expanding our budget.

We're

involved in many programs which allow us to secure the present and

build for the future. We're upgrading and modernizing many of our key

facilities. In commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of Wells Gray

Provincial Park this year, we plan to pave the road to Helmcken Falls,

one of the most popular destinations in the interior. We're also

developing a trail in that park which can be used by people confined to

wheelchairs. As a matter of fact, we have special facilities for the

handicapped in 38 parks throughout the province, and we're upgrading

even more parks this year.

We already have an impressive

parks system: 5.4 million hectares. We've protected 38 of the

province's 52 types of regional landscapes, and we're striving to make

sure all of these landscapes are represented.

Two million

dollars has been set aside this year so that we can acquire new parks

and ecological reserves. We also try to respond to the public demand

for more parkland in specific areas. It's an expensive undertaking.

Many of these lands are privately owned, but purchases are always

negotiated at fair market value. Fortunately we sometimes find partners

in this area as well. The ecological reserve program is richer because

of support from groups like the Nature Trust of B.C. and the Nature

Conservancy of Canada. I was recently able to declare Brackman Island

an ecological reserve because of the generosity of these two groups.

With a small amount of assistance from the government, they were able

to purchase this pristine Gulf island, Our ecological reserve program

is unique in Canada, and it truly secures the present while we are

building for the future.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we

have a park system beyond compare and regions which continue to prosper

and develop with local input and local leadership. I would like to

introduce my associate deputy minister, Stephen Stackhouse. I now

welcome any questions from members of the House,

MR. CASHORE :

I'm very pleased to be able to stand in the House and respond to the

estimates of the Minister Responsible for Parks. I would like to be

able to say the Minister of Parks and feel that one ministry in this

House was attending this vital issue; but as we're all aware, it's the

Ministry of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and North Coast,

Responsible for Parks. From my bias, I would like to see that value

placed the other way around. I don't expect the minister to comment on

this, but if he had his druthers, I expect he would like to see parks

as the primary designation. I also think it won't be very long until

parks is seen as a front-line responsibility in cabinet in a province

like British Columbia, where we have such marvellous nature values;

where tourism, wilderness, wildlife, recreation and so many aspects are

something we're all justifiably proud of.

I would like to

say to this minister that I welcome his appointment to this portfolio.

I have been very pleased with his approach, and it has been a pleasure

to work with him and with his office. We've found this minister's staff

to be for