[ Page 2389 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Financial Restructuring Act (Bill 53).

Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 2389

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1987 (Bill 55). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 2389

An Act To Amend The Vancouver Charter (Bill PR40 1). Second reading

Mr. Mowat –– 2390

An Act To Amend The Vancouver Charter (Bill PR401). Committee stage. (Mr. Mowat) 2390

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1987 (Bill 31). Report –– 2390

Third reading

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987 (Bill 42). Report –– 2390

Third reading

Ministerial Statement

Financial aid to city of Trail. Hon. B.R. Smith –– 2391

Mr. Rose

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

(Hon. Mr. Reid)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 2391

Hon. Mr. Reid

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Barnes

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Vant

Mr. Blencoe.

Mr. Bruce

Mr. Sihota

Appendix –– 2409

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON: I'm sure all hon. members have heard of the 4-H Club of Canada. Today we have in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, 20 members of the 4-H Club. Ten of them are from the Mission-Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge area, and ten of these young people are visiting us from Lambton County, Ontario. They are accompanied by Mrs. Edie Wynnyk from Maple Ridge, and by Mrs. Judy MacLachlan from Tupperville, Ontario, along with seven other adults; and I would appreciate the members making them very welcome to Victoria and to this House.

HON. MR. REID: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House today Mr. Jim Coleridge, an alderman from the city of White Rock, home of the world-famous sandcastle contest, and the young man most instrumental in bringing the Prime Minister to British Columbia and visiting the capital of the province of British Columbia, White Rock. The sand-castle contest is this weekend, in case you want to go over there.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and certainly to the House today a friend of mine visiting from Terrace, Roger Leclerc, who is down advising me on forestry JobTrac matters. He has been conducting some very successful programs in the northwest through Northwest Community College and local organizations, and I ask the House to make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

FINANCIAL RESTRUCTURING ACT

Hon. B.R. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Financial Restructuring Act.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the B.C. Enterprise Corporation Financial Restructuring Act, Bill 53, for first reading. This bill provides for two specific transactions retroactive to March 31, 1987. These transactions are prerequisites for the government's plans for establishing the B.C. Enterprise Corporation and for placing it on a sound financial footing.

The first transaction will transfer the assets and liabilities of the B.C. Development Corporation to the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, which is currently B.C. Place Ltd. The second transaction will transfer debt from the B.C. Buildings Corporation to the government. The first transaction is required to complete the consolidation of the B.C. Development Corporation and B.C. Place into the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. The second transaction will enable the government to assume some of the debt of the B. C. Buildings Corporation in consideration for the transfer of the share in the B.C. Enterprise Corporation from the B.C. Buildings Corporation to the government.

The share transfer is provided for in amendments in the B.C. Place Act, which will be contained in the bill that I'm going to introduce for first reading after this. The transactions will be made retroactive to March 31, 1987, to enable the Crown corporation involved to begin the 1987-1988 fiscal year with a clean slate. This will enable the government to more readily monitor the financial performance of these corporations during fiscal year 1987-88 and to utilize that as a base year for assessing their future performance.

I move first reading of Bill 53, the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Financial Restructuring Act,

Bill 53 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I have the other message foreshadowed in the last statement.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1987

Hon. B.R. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 3), 1987.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to introduce Bill 55, the third miscellaneous statutes bill. This is our last such bill in this session. It is substantially smaller than the previous two bills. Members will be disappointed to hear that.

A brief summary of what is contained therein: it has proposed amendments to the B.C. Place Act to reflect the new role of this Crown corporation. That company is to be renamed the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, and in conjunction with the provisions of Bill 53 just introduced, the assets and operations of B.C. Place and B.C. Development will be merged within the B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

As well, the amendments provide for restructuring of the finances to place B.C. Enterprise Corporation and B.C. Pavilion Corporation on a sound financial footing. The proposed amendments will affect the transfer of BCBC shares in B.C. Enterprise Corporation to the provincial government. They will also accommodate the transfer of management and responsibility for public facilities, such as the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre and B.C. Place, to an existing corporation, the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, which is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of B.C. Place.

The miscellaneous bill also has some provision that will impact upon wildlife resources. Amendments within this bill will increase penalties for those convicted of violating the Wildlife Act and its regulations. The responsibility for economic regulation of interprovincial oil pipelines is to be transferred from the B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Highways to the B.C. Utilities Commission. This will place the responsibility for economic regulation on all interprovincial pipelines - oil and gas - within one regulatory agency.

An amendment to the property purchase tax will introduce a measure to prevent tax avoidance and to ensure that all purchasers pay their fair share of that tax. A number of technical amendments to the Gas Safety Act, Electrical Safety Act and Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act - all of which are eagerly awaited by the opposition House Leader - will enable provincial safety

[ Page 2390 ]

regulations to be consistent with national safety codes, which are adopted for provincial use.

Mr. Speaker, I commend this bill to the House. and I move first reading.

Bill 55 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. BLENCOE: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd to introduce 25 grade 11 students from Victoria High School who are visiting the precinct and taking in the session this morning. We certainly would like to welcome them and their teacher Mr. Ed Kowalyk. Would the House please make all those students welcome.

Orders of the Day

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill PR40 1.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

MR. MOWAT: This bill looks at the amendments to the charter of the city of Vancouver. You know that Vancouver is very unique in that it holds its own charter. It has not been reviewed in depth for a number of years, and this bill brings the city charter up to date. It deals with the establishment of the wards; it deals with liability for officers and employees of the city; it gives some provisions for the disabled in their voting; it also allows for the increase in the number of. aldermen and how they're identified in the number of schools and parks. I want to thank the ministry, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and Mr. John Mulberry, legal counsel for the city of Vancouver, for their assistance in drafting these amendments.

I move second reading of Bill PR401.

Motion approved.

MR. MOWAT: I ask leave that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

[10:15]

Leave granted.

Bill PR401, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

The House in committee on Bill PR40 1; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 17 inclusive approved.

On section 18.

MR. CLARK: We on this side of the House agree with most of this bill, and we will be supporting it because it allows the city of Vancouver to have a ward system should they desire it. But we are opposed to the fact that it requires a 60 percent vote by the electors of Vancouver. Clearly, any change in a democracy should be 50 percent plus one; that's our position. Many members in this chamber would not be elected if it required a 60 percent vote. It seems to me really stretching it to require 60 percent. The fact is that the majority of city of Vancouver council have asked for a 60 percent vote. We will therefore be agreeing to it here. But it's our position that changes to the Municipal Act or changes to the constitution, in effect, of Vancouver should be made by the voters of Vancouver, and it should be a simple majority. That's the case in virtually every other jurisdiction.

Sections 18 to 34 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill PR401, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Report on Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1987

Bill 31 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Report on Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1987

Bill 42 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM,

RECREATION AND CULTURE

On vote 59: minister's office, $228, 460.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 59, the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid).

Government House Leader.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I forgot a process, and I wonder if we could have the committee rise. The Attorney has a statement to make. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 2391 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee shall sit again later today. The Attorney-General has a ministerial statement he wishes to make.

FINANCIAL AID TO CITY OF TRAIL

HON. B.R. SMITH: Thank you very much for expediting the business of the Committee of Supply. I've never seen such progress,

I am making a statement today that the government has approved payment of $195, 000 to Trail, some of which will go to the city of Trail - specifically $105, 000 to the city of Trail and $90, 000 to reimburse residents for property damage. These payments are being made under the provincial emergency fund.

The money is paid because of an absolutely unique disastrous downpour which occurred in Trail on May 27 of this year. In that downpour, almost two inches of rain fell in a 20minute interval. It was one of the worst rainfalls in British Columbia in a period of a thousand years.

The city incurred a number of emergency expenses, naturally, but did yeoman service in providing emergency relief to a number of homes and streets and in doing filling and stabilization and repair work. While it is normally considered that those emergencies are a part of local government, it was thought in this case that because of the tremendous unexpected burden that that community faced, we would make this payment. One property owner suffered total damage when a slide caused by the rainfall went right through her home, destroying all the contents and the home - everything except the raw value of the land. She will receive most of the $90, 000 that goes to residents. She will get something in the neighbourbood of $86, 000. The staff of the provincial emergency program will work closely with the city of Trail to process the request quickly and to ensure that the approved funds are paid out as soon as possible.

I want to pay tribute as well to the member for Rossland Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) with whom I have worked on this matter for the last week and ten days. He has been very positive and cooperative, and has done a good job in that regard.

The payment of $105, 000 that is made to the city of Trail is in recognition of the work they did. It doesn't pay their bills, but it's a major contribution to this once-only disaster. I'm very pleased that the main victims of this flood, the Merlos, whose home and contents were destroyed, will be reimbursed to the maximum amount allowed under the guidelines. This was a terrible tragedy for them, because Mr. Merlo died one week later very unexpectedly and very suddenly, and he was a young man. While that is not compensatable, it adds to the personal tragedy of this family.

I thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to make this statement and interrupt committee.

MR. ROSE: I'm please to respond to the minister on behalf of the member for Rossland-Trail, for whom I know this will be very good news. I know he has worked very hard on this. It was probably made more difficult by the fact that he recently became a new father; he has been up late a lot of nights and hasn't been able to get much sleep. If he can do this when he's only half awake, just think what he could do if he was completely alert and with his full capacities.

I know we were very grateful, when I was a federal member, for the emergency relief given to the city of Port Moody. A similar disaster struck that city which I represent, and half of the mountainside slid down into the main part of the town.

So these things are acts of God. They are beyond our control and we have to have protection such as been granted, or at least recompense for these things over which we really have little or no control. I'd just like to say in conclusion that I am sorry the member himself wasn't here to receive and respond to the minister's statement; but we thank him for pouring $195, 000 worth of oil over troubled waters in Trail.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Once again, Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM,

RECREATION AND CULTURE

On vote 59: minister's office: $228, 460.

HON. MR. REID: It is with pleasure that I have my deputy here today. on a long elastic band, brought back primarily to make certain that all the answers relative to my estimates are sufficient and adequately responded to.

The Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture was established on November 6. 1986. The new ministry's mandate is to promote travel opportunities available in British Columbia, and to encourage and increase the number of visitors to the province of British Columbia; to promote and encourage the tourism industry totally in British Columbia; to encourage the development of the motion picture industry in the province of British Columbia; and to provide programs that focus provincewide culture, recreation and heritage conservation responsibilities.

The ministry is responsible for the following legislation: the Ministry of Tourism Act: Travel Regulation Act; Hotel Keepers Act; Hotel Guest Registration Act; the Pacific National Exhibition incorporation act; Recreational Facility Act; Heritage Conservation Act: the Library Act: and the Museum Act.

The ministry's goals for management and operational purposes are to develop and increase the value of tourism in British Columbia; to provide and foster leadership and participation through non-profit organizations in the culture, recreation and heritage fields; and to ensure that legislation, regulation and policies are consistent and supportive of these program initiatives.

The ministry's objectives are to increase gross provincial revenues from tourism, culture, recreation. sport and heritage resources by increasing the number and the average length of stay and per them expenditures of travelers and residents; to develop programs which will encourage participation by British Columbians and visitors alike; and in challenging and enriching the activities to preserve these resources for future generations.

Mr. Chairman, those are the introductory remarks to my estimates, and I will now address vote 59: $228, 460.

[ Page 2392 ]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to welcome the deputy minister, Mr. Horsey, to the House. I have appreciated his assistance over the months that I've been assigned to he a watchdog on the ministry. I also appreciate the minister's brief comments. It lets us get right at the business of the day.

Mr. Minister, there are a number of very short statements you've made, and they indicate that the travel industry, the film industry . . . that culture is an industry, too. That's part of what I want to talk about when we question you. How is it that all of a sudden we in British Columbia are looking at culture as a business or an industry?

You nod in response. I think that's going to be a problem. I think it is already becoming a problem that we don't remember that the culture, arts and recreation - particularly the culture and arts - are not necessarily to be treated the same way as any other industry.

I notice that the minister has talked a lot about encouraging non-profit organizations and the participation of people through non-profit organizations. I want to talk a bit about that in a number of ways, so perhaps we could begin by . . . . Where is the ministry right now with regard to the British Columbia Summer Games which are coming up very soon, and the Winter Games that are coming up again, and also the Festival of the Arts?

We have asked the minister several times in the House and have had sketchy answers about what happened with the coordinator for the Summer and Winter Games and the B.C. Festival of the Arts, Mr. Ron Butlin, who has left British Columbia and has now gone to Washington. He left under circumstances that appear to have been, as the minister will say, of mutual agreement; but it seems more like mutual disagreement.

Mr. Butlin managed the British Columbia Games; he managed the best games ever in serial time for 18 games, and all of a sudden he is gone. I wonder if the minister could tell us now what kind of an arrangement has been made with Mr. Butlin, and what is it going to cost the province of British Columbia to have cancelled his contract to manage the Summer and Winter Games, and also the B.C. Festival of the Arts?

HON. MR. REID: First of all, let's recognize that Ron Butlin, the former total manager of the B.C. Summer and Winter Games, who was an effective manager for ten years, had negotiated, prior to my taking over the ministry, some contract possibilities with the state of Washington in late 1986, and had suggested that he was prepared to take the job in Washington state to administer their 1987-88 centennial games. After some discussions on my becoming the minister responsible, he decided to stay in British Columbia for 1987 and possibly 1988. Subsequently, the offer and the ante, I guess, was upped by Washington state for the employment contract for Mr. Butlin, which he ultimately decided to accept.

In discussing with Mr. Butlin the ultimate needs for the Delta Summer Games and the upcoming Dawson Creek games and the Oak Bay-Victoria games, we contracted with him to remain within the employ of the province of British Columbia and the ministry for 60 days, which brought him to a month past the Delta games. That would allow the Delta games to use the expertise of his consultative process and management abilities, along with the acting manager - who ultimately came under the management of my ministry - that we put in place with the staff that was currently operating the games with Mr. Butlin.

MS. EDWARDS: Was there no disagreement between you and Mr. Butlin, and is it not going to be a case of making some adjustments for having broken the contract that had been made?

HON. MR. REID: The answer to the first question is that In a very aggressive ministry such as sports and recreation there are always difficulties with major decisions, when they become a $3 million to $4 million expenditure of government funds, between the manager of a particular department and the minister responsible for the accountability of such funds. When there are questions of concern, ultimately there are little disagreements, but that's the nature of management. We've had some disagreements. I've had disagreements with every one of my senior managers, and I don't make excuses for that. It's because of the requirement that the taxpayers' dollars be accounted for - the accountability - that we deal with those questions when they arise.

Mr. Butlin and I had our disagreements, but it had nothing to do with the operations of the games per se. We did have some discussions relative to my ministry, my department being responsible and accountable for the funds expended on behalf of the taxpayer, which I required some accounting of.

MS. EDWARDS: Was Mr. Butlin pushed, in a word, and will his leaving cost the province some money?

HON. MR. REID: No. As a matter of fact, the decision to leave after the 60-day contract is completed was a mutual agreement, inasmuch as British Columbia did not have the kind of funds available to compete with the state of Washington's offer and to contract Mr. Butlin.

MS. EDWARDS: I believe the ministry had competed with the state of Washington's offer previously, so I find that a little off the other stories. But the minister obviously is there. The minister is obviously being dead on. It must be clear then that there will be no payout from the province for the contract that Mr. Butlin had with the province.

[10:30]

HON. MR. REID: No, no, Madam Member. Let me make it very clear. I did not say there would not be a payout. The man is working for us for the next 60 days, and we are paying him for those services. I would be prepared to provide the member with a copy of the contract that he had with the ministry - that he still has with the ministry - but which has been mutually agreed upon after the 60-day severance period. You could look at the details of it, but it's not my right to release the contents of that contract, because it's a private contract. He is a private contractor.

MS. EDWARDS: I would be pleased to have a copy of that contract.

What concerns me also is what is going to happen to the games from now on. Are they going to be contracted out to another private contractor? What has happened to the B.C. Festival of the Arts, which has just been put to Mr. Butlin? There are the games to come, too. Are they now going to become part of the direct ministry administration? Is there going to be a difference in the approach to the games?

[ Page 2393 ]

1 want to put some context to this because I've had a lot of comment from various communities that have recently hosted the games. As you know, two of them are in my constituency. There is major concern among the people who have experienced the games that they might become something other than the community activity that they have been, that in fact they may change their approach. What the people in these communities liked about the games - and it's not just the two communities in my constituency but also the other communities who have hosted the games - was that they included people of all ages, from very young kids to senior citizens who in fact were participating and were not at the top of the athletic scale.

Is it the intention of the ministry to change the approach and thrust of the games at all? How will they be managed so that they continue to be a community event?

HON. MR. REID: The answer to the first question is yes, there is going to be a minor change in the structure of the games. The answer to the second question is that not only will it have more effect upon the community, but also it will have more athletes involved from further regions within the province, representing further games and competitions within the province. That's the goal.

MS. EDWARDS: What about the status of these athletes? One of the special features of the games which has been repeated to me time after time is that they were not there specifically to gear or groom people for, say, Olympic participation, but in fact were there for the participation of as many people in the community as possible. I'm pleased to hear that you're going to include different sports and activities for people who perhaps have not had the opportunity to get together provincewide and compete. Is there going to be any change in thrust from community participation to athletic excellence on the way to greater and greater competitive achievement?

HON. MR. REID: The answer to the last question is yes, because that's the purpose of the games. Also the purpose of the games is to draw as many people as possible into competition in the games, regardless of their ultimate abilities. The intention is also to draw in the physically disadvantaged and physically challenged who are presently excluded from the Summer and Winter Games.

We have put in place a new board of directors who will address the questions you raise regarding which further athletics should be provided for more citizens of the province of British Columbia. But the one difficulty we have in each community in enlarging the games is that we are precluding currently almost every community in the province with populations of less than 25, 000 from hosting any of the games. So our intention is to fan out, if possible, and give more regional competitions Summer and Winter Games recognition, and from those competitions bring some of the better athletes into closer competition so that the advancement of sport and recreation and athletes in British Columbia in the Western Canada Games, the Canadian championships and international championships is in fact fallout from the Summer and Winter Games.

MS. EDWARDS: Again the purpose of the games, as you say, is to foster better athleticism. One of the statements that has been made to me consistently and strongly is that the idea of the games is to foster the getting together of various people, whether or not they are going to be able to compete at higher levels. In fact, there are rules with the games that if you have achieved a particular level of excellence in competitive sport, then you are not going to participate in the games. It's the old story. You can apply it to anything you like -minor baseball, hockey, whatever.

Are you going to make this program here one of finding your competitive athletes, or are you going to use the program to get everybody involved and create that kind of community spirit that comes with the broad involvement. As I understood it, and as the communities understand it, the value in these games is to have the broad involvement and to foster competitive athletes. There is nothing against that; it's just that that is to be done in another program. I think it has been found consistently in communities over the years that these two directions do not go together. You do not do both things at the same time. Are you telling me that the games are changing their focus?

HON. MR. REID: No, Madam Member, I am not telling you that the games are changing their focus. I'm going to reemphasize that the games are designed for community development and sport development in parallel. Fernie is the perfect example of a small community in the province with many local, community people involved. Arts people are involved, as are athletes and games competitors involved.

That kind of competition is not intended to be changed. In fact, what we want to do is to provide more Fernie-types of competitions around the province of British Columbia as a result of more people becoming involved. The focus will not be entirely on the excellence in the athlete, but it certainly must be one of the goals of the Summer Games and Winter Games.

MS. EDWARDS: I am also concerned and would like information on your comment about a board of directors. I assume that if you have a board of directors, you probably have some kind of society that is going to direct the games. Will that include the Festival of the Arts or is that going to be separate? How are you going to administer those two activities?

HON. MR. REID: The Festival of the Arts has been withdrawn from the application of the Summer and Winter Games. The administration of the Festival of the Arts will not come under the manager of the Summer and Winter Games. The reason that will not happen is that we found in 1987, when we had decided to try it on to see if the administrative structure we had in place, without hiring any more people and with the games having three-day applications for Winter Games and three-day applications for Summer Games, that the personnel and the staff in place by the contractor were sufficiently adequate to provide the same administrative structure for a Festival of the Arts, which was not going on at a competitive time of the other two games.

Lo and behold, we found that when we offered up the opportunity to manage and administer the Festival of the Arts to the manager, he could not conduct with the administrative structure he had in place the Festival of the Arts in 1987 without bringing more people on.

So it became apparent to us that we would then proceed to the Festival of the Arts in Duncan with an offer from the community of Duncan, with volunteer staff of their own who

[ Page 2394 ]

were prepared to put on a Festival of the Arts in 1987 which would compete with any other Festival of the Arts ever held in the province of British Columbia.

I'm proud to say, Madam Member, that the Festival of the Arts which was held in Duncan was probably the best ever -second to Prince George; oh, the member for Prince George (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is not here. The best ever Festival of the Arts that was held in the province of British Columbia - for community impact, community involvement and, I guess, a positive response from the competitors - was the one held in Duncan this year.

As a result of that, we have no intention of drawing into the B.C. Summer and Winter Games the Festival of the Arts in the future.

MS. EDWARDS: But what do you plan to do with both of them? How do you plan to administer the B.C. Summer and Winter Games? How do you plan to administer the Festival of the Arts? Will that be simply a community thing? If that's so, fine. I want to hear about the games.

[10:45]

HON. MR. REID: No, at this point we've had such a successful 1987 Festival of the Arts. By virtue of my senior staff in the cultural department being able to negotiate and operate with the local community people, we were able to do it very successfully without costing the taxpayers any more money in 1987 than any other year. So we were happy about that.

By saying that, the current structure will stay in place. My ministry, through the cultural department, will assist and administer the Festival of the Arts in the coming years - at least in 1988. The Summer and Winter Games has a board of directors appointed that will be responsible for the allocations of which particular games will go into winter or summer competitions, accountability and budget reviews of those communities bidding and hosting the games and discussions with the community relative to the cultural component that they may want to add to it, etc.

That board of directors will be in place. We will also have a society in place which will administer the global scene called the Summer and Winter Games.

MR. BARNES: I'll probably be very brief. I've said that in the past, and managed to extend longer than anticipated.

I appreciate the comments by both the minister and the critic, the hon. member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) who I think is doing a very effective job in keeping watch over the activities under the minister. I want to say that this subject -the Summer Games and Winter Games - is one that I've been interested in from the days when Mr. Butlin first came to the province and took the job from Alberta. In fact, I used to follow them. Wherever they were, I'd go and be involved and try to find a place on the podium so that I could get some attention and show my interest. The minister may be finding himself doing the same thing today. But I haven't had the time in the past few years to be so actively involved, and I don't feel up on the events as much as I have in the past.

Nonetheless, looking historically at the games, we should keep in mind that the late Ernie Hall - who was Provincial Secretary at one time in Dave Barrett's government - introduced the Lottery Act, and at that time we had what we called a fund for sports, culture and recreation. The Provincial Secretary says we still do. It has been expanded somewhat now. It was earmarked for those areas, and I think the kinds of things we were concerned about were fairly clean and the kind of motherhood things that everyone could get involved in and know that the moneys were being expended in the right direction. Today we're scrambling, trying to get sufficient money for culture, the arts and sports, because the new guidelines for making grants with that fund have expanded to the extent that I don't know what all is included - I think, just about everything. It's pretty much subsidizing the general revenue, the coffers of the government today.

That isn't my issue, but it's a point of concern, because there should be a philosophic approach to the games, which substantiates everything the minister said. He agrees that it should be a community event, that we should maximize local participation, and that this should be reflected as much as possible throughout the mosaic in the province in terms of the socio-economic conditions of the various participants. But is that really what we have? I hope it is. I think that the minister, when he's responding, should want to clarify that for us so that we can understand. I want to know: is the government aggressively ensuring that there is that kind of participation?

The late Harry Jerome, for instance, worked for the government doing a program - I think it was the Premier's sports awards - which involved youth in the schools, who were encouraged to participate and develop themselves in whatever way they could. I think this is along the lines of what the member for Kootenay is talking about, because many of these youngsters never saw themselves as competitors in sport. They never saw themselves as even remotely having any ability, but there was this concept that everyone has a potential to do something athletic in one form or another. That's the spirit, the underlying philosophy, that the games should somehow try to celebrate, to dramatize, and not to have it in such a context that only those who reach an obvious level of excellence are the participants. We want to be able to show that there are ways in which we can appreciate the participation of everyone - pretty much along the lines of what Rick Hansen has brought before so many people in terms of the disabled and people who are not able to participate on a par with those people who are, as we say, able-bodied.

I think that that is so vital, in terms of everything we're trying to do in the field of human services, particularly where we have real problems in terms of funding social services, funding the families that are beginning to disintegrate for lack of resources. Unemployment problems and the implications of not having sufficient economic means are tremendous in terms of breakdowns in families and support systems. The problems the schools have in dealing with these youngsters - the dropout rate, the suicide rate with teenagers - should all be tied together in a common fabric that the government has in terms of a philosophical approach to the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars.

So the Summer Games are an opportunity for us to play out some of these theories about the value of participation in sports. It's an opportunity for us to test out these theories in reality. For instance, one of the aldermen in the city of Vancouver very recently suggested that the age should be lowered so that more youngsters could get into the gaming arcades. His reason was that it would get the youngsters off the streets. Get them off the streets; get them into something . . . .

[ Page 2395 ]

What does that suggest to the minister in terms of that group of people? Obviously the alderman sees a lot of youngsters walking the streets, and I certainly do in the city of Vancouver. We're spending a budget this year for the Delta games of around $1 million at least - around $2 million for your share. I'm sure there was much more money spent in terms of volunteers and everyone involved. So it's a tremendously expensive undertaking. In terms of the build-up to these games over the months, it is even greater.

What is our strategy for reaching into those pockets that youngsters normally don't have access to? They don't have sufficient recreational facilities for dropouts from broken homes - street kids. Do we have a strategy in place? Is the minister working with the minister responsible for youth? Are those youngsters today participating in the games? I'm not here to embarrass the minister and say: "Well, we see you're failing; you haven't touched us there . . . ." I hope you are. If you are, you should be saying so, because one of the failings is that we're doing something good and nobody knows about it.

We've got to say that we are in fact not only going to those youngsters . . . . If there are any of those street children out there who we should be getting in touch with and setting up a program for, providing resources and facilities and giving them the guidance and leadership they require, tell us where they are. Let us begin to communicate with them, because that's what the games are all about. Maybe there isn't a site big enough for that type of game. Maybe it should be happening all over at the same time. We have a site for the so-called cream of the crop, in terms of obvious excellence, but all those others should be participating at the same time.

I just wanted to make a statement in terms of the ideal situation with these games. They're a great idea. As one who started out quite young in sports, I can say that the potential for participation in sports can be a great builder of personal strength and character - but not necessarily so. It can also lead a person down the wrong path, unless they get the right direction. It depends on a lot of things. It's like playing with a loaded gun. It can be on target, and it can perhaps get you dinner for the night; or it can backfire and be a very negative thing in the hands of the wrong person.

HON. MR. REID: I thank the hon. member for his comments because he must have been reading my notes; that is the program we have in place and the one we intend to accelerate.

One of the things we need to talk about - and I agree with you wholeheartedly - is that there's one thing we have not done very well. That's why we've brought in and focused closer on the marketing department of the Ministry of Tourism with sports and recreation and - as the member pointed out earlier - arts and culture, and how important it is to give the profile to those athletes regardless of their age. I think the youngest is seven that can compete in some part of the Summer and Winter Games.

There are a quarter of a million athletes in the province of British Columbia competing to get to the Summer and Winter Games. We should accelerate that even further, because I agree with you that the one thing we need to do is provide more outlets. They don't have to be excellence-oriented, and I want to emphasize that. The games should provide as many opportunities for the people in the community regardless of their age and abilities, and the disadvantaged, as you say - I guess the most noteworthy is Rick Hansen - proving to the rest of the world that it's only the challenge that you head for and that you accept that which you can excel in. Whatever the success is, it's the success within yourself. That's what it's all about.

[13:00]

The Summer Games in Delta will probably be the classic of them all. We are going to have the most successful Summer Games in the history of the province. irrespective of all the negative media that's trying to be made of the fact that the manager, Mr. Butlin, decided to go to Washington and work with both games at the same time. We have such a support staff in my ministry and within the games staff and within the community of Delta that there is no way that those games are not going to be a total success. It has over 4, 000 volunteers, 4, 000 competitors, in a community that's so proud to host the Summer and Winter Games. You need only to go near the community of Delta to see the pride in the community.

I give you the assurance. Mr. Member. that when those athletes compete out there, the media coverage and the exposure for those athletes for their effort, regardless of what it is, will be recognized. That's the purpose of the games. We have no intention of ever changing that philosophy. Money providing, we would cover every athlete, regardless of scope, in the province of British Columbia. We have just confirmed that in the Winter Games in Dawson Creek we were adding in netball for ladies, cross-country skiing and judo for the first time ever. That will show you the interest that this ministry has in the concept of sport and community involvement and culture - all part of the B.C. Summer and Winter Games.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the TV crews covering the games. That's one of the other things that I'd like you to clarify. Years ago I tried to question the fairness of a contract, say, going to BCTV to give them the package - I know what the thinking was as far as the company is concerned - so that they can have the first run on what's going on. That puts them in a better position to sell advertising, because they've got the package, but the local community channels were denied the opportunity to have on spot television and were having to show their local stars and participants a week or so later, by agreement. Otherwise there was no deal. Is that still the situation, because that's something I'd like to be brought up to date on.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Member, I thank you for the question, because the only problem we had existing up until yesterday with the Delta games was the question of coverage of television by one service, which precluded the opportunity for a very aggressive local channel wanting to tape and show their own athletes - primarily the Delta athletes, which will be a large number competing, and of course the volunteers, who are a part of all the television coverage. Similar to you, I have inherited the very frustrating position of one chosen television company to cover the games entirely; no one else can tape it or film it or show it within five or six days of the completion of the games. It was one of those little contractual arrangements that was verbally agreed to by the manager of the games, which my ministry and I do not agree with. It is one thing, which, once these games are completed, will not be allowed to happen any longer in British Columbia. I give that assurance. We will go out to provide as much coverage for the athletes in the community as possible in a fair and equitable way, including the opportunity for those communities that want to show the athletes of the local community to

[ Page 2396 ]

the people from the community. I agree with you 100 percent.

MR. BARNES: My final point is perhaps one that may be a little bit more innocuous, but only as a point of information. Could the minister just briefly review the funding approach to these local committees from year to year in terms of how they get their budgets in order to have a cash flow to avoid the out of-pocket expenses that have happened in Delta with some of the volunteers and having to face the embarrassment that results when they aren't able to pay the merchants, who may have advanced services or facilities to them - this kind of thing? Is that going to be dealt with in the future?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Member, first of all I want to make it abundantly clear that the difficulty that arose with both Fernie and Delta was as a result of a position taken by the manager of the games at the time. He had the full authority, as we've always had for ten years, to advance to the operating organization of the games sufficient up-front money to pay the bills, as they generated them, on an approved budget. Delta, unfortunately, did not have an approved budget in place when I took over the ministry, and because it was not in place, I asked for a budget that the ministry could look at and approve so that Delta could get on with . . . . The budget allocated for the operations part of the Delta Summer Games was $825, 000. 1 had not received the request with the details when I took over in early November. In requiring, on an ongoing basis, the details . . . . In requesting them from the manager, I finally got the details, and when we approved them we advanced Delta some money. In the meantime, they had - for the first time ever - three offices open in a summer games operation. All other communities operated with one office. Because of its geography, Delta decided to have three offices: one in North Delta, one in Ladner, one in Tsawwassen. As a result, they accelerated the operational costs of a summer games to a lot larger than any other games we had hosted.

The number they were requesting was higher than any other summer or winter games, so it needed approval of the minister before those kinds of dollars could be approved. There was never a request on behalf of the Delta Summer Games through to the ministry for funds, because we did not administer the funds directly. Those funds were always administered by the contracted manager, who was Mr. Butlin. He in his wisdom had not advanced them sufficient operating money, which he had the authority to do, in order to pay the office employees and some of the suppliers, and I regret that. That was a very unfortunate situation. But as it turned out, once we agreed to the bottom-line number, we immediately advanced them $310, 000, which paid whatever bills were outstanding.

As minister, there's no way that I want anybody in any community to go on the hook as a volunteer for a commitment out of their own pocket to put on a games on behalf of the government and the community. I want to make that abundantly clear. I had no intention of .... I did not have control over that money. I ultimately did take control over the money, obviously, because Delta people were getting very concerned. Incorrect messages were going out that the minister was not going to pay any bills in Delta; that the ministry had no intentions of meeting its commitments in Delta. Nothing could be further from the truth. We agreed to $825, 000, and if they came to me tomorrow for the balance of their money and said, "Mr. Reid, we've made all the commitments; we need to pay our bills; it will all be over around July 24; can we have the balance of your money?" the answer would be yes. It's not a problem.

There's no question in the mind of my ministry that we were doing everything according to Hoyle. There were some problems because communication between the accountant of the summer games in Delta and Mr. Butlin was not as fluid as it should have been, but we took control of that and straightened it out. I don't know of a single problem in Delta. 1 would tell you it's well on to being the best games ever.

MR. BARNES: Possibly you're suggesting that despite Mr. Butlin's administrative expertise and ability, that may have been one of the problems for his decision to take the job in the state of Washington. In other words, he wasn't really on the ball in terms of advancing those funds to the committee. Would it be fair to say that that was a major cause of disagreement between the minister and Mr. Butlin?

HON. MR. REID: Since that is all history, I'd rather not elaborate.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, before we go any further, I would also like to be on the record as saying that I truly appreciate the fact that the games will be extended to include the handicapped; that they don't have to have their games sort of in conjunction and have to run them side by side, which can create some problems that I don't think need to be there. I expect it's likely that Delta is going to have a magnificent games. I'm pleased that the television problem is going to be solved. There were certainly special problems in Fernie, as you well know. Some people think we are really part of Alberta, and in fact we couldn't get the television coverage that the British Columbia games was offering. It was a major mix-up, and I would be pleased if that can be solved. I will certainly follow the games with great interest, because I believe with you that it's a great community animator. I think the number of letters you have received from mayors and other people involved in games indicates to you that that quality of the games is terribly important to the people of this province, and I hope that quality is never lost.

In looking at your estimates and talking about them, Mr. Minister, I went back to Hansard of last year, and one of the things that was brought up was about the museum in Victoria. The Provincial Secretary at the time said: " . . . that great museum which we're all so proud of and which I think all of us have tremendous affinity for. I'm always proud that it remains free to the public. We've always resisted making a charge to the public. I think that's good policy."

Mr. Minister, you obviously disagree with the previous Provincial Secretary who had charge of the Provincial Museum. You made some statements that appeared in the press today where you said there will have to be a whole provincewide howl for you, in fact, to stop museum fees. You have said that you need the fees. They're going now into general revenue, which is a major danger in the minds of some of the people interested in these facilities - the museum and the heritage parks. There was some assurance to the people who were interested that moneys collected by way of fees would not go into general revenue because they stand such a great chance of disappearing in general revenue, that in fact those fees would for sure be returned to the facilities for which they were gathered.

[ Page 2397 ]

Those fees, as I understand it, for the Provincial Museum are $2.4 million; that is about the amount you said you expect to collect in fees. That seems to be the shortfall and the reason for the imposition of the fees. It seems to me, Mr. Minister, that had we a little different attitude toward fees at the museum we might remember that the lottery funds that are being used to cover Expo expenses amount to $7.9 million a month from now to December 1988. That amount is going out of lottery fees to pay for Expo, but we can't afford a $2.4 million expenditure for the Provincial Museum.

That is less than 2 percent of what we're paying for Expo. The comment is that Expo isn't costing us anything because it's coming out of lottery funds. Believe me, Mr. Minister, if those lottery funds were available, 1 don*t think that the people in British Columbia would have to be paying for their heritage in the form of the Provincial Museum and in the form of the two heritage parks and the other smaller facilities that have now got admission fees.

Again I would like the minister to respond. Is there any reason why you could not have found a different method of financing the needs of the Provincial Museum? Why is it that you have supposed that this province's heritage, which has already been paid for by the people of the province . . . . In fact, some of the artifacts and the things at the facilities where the fees are being charged are donated. The volunteers who are working at these facilities are objecting to the fees. Why, Mr. Minister, can you not find a different way to fund the $2.4 million for the museum and the other needs of the heritage facilities in the province?

HON. MR. REID: The answer to the first question -why the need for the funds? - is that the Victoria museum currently costs the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia - which is people from Fernie, Sparwood , Campbell River, Prince Rupert and so on - close to $10 million a year to operate and manage. That's after the artifacts have been acquired and are on display. There is a need for an immediate improvement to the facility in order to accommodate the over 1.5 million visitors, primarily tourists, that are attending those facilities.

If the decision was made to put the money into general revenue, why would it go into general revenue rather than go into the coffers of the facility where the money is collected? If it was deposited into general revenue, it would be to help pay some of the cost of the operation of the museum, which is $10 million a year, and almost $1.5 million for Fort Steele and $1.7 million for Barkerville on an annual basis, paid by the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia. The taxpayers in communities who do not get a chance to utilize those facilities are saying it's time we had some of the users pay the costs.

[11:15]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, the province of British Columbia is the third - I grant you the third, but only the third - provincial museum in the country to charge an entrance fee. Of course, one of the more important parts of your action in establishing this museum fee is that you instituted it mid-season.

In fact, the Friends organizations, certainly of the Provincial Museum - and let's start with the Provincial Museum -have strongly opposed a fee. They suggested that they could have a voluntary donation pattern, and they have increased their voluntary donations since last year. They now believe that they could meet the shortfall of $2.4 million by voluntary fees. Why is it that the minister would not allow the Friends of the Provincial Museum to make that attempt this year, when in fact it's mid-season? It's interrupting the whole process. It is interfering with the smooth operation of the facility. The Friends themselves had not been notified and had not been consulted to the point they expected to be.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the question about the Friends of the Provincial Museum of Victoria, I want to first of all make it abundantly clear that probably there is no more effective group who have done a most creditable job for a museum in North America than the Friends of the Provincial Museum in Victoria, who number 3, 700, and of whom we are very proud. They operate a gift store second to none, I think, in Canada. They do a very effective job. I want to make it abundantly clear to the members this morning: there was some comment in the paper which is very incorrect - surprise, surprise. The comment was that this government intends to privatize the gift store and take it away from the Friends of the Provincial Museum. That is not an intention. That is not a matter of discussion, and it is not on the list.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REID: I wanted to make it abundantly clear to the member and to the other members here that the Friends of the Provincial Museum society had made a very attractive offer to the ministry about operating the museum under the Friends of the Provincial Museum society. They've done a very effective job of collecting in the last couple of years - a donation process - and we're proud of that. We've had some discussions with them, and they're so proud of the facility that at this point . . . . I ~ve met with a large segment of the board previously when they asked for a meeting with me, and I'm prepared to meet with them at any time again, in case there are some unresolved concerns. But at this point I think we have a very cooperative approach between my ministry and staff, the curator, manager and director of the museum, and the Friends of the Provincial Museum society.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's a very appropriate time to make this announcement, in my opinion, in that we're debating the estimates of the hon. Minister of Tourism, within whose jurisdiction the museum falls.

Early in the year, in my capacity as secretary of state for the province, I applied through the channels - through His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor - to use the prefix "royal" in conjunction with the museum. I'm now pleased that I am in receipt of a letter dated June 17, 1987, from Mr. A.P. Smyth, deputy secretary, policy and program office of the Governor-General of Canada, which advises me that Her Majesty the Queen is pleased to approve the Governor-General's recommendation that the prefix be granted. Following a formal granting of the prefix - which ought to occur later on this year, hopefully - the new name of the institution will be known as the Royal British Columbia Museum.

MR. G. HANSON: Well, there's nothing in that designation - which of course we would be very proud to have affixed to our Provincial Museum - that calls for a $5 admission fee to get in.

[ Page 2398 ]

Mr. Chairman, I'm very agitated over this particular decision of this minister. As some members know, I was a former employee in that institution, and I happen to know that the level of commitment and excellence that has existed there .... The morale, I believe, is not good at the moment. It has not been for some period of time because of the direction this government has been taking with this institution.

Just at the moment I'm speaking, they are cutting into the plaza in front of the museum to bring over some converted hotdog stand from Expo, to be a fare-box arrangement in front of the windows that house the house-posts and poles from the coast of British Columbia.

I think the whole direction the government is taking on this matter is very petty indeed, rather than regarding it as a public educational institution that all British Columbians, no matter where they reside in this province, can take personal pride in showing - not only to our own visitors, but to our own people - what our natural history heritage and our human history heritage happens to be.

That museum, the quality of displays, the curatorial expertise, is because the people are committed to showing the best we have to the people of this province and the people of this world, our visitors who come to see us. That is why the excellence exists. I am sure that people such as Jean Andre, who was the person who put the displays in place and is now consultant to world-class museums all around the world, would be very offended to see what course this government is taking.

What this status that is going to be assigned to this museum means is that the funding level of that institution is going to gradually decline over time, probably to about 60 percent, starting at something like 75 percent. The rest has to be absorbed out of the fare-box. That also has implications of uncertainty around staffing and what sort of money is available. It appears from the newspapers that it's possible that the money will not be reinvested in that institution from a special fund. We've seen that kind of precedent avoided many times. In fact, with special funds that have been established, the money has been scooped into general revenue. I would certainly want to hear from the minister whether those funds would be earmarked into a special fund.

We feel the direction is wrong. We feel it offends the people of this province. It's not just another turnstile to collect money; it is showing our best. It is showing what this province is all about. I had personal experience working on the Indian exhibits, both the archeological and ethnological exhibits that are there, and the display people who were present at that time, and some of them still remain, are among the most talented that this country has to offer.

But you know, when you turn that into a so-called "attraction" and see it entirely within those terms, you're missing the point. It's a public educational institution which is something of pride to all British Columbians. This turnstile that appears to be coming over on the ferry, I gather, is a stucco turnstile. They're cutting stone into the pavilion area just beside the large windows that house the beach diorama with the house posts. We're going to have a little stucco kiosk there. I gather that the city of Victoria wouldn't even grant the electrical permits for it, and yet the work is proceeding, cutting into the stone and setting it up.

It seems to me to be an absolutely ignorant course that the government is taking on this matter. You don't even seem to understand the arguments that we're making. In terms of accessibility for the people, I gather you're looking at establishing different standards of access with paying full or reduced rates, and so on. That is not what that museum is all about. That museum is about total access to the citizens and visitors that come to that place to see our very best and the interpretation of our natural and human heritage. What is wrong with the government undertaking the obligation to carry the can financially on that, to put our best foot forward and say to the people of this province and to visitors: this is our heritage, this is what we're proud of; we're not going to shake you down to get into this institution?

So my question is: why don't you cease and desist? Why don't you tell those people to stop cutting into that area outside the museum in front of the displays? Why don't you say we're not going to put a little stucco, converted hotdog kiosk there to take $5 fees to get into the museum, but that we're going to open it up and make it accessible to all British Columbians and all visitors as a source of pride?

HON. MR. REID: First of all, to a former employee who will probably be a new employee after the next election - if we have any FI`E available - I can appreciate the concern the member has. It has certainly been a protected domain of the members from Victoria to look after, a taxpayer-costed operation from the rest of the province of British Columbia with not a penny coming out of the city of Victoria to help operate the Victoria museum.

The fact of the matter is that it currently costs the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia close to $10 million to operate and manage the facility called the museum in Victoria.

MR. G. HANSON: How much did you spend on the trade convention party the other day?

HON. MR. REID: I didn't spend anything. Not a penny. In fact, I was invited as a guest; I wish they had asked me to pay. I'd have been happy to pay because it was well worth it whatever it was. The tourists from around the world are going to be invited, and they're going to pay their way to the province of British Columbia. They're going to pay, and they're happy to pay, to see some of the greatest facilities, including the museums and those others attractions in the province of British Columbia.

I can appreciate your concern, Mr. Member, because it was a former employee location of yours, probably destined to be again. It is a fantastic facility, but the taxpayers of the province have finally gone to the well once too often to pay for one facility that's located only in Victoria. It's not around the province of British Columbia; it's in one location. The people in the rest of the province are saying: "It's time that those users from around the world who come to see the world's best museum help to pay the costs of improvement and upkeep."

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister obviously has no understanding of the feeling that the people around the province have for this institution. He's betraying his ignorance here to this House. We can only say, "Shame on the minister!" because people of this province are happy to have that source of cultural pride for our province. There's a lot that could be done in traveling exhibits and satellite museums tied to that institution.

[ Page 2399 ]

The minister says money. This government is the biggest spendthrift with the public money that history has ever shown. We've got northeast coal with billions of public dollars expended. We've got all sorts of other public works that have been overexpended. Yet here we have a relatively modest amount of public funds used for a purpose that is of the highest order, that is world-class and of world calibre. Yet this small-scale turnstile mentality has to prevail, and all I can say is shame on the minister for adopting this approach.

[11:30]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had completed my remarks, and I will make just a few brief ones *

I want to canvass the minister again as to the completeness of some of his remarks respecting the termination of games manager Ron Butlin. It has come to my attention from a fairly reliable source that Mr. Butlin believes that the $2.5 million to be spent on the Fernie and Delta projects will be an absolute waste if the present pattern of finalization continues. That is through a communication that had apparently been made to the minister.

What I'm asking the minister is: would he rethink his desire not to engage in any of the altercations - let's call them altercations - that may have taken place between himself and Mr. Butlin, for reasons of sensitivity? I can understand that, but I think the House should get the facts as they are. If Mr. Butlin was fired subsequent to serious disagreements with the minister, then I think the House should know that. I don't think that's any cause for undue embarrassment. It's not even that unusual.

If that is what happened, we shouldn't be calling it a friendly handshake, when in fact there were a couple of clubs being swung around the place. Was there a serious disagreement between the minister and Mr. Butlin on methods of bringing about the games and conducting the games? If so, I think the minister should come clean and tell the House exactly what happened. Was Mr. Butlin in fact fired? Is that the bottom line?

HON. MR. REID: The answer to the question is no, Mr. Butlin was not fired. Mr. Butlin is still an employee. If you fire somebody, they're gone. He is still an employee.

Mr. Butlin had signed a new contract in Washington state; subsequently he is working with the state of Washington. We will not continue to operate in the province of British Columbia with somebody who is working with some other employer at the same time. So we're using his contractual knowledge and his managerial knowledge to complete the Summer Games in Delta. But he left of his own accord, with an agreement between the two parties that he would help us manage the balance of the games until the Delta games were completed, and all of the fine details and all of the verbal contracts he made along the way could be confirmed or reconfirmed - so that people in Delta were not hung out to dry, not knowing what was committed to and left in place.

I think it's working very amicably. I don't have any problem with Mr. Butlin continuing to work with us. I'm happy that he provides the time to come and do that, while he's also doing the games in Washington. So we're using his expertise whenever we need to, but there was no .... We didn't fire Mr. Butlin. Mr. Butlin left of his own agreeable accord. He agreed to take a contract somewhere else.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman. if Mr. Butlin wasn't fired, would you fire a person who suggested that if conditions continue as they are today . . . ? In other words, if the Fernie project which is being developed - the Winter Games - and the present Delta games continue under the same pattern of finalization as today, and if he is in fact saying that to the Premier of the province - and he has said that to the Premier earlier this month, sending a copy to you - should he be fired? Because he is suggesting that it is an absolute waste of $2.5 million and has put that in writing.

I ask the minister: has he received a copy of a letter sent to the Premier by Mr. Ron Butlin earlier this month?

HON. MR. REID: The answer to the question is yes, I have received some letters, and I think one of them was directed to the Premier, which I got a copy of. I think the answer is yes.

MR. BARNES: Did the letter suggest that the proceedings, as they presently are being conducted, would be an absolute waste unless there were some changes taking place?

HON. MR. REID: Yes.

MR. BARNES: And under those conditions, is the minister saying that he would continue to employ such a person who would suggest that it is an absolute waste? What is he being paid for, for conducting a ... ? That sounds like a pretty frivolous use of taxpayers' dollars, in my view.

HON. MR. REID: The answer to the question is that we have the manager with ten years' experience who had contractual arrangements, verbally, with different parties in the community; we must have the opportunity to confirm or deny that those contacts are in fact in place. That the contractor decides to write to the Premier about what he perceives in his opinion may be a direction.... It's fair enough, because he's no longer the manager of the games; he's a contractor at the moment. Anybody can write to the Premier and send me a copy. I'm surprised how you know about it, because it was marked personal and confidential to the Premier.

[Ms. Gran in the chair.]

MR. BARNES: I couldn't have proved it until you confirmed it. I was really asking you a question, and you just confirmed it. So you know how these things happen. It's getting to be more and more like Oliver North all of the time, isn't it?

Well, Madam Chairman, I've satisfied myself that there is an issue at hand here, and I don't wish to belabour it. I think the minister has responded as far as he intends to respond. There is a matter here of serious concern, when a so-called former employee is still employed and wasn't fired and is denigrating the job that he is doing, while at the same time he's being paid to do it. It'll be very interesting to see his contractual arrangements which the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) has asked for and the minister has promised to provide - the contract that he has with Mr. Butlin. I'll be very interested to see the conditions of that contract.

MR. VANT: Again, on the minister's vote, I want to commend him and his ministry for promoting the Gold Rush Trail right up through the great Cariboo constituency. I want

[ Page 2400 ]

to say, too, that the Barkerville park has been in our provincial system since 1958, and our government has spent no less than $25 million there - $25 million since 1958, and of course there are the ongoing operating costs. I realize the very sincere desire to raise revenues to keep this major tourist attraction operating.

I'm also aware, though, that it's also a townsite. Two major institutions have survived for over 100 years there. I am referring, of course, to the Masonic lodge and to the Anglican church. I am concerned, for example, that the Rt. Rev. John Snowden, the Bishop of Cariboo, may be charged an entrance fee to get into the townsite to go to preach in the church, which the diocese of Cariboo owns. Also, I've heard from Rt. Worshipful Brother Harold Turner, the Worshipful Master of Cariboo Lodge No. 4, about access to the Masonic lodge, which they still own in the Barkerville townsite.

So it's not only one of our provincial parks; it is a townsite, and it's a little bit different than the museum here in Victoria. As I understand the museum here, once you get in you can see all kinds of things that are virtually free. Once you get into Barkerville you pay to go to an excellent show in the Theatre Royal, you pay for a campsite, you pay for a root beer, you pay to go gold-panning, you pay for meals, horseback riding or whatever. The government gets a slice. I must admit, it's a very small slice or portion of the profits that these private operators under contract with the government make on these various operations. I would like to see, for that townsite and park, alternative measures of raising revenue. They could perhaps restore some of the old-time gambling that was prevalent there. It would be historic, authentic, and would add to the attraction and be an alternate source of revenue. With the great amount of money that the government spent promoting Barkerville, I could see all these businesses flourishing and the government getting more revenue through their portion of those profits.

I would like the hon. minister to respond to my comments about the Barkerville park. As I've said, it's also a townsite, and I'm concerned about access for the people who have private property in that townsite.

HON. MR. REID: We've had some discussions on it, and as he knows, on June 20 1 paid a visit to Barkerville to meet with the business concessionaires there and with those people who have private property in that historic town. We've had some discussions with the concessionaires and those people who are intending to attend the church there. As the member well knows, that's where he made most of his living before he became a politician. The manager of the park has the full authority to grant access to the townsite free to any of those operators of either the church or the lodges, and after 5 o'clock at night there is no charge for any attendance in the townsite. The intention is for the manager to have cooperative free attendance provisos for those local people who are volunteers; for people who are going to the post office for their mail, which is a unique post office in the province; for the churchgoers and lodge attenders.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I have to pull rank here, 1 guess. I simply cannot accept your statement that Victoria is being unfairly supported by the Provincial Museum. The first person who spoke to me about Provincial Museum admission fees was in Cranbrook, and the next ones came in from there. That's right across the province, and they do not want fees for the Provincial Museum. The people who have been there know it's a provincial resource. They know it has been free to the people of British Columbia, and they know that the reason we have let visitors in for free is because it draws custom to the surrounding businesses. It makes the tourist activity considerably larger than it would otherwise be.

That whole rationale, Mr. Minister, is exactly the rationale for Expo 86. If you think the museum in Victoria and the heritage parks in Barkerville and Fort Steele are any less likely to draw tourists, are any less likely to bring tourists back, are any less likely to show all our visitors the very essence of what this province is, then I would like to hear you say that. To me, those places show the essence of the province considerably better than Expo 86 did. As exciting, as magnificent and as international as it was, it did not do what these particular facilities are doing for this province. I think the minister needs to tell me some reason . . . . Even if you up the ante and go beyond the Provincial Museum to include the $1.7 million for Fort Steele and the $1.4 million that you want for Barkerville, so that you're up to $5.8 million, that is still not even a monthly payment for the Expo 86 debt. That comes out of the funds that we are forgoing out of the lottery funds in order for Expo to go ahead.

Would the minister please tell me if he sees that these facilities are doing less of a job than Expo did?

[11:45]

HON. MR. REID: First of all, I'm not surprised that the people the member hears from are not the people I hear from. You have a different philosophy. Everything has to be free in British Columbia; that's the philosophy of your party. I have no argument with that. The people I'm talking to are saying it's time the users from outside the province were asked to pay their fair share. As a result of putting together a marketing program . . . . You know, last year we marketed Fort Steele internationally with $7, 000. You can't even pay the postage on one mailing-out for $7, 000. This year, this government is putting $150, 000 into marketing those very attractive facilities that the taxpayers have been paying to maintain. We need to get further tourists into the community - not only into those facilities but into the community - to help sustain the economic generation in the second largest industry in the province, which is tourism: $3.2 billion in 1986 and destined to be $3 billion in 1987.

We need to create some employment in the province in hospitality. The admission fee structure will create more employment for those facilities and will draw more people to the facilities because of the aggressive marketing program we're putting in place in order to make them attractive and available to people in British Columbia and the world other than a very select group of people in downtown Victoria.

MS. EDWARDS: I think that you're absolutely correct, that there should be more money put into the promotion of some of these areas because, in fact, they are an economic generator. That's why we put money into them. We know that what you're trying to do in the ministry by putting culture in with tourism is marry the two. What we don't want is one overtaking the other. I think that's been a tradition in this province. As 1 pointed out, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch), as recently as last year, said that the government over on that side is very much opposed to fees at the Provincial Museum. What you've done is institute fees in the middle of a season against the wishes of the people who are there.

[ Page 2401 ]

You say you're trying to create jobs. Talk to the people who have the concessions, the people who have the contracts at the heritage parks, about whether in fact you are creating jobs by putting in a fee in the middle of the season, a fee that is $5 strong, when they believed that they could do the same job with voluntary donations. It seems to me, Mr. Minister, that that is not doing the job that you expected to do.

MR. BLENCOE: Before I discuss the fee issue, Madam Chairman, I'd like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd like to introduce in the House today Prof. Bill Ross of the University of Victoria geography department, somebody I have known for a long time and whom I've worked with over the years. Would the House please make Dr. Ross welcome this morning.

Along with my colleague from Victoria and, I believe, my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, I want to talk a little about the Provincial Museum this morning. The question of charging fees - I don't think anyone disagrees, and the minister will also agree with this - has certainly come as a great surprise to this community and, 1 think, the province as a whole.

The minister this morning said that the only way to stop the fees would be "a province wide howl, " I think was the quote from the newspaper; I don't know whether the minister actually stated that. I don't think there is any question, Madam Chairman, that if we were to take a survey across the province, one thing that would come back about that museum would be the overwhelming level of support for the work that it does and the fact that people in this community and other communities - interested people, children and families -have free access to that museum.

There's always been a tradition, and I think it's been one worth upholding . . . . I know the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Curtis, whenever this issue came up, was always the first to defend the museum in terms of free access. Now we seem to have a dramatic change by this government, which seems to be bent on applying user fees - double taxation systems - wherever possible. The minister shakes his head. Well, you know, Madam Chairman, what we've got - and we all know why this is happening - is a government that consistently over the last ten years has driven this province financially close to bankruptcy. Now what we have, through the budget and various other user fees, is this government about to charge, in a double taxation form, citizens of this province and this community ....

MR. MOWAT: And visitors.

MR. BLENCOE: And visitors, yes. They are going to hit people again for an institution like the museum, which in my estimation should not be subject to double taxation. It's totally unacceptable; it's going to hurt this community and it's going to hurt the province. I don't think there's any question about that.

MR. MOWAT: That's what you said about Expo.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I'll tell you what. Many of the things that you have done over the last few years, through you, Madam Chairman, to that member, in terms of the bad deals you've made for this province, are the reason why we now have this kind of user fee introduced, and people are having to pay for it.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, it's a clear revenue grab by this minister and this government from families and people who want to appreciate their history. A $5 fee - it's unbelievable that you could subject our history, our past, to such a blatant revenue-grab, and we cannot accept that.

Madam Chairman, I want to ask the minister some direct questions. Is this move to introduce user fees the first stage of privatization of the Provincial Museum?

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, to the minister: have there been any studies or reports or briefs prepared to look at the possibility of privatizing the Provincial Museum or any aspects of the Provincial Museum?

HON. MR. REID: The answer is no.

MR. BLENCOE: Is there any intent to privatize the museum in its entirety, or any aspects of the museum?

HON. MR. REID: Since that's future policy, I'm not prepared to answer that at this moment, because I'm not aware.

MR. BLENCOE: Is it accurate that it has been stated by your staff or others that the gift shop and the operations currently operated by the Friends of the Provincial Museum may indeed be considered illegal by the government, and that this government wants to grab that revenue as well?

HON. MR. REID: The answer is unequivocally no. I don't know where you got that garbage.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm just asking questions, Madam Chairman, and by the minister's reaction obviously have hit a nerve.

Madam Chairman, is there any intention to create a Crown corporation around the Provincial Museum and therefore put it in the pot for selling off for privatization?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The same question to the minister: is it the intention of the minister or of the government to create a Crown corporation to operate the Provincial Museum?

HON. MR. REID: Madam Chairman, because of the nature of the requirement to charge an admission fee to the museum and the concerns of the Friends of the Provincial Museum society, we are looking at all alternatives for the ongoing operation, maintenance and upkeep of the world's best museum.

MR. BLENCOE: Will the minister then answer: in considering all alternatives or all options, is he saying that a Crown corporation is an option?

[ Page 2402 ]

HON. MR. REID: Sure, that's an option; it's one of many options. We have many options, and I want to make it abundantly clear to the member so he doesn't distort the answer: there are many options that we are looking at in order to protect, first of all, the incredible asset of the province of British Columbia, which will always remain an asset of the province of British Columbia - not an asset of anybody else's, but of the province and the taxpayers of British Columbia.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, given the user fees being put in place and the expected revenue generation, could I ask the minister: if a purchaser from the private sector came forward offering to buy the Provincial Museum, would the minister consider such an offer?

HON. MR. REID: The answer is unequivocally no. We have a perfect example operating in the province of British Columbia under my ministry at the moment: the Royal Hudson Society, which is an asset of you and me as taxpayers, and will continue to be. It is managed by a society of business people and volunteers in the community - unpaid - who administer an incredible asset and look after it on behalf of the taxpayers; but the asset belongs entirely to the province of British Columbia.

MR. BLENCOE: A further question, Madam Chairman. Have there been any offers from the private sector to purchase the Provincial Museum?

HON. MR. REID: The answer is no. I can tell you that our inventory of the current assets in the Victoria museum are in excess of $350 million. That is the market value, if you were ever going to the market.

I'll make it abundantly clear to you and the rest of your colleagues that as long as it's under my ministry and my management, it will never be considered for sale or privatization.

MR. BLENCOE: We have to clarify that. How about certain aspects of the operation of the Provincial Museum? Have you had any offers from the private sector to operate concessions or gift shops or components that are operated by the Friends of the Museum?

HON. MR. REID: I'm not aware of a positive offer. On an ongoing basis, because of other similar operations in museums internationally and because of its tourism potential, I think there are touring companies that have made ovations to the Friends of the Museum and the director, for the restaurant concession and/or the gift store. But it's not something that the ministry is considering, nor am I aware of anything positive in writing or anything of that nature.

MR. BLENCOE: Let me get this really clear. Can the minister categorically state today that the Provincial Museum is not part of the considerations of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who is responsible for privatization? Is it not part of those considerations -100 percent?

HON. MR. REID: It is not part of the privatization considerations. It is totally within my ministry, and we're not even discussing it.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I want to understand. 1 have some questions about the status of the royal designation which was given. Can the minister tell us what kind of special considerations the museum will achieve from having royal designation?

[12:00]

HON. MR. REID: In answer to the member's question, I'm not absolutely certain what it will achieve. I do know that it will offer a profile which, I think, is well-deserved, because the Royal Ontario Museum has a designation called "Royal."

When the Royal Hudson was proclaimed the Royal Hudson, that gave it a higher profile internationally than just "the Hudson" previously had. So I'm excited about the news from the Provincial Secretary today that that's finally come about, because it was applied for under the previous Provincial Secretary, who became the Finance minister. The Finance minister made a request while he was the Minister of Finance and then ultimately the Provincial Secretary, and he was excited about that potential. I'm not certain why he was extremely excited about it. But it's good news; I'm sure it's good news. The determination of a royal museum will give us a higher profile internationally.

MR. BLENCOE: I am going to carry on with this line of questioning. With the royal designation, will this permit the museum and the Friends of the Museum to access better tax benefits, tax breaks, donations and bequests? Many museums around the world have been able to maintain their free access because they've been able to up their profile in terms of the bequest system and the foundations that go along with them. Therefore they have not had to charge for access to museums.

I wonder if the minister has considered the fact - now that you have royal designation - that charging may no longer be necessary.

HON. MR. REID: I'm going to use the most perfect example that we have in Canada today, and that's the Royal Ontario Museum, which charges $4.50. It has been in place a for a few years, and that's one of the examples that we used when we discussed with other international attractions what fee structure should be established for entrance to the museum.

On the question about needing royal designation for acquisition of further artifacts, I can tell you that we have a larger inventory of undisplayed artifacts than any other in museum, I think, in the world. So we're not in need of any further displays. What we do need as a museum is further distribution of some of those undisplayed artifacts, but we need the funds to do it. Part of the process of the collection of fees from the 85 percent of those visitors who are tourists to British Columbia .... They're not double-taxed because they're not taxpayers at the moment, but they are recipients of a museum provided by the taxpayers of British Columbia anxious to pay their portion of the cost.

That income will allow us some flexibility in touring not only provincewide, but also Canada-wide and internationally, such displays as, for example, the northwest native Indian legacy that we put on display in Los Angeles this spring. As a result of our display which we sent down there, we drew into that museum double their attendance over a period of three months. That tells you the quality of the legacy that unfortunately we sit on within the confines of the

[ Page 2403 ]

buildings over there, which should be displayed internationally. There's one over there right now that I'm excited about, which will be displayed internationally at the end of August because we're going to find the funds. That's the birds of prey, which is currently on display. It's absolutely incredible what this museum has to offer, but under the current operational process and the funds that I have available as the minister responsible - close to $10 million . . . . I do not have any additional funds to offer those displays internationally. What a shame!

MR. BLENCOE: The minister says he hasn't got the funds. Well, it's a matter of priorities. We've seen lavish spending by this government over the last few years on other things. This museum is a priority, I would suggest, in the lives of the people of British Columbia. If you had thought on innovative and progressive things like a royal designation, and then looked at how that would stimulate private support and foundations, I think you could have avoided this crazy user-fee situation.

You're hurting this museum. You're hurting our reputation. You're certainly hurting my community and the tourism industry. They've been trying to get hold of you for quite a while. They can't get any information out of you. They're deeply concerned about what you're doing to this community. All I can say is that this is going back to the old days when this government looked anywhere it could to make a buck. It would make a buck on the backs of children and families in this province, and add any user fee it could. It's a totally shabby attack on families who like to go to that museum free. It's double taxation.

HON. MR. REID: I want to make it clear to that member - and for the record - that I have not denied a visit with or a talk to a single member in the province, whether they're from Victoria or otherwise, on their concerns about the admission fee to the museum in Victoria. It is a lie to this House that I have refused to meet . . . .

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister . . .

HON. MR. REID: Let me finish.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: . . . would you please withdraw the comment.

HON. MR. REID: I withdraw the statement about a lie, but it's sure a big mistruth.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, you have to withdraw the whole thing.

HON. MR. REID: I withdraw. He probably didn't mean it because it was an inaccurate statement, so he doesn't know what he's talking about. So I withdraw.

MR. BLENCOE: He knows, and I know, that it's not only private citizens who are deeply concerned about the impact of these user fees; the tourist community is also deeply concerned about the impact. I heard an open-line radio station talk about this issue for two hours, and the calls came in not only from Victoria but from the south, in terms of the United States. When people heard that we were going to charge for a beautiful museum, they couldn't believe what we were doing. The tourist industry is concerned about this issue.

All I have to say is that this, once again, is the attitude of this government, to take on this issue, charging children and families and school groups and those kinds of organizations so they can go and see their history. When you spend money . . . . This government throws it out of the back of a truck for some projects, and yet now you're going to hit the children, the families and the visitors to this province and this community. I cannot believe the attitude of this government. We are diametrically opposed to this move, Madam Chairman. We would hope this minister would listen.

For instance, I haven't heard a word from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), the member for Saanich; I haven't heard a word from the Attorney-General (HON. B.R. Smith) on this issue. Those are two Social Credit members from this area - where are they? Did you consult with them? Were they consulted? The Minister of Finance agrees and the Attorney-General agrees. That shows for Hansard, on the record, that the Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia do agree to the user fees, which of course impact on their ridings.

I should add that the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Curtis, always fought this. Well. it would appear that his successor, the Minister of Finance today, is prepared to see these kinds of user fees in place.

Madam Chairman, I believe my colleague wants to continue, but I want to listen to the further debate on this issue. Hopefully, this government will come to its senses.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I think that there's another aspect to this issue that we haven't canvassed as thoroughly as we might, and that is the feeling of various volunteers vis-à-vis the charges at the heritage parks and at the Provincial Museum - but in particular at the heritage parks. The Fort Steele park, for example, runs basically on the donations of time and effort of a whole organization of volunteers; there are approximately 65 volunteers who in fact provide most of the active show that's going on at Fort Steele over the summer.

Mr. Minister, I know this is not the only letter that you've received; you've received a number, and I'm sure you've heard a lot of this. This is one of the letters that I have from a volunteer at Fort Steele. It says:

"I am adamantly against charging admission to British Columbia heritage parks. It seems that the powers that be are more concerned with dollars than people. If this goes into effect, then the East Kootenay area will lose tourists. I am a volunteer at Fort Steele, and I believe most of the 65 volunteers will regretfully quit. If you go ahead with this charge, then drop the volunteer program and consider paying them staff wages."

That's one of the aspects of what's happening. In general, your approach to the volunteers has been incomplete - to be most generous about the way it's been. In fact, just to talk about the volunteers alone, Fm not sure that you were in contact with them formally at Fort Steele. If you were. you certainly did not hear that they were in favour of this. You talked to the merchants' council; I'm not sure that you talked to the volunteers. I put it to you: did you talk to those volunteers? Did you consult with the volunteers at Barkerville? How extensively did you talk with other people who

[ Page 2404 ]

have volunteered their time at the other museums across the province?

There will be a major effect on the other museums across the province. It was cited in the article this morning in the Times-Colonist. Of the other museums across the province -and they are fairly substantial, Mr. Minister; there are a number of museums that do a great job in the province -there are 82 percent that do not charge admission. That is a magnificent volunteer approach. If 82 percent of the museums in British Columbia do not charge admission, right along with the heritage parks that don't charge admission, now they're probably going to be forced into that situation.

In this province where the whole tourist cost is considered to be considerably high, I wonder if you could explain to us why you have not consulted more closely with volunteers in the whole museum movement across British Columbia.

HON. MR. REID: We discuss and are constantly in contact with the volunteers in all of the communities of the province, and primarily those communities which are operated with taxpayers' moneys. The other 82 percent or 84 percent of the museums in the province are not paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia out of general revenue. Those which are - Fort Steele, Barkerville, Craigflower Manor, Point Ellice House and the Carr House in Victoria, and Kilby House - are all drains on the taxpayers' dollars, having limited numbers of visitors because of the number of marketing dollars available.

Fort Steele town, for the incredible facility it is, attracts t70, OOO people in total - up until this year. We are marketing that in such a manner that we hope to add about 25 percent more attendance to that facility and increase the pride of the people who are volunteering there, to show the people from outside the province of British Columbia what kind of facility it is - not reducing the attendance, but increasing the attendance. Madam Member, I would challenge you to prove at this moment that the attendance at Fort Steele has not increased in 1987 over 1986.

MR. BRUCE: I'd just like to comment a little on the aspect of admission fees for museums.

In my particular riding, we have the British Columbia Forest Museum. This came about because the citizens in that area put the land together - the municipality, the city of Duncan and the community as a whole. It was some time before the provincial government got involved in sponsoring that museum and became a major player in providing funds for the museum. But we have always had an admission fee to get into that museum. Granted, to date, it is not of the same status, perhaps, as the museum here in the city of Victoria, and it may not be of the same status as several others throughout British Columbia, such as Barkerville or Fort Steele. But it is a fast-growing museum, and we are constantly looking for ways and means of increasing our revenues to develop the museum to a much greater extent than it already is. It will be, and is now becoming, a major player in the development of the economy of the Cowichan-Malahat area.

But it takes dollars to be able to turn it into the fullfledged exhibit that it can be. It will be one of the main heritage stories of the province of British Columbia in telling the forestry sector - in telling the people of this province and the people who come to visit this province - what forestry means to our community of Cowichan-Malahat, to the province of British Columbia, and indeed to the country of Canada. It takes dollars to do that.

As much as I understand and hear the arguments for admission fees for these different facilities, and as hard as it is for people to recognize when they have a facility which is already free, from the point of view of not having to pay admission fees to someday finding themselves having to pay admission fees . . . . As hard as it is for people to understand that, it's also important to understand, on the flip side, the other types of developments in other parts of this province -particularly in communities such as mine that are working very hard - and the need for other revenues.

Admission fees are there in part for a number of areas, and certainly are an important, integral part of being able to finance and expand those other facilities and communities that are not fortunate enough, to date, to have facilities such as the Provincial Museum.

[12:15]

The other thing I would like to comment on in particular is what the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) was saying about the concern that the tourist industry here in Victoria may have about the advent of admission fees at the Provincial Museum. I'm sure there are concerns. However, I would also like to point out that never before in the history of this province and the history of this government has such attention been paid to the development of the tourist industry on Vancouver Island and the influx of provincial dollars through Partners in Tourism and other promotional activities granted to the community of Vancouver Island to bring people not only to the city of Victoria, but to all extents and regions on Vancouver Island, as is being paid by this government right now. With that type of dollar expended - not only provincially, but internationally - will come a much greater tourist trade and traffic, which will improve and expand the economy of Vancouver Island, and that must be understood.

HON. MR. REID: I thank the member for his comments, because I think they relate to your comments earlier, Mr. Member, about the assets of the province and the possibility of privatization of the assets. The perfect example is the member from Duncan's description of the forestry museum. Those assets are owned primarily by the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia, loaned to the community of Duncan for that particular museum to operate up there. They charge $4.50 and have done so on a continuous basis, and they have a requirement this year, I understand, to improve the facilities up there, as in any other opportunity for public attention. I commend them for their aggressiveness, but I also commend them for having the foresight in the past to charge an admission in order to provide a display of, I guess, the best collection of forestry equipment and display of forestry activities anywhere in the world.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, I had concluded but now 1 want to add something else, because the member has sparked an issue that I want to raise. I'm getting a sense of the direction of this minister and this government as to what they're going to do with the museum, which led me into the direct privatization questions.

We'll wait to see whether we do get privatization of the museum, but I'm wondering whether we are going to get an end-run around direct privatization, and therefore greater removal of public or government support for the museum, by saying to a society or an organization, "Here is the museum;

[ Page 2405 ]

you run it and you raise the dollars to support it, " therefore extracting your traditional responsibility for supporting that museum. I've seen that happen many times, and everyone says, "Great! We have given them a non-profit society, or whatever, to operate, " and this member was talking about that. And then what do you do? You pull the rue, out from underneath that non-profit society and say: "well, we don't have any money, or we have little money; you'd better raise the money yourself."

I am getting a hint of where this government is going with this museum, because if . . .

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, the minister just admitted something and I just want to get on record here that what he is intending to do is to create a society or a corporation, or whatever, and say to that society, "The museum is your responsibility and the finances are your responsibility, " and therefore remove, slowly but surely, government support from that museum.

HON. MR. REID: In answer to the member, I take the question to be: does this minister anticipate further volunteer people, private non-profit organizations, managing and administering some of the assets that are currently either in storage or in warehouses around the province for the attention of local people and tourists, without further burden upon the taxpayers of the province? The answer is yes.

MS. EDWARDS: I just wanted to follow up too, and it's exactly on this point. The minister is quoted as saying and has confirmed that he is considering having the museum run by a non-profit society. This basically seems to be the direction of what's happening at Barkerville and Fort Steele.

If I may just explain to the rest of the House, the minister, through the ministry, has seen that there are two organizations established, much like the Friends of the Royal Hudson, which you were talking about. In fact, what happened in Barkerville was that the minister went in and took an organization that was called Friends of Barkerville, and it had been established in the traditional way that we understand Friends societies . . . . The local community had formed it in order to enhance the activities of that facility. But the minister went and said: "We want you to operate in a different manner." In other words, he wants to control what goes on in this Friends society. So the minister said, "You shall have a new constitution, " and the Friends finally agreed to it, and in that constitution the minister shall appoint the members of the board of that society and the minister shall appoint the president - the chair of the board. That's very different than the Friends organization that was there, in the sense that they no longer are members of the board elected in open meetings, Now the minister appoints those people who become the board of directors. He also appoints the chair; the board does not itself choose its chair.

The same constitution has been applied for the Friends of Fort Steele. If we put that together and we look at it and see . . . . The ministry has also said, I believe, that these societies will participate more closely with the activities of the parks. What happens, as you can see, is that the minister has very close control of this association. The association then manages the park, and the minister no longer has it on his ministry budget, but in fact it goes through and he has control, and it's the centralization of control.

Would the minister please comment on this whole pattern. Do you foresee a number of societies in which you have control, as minister, of who is on the board of the Friends? The minister has control of who is the chairman of those boards, and the minister lets those societies operate those facilities.

HON. MR. REID: The answer to your question primarily is yes. The classic examples of that are Barkerville, Fort Steele, and the Cloverdale historical transportation centre, all run by societies putting into place a community volunteer involvement towards the administration and management of these facilities, with the protectorate of the assets remaining under the control of the province of British Columbia.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister would explain why he thinks he is creating volunteer associations when in fact there is volunteer support for those facilities throughout the province. It did not need to be created by the ministry, and it did not need to have the interference of the minister,

HON. MR. REID: Madam Member, was there a Cloverdale historical society before November 1986? The answer is no. It currently operates, in Cloverdale, a facility that uses some historic transportation collection items that were in a warehouse, which are now available for British Columbians and visitors to see. It is administered by a volunteer board, in a volunteer society. People attend there every day as volunteers, looking after the cars. looking after the trucks, picking up containers off the parking lot. it didn't exist four months ago. It now exists. The answer is yes, it works.

MS. EDWARDS: As I said, Mr. Minister, it seems there was a Friends society in existence at Barkerville which you changed. There had been a number of proposals to set up a Friends society for Fort Steele, which had been stalled off by the suggestion: "We're going to have an advisory council. We're going to have these people. Wait until the advisory council decides; wait till the minister decides." So the Friends society did not get going. It was seen, it was there. The Friends society for the Provincial Museum has now been told that they can't do what they want to do to be friends to the provincial museum. Would you please tell me how you think Friends societies should work?

HON. MR. REID: Precisely the way it works today. All the members on all the societies are volunteers.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to ask some questions of the minister then, Will these societies be responsible for the financial management of these museums? Yes or no?

HON. MR. REID: For the Cloverdale one, the answer is in fact yes. For Fort Steele, I think the answer is yes. For the ones that are currently in place under the minister, the answer is yes. But I want to make certain that you're not laying out a question which says all these museums, and you mean the other 82 percent of the province that that member talked about. There are times when you offer up loaded questions, and I want to make certain when I respond that I'm responding to the nature of the societies which are currently in place.

[ Page 2406 ]

MR. SIHOTA: I want to congratulate the minister on being cautious. The next question is this. In the case of Victoria, I understand - correct me if I'm wrong - the minister is considering a society in the same vein for Victoria. If that's correct, is the minister then saying that that society would be responsible for the financial management of the museum across the street?

HON. MR. REID: The answer is yes, we have a number of offered structures being considered, so that the protection of the assets of the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia is primary; and secondly, that we put into place some volunteer people who have the initiative and the drive to do a job on behalf of us, the taxpayers, in protecting the government's asset.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the minister again. Would those societies be responsible for fund-raising to support those museums? And I mean specifically in the case of Victoria, would you contemplate that?

HON. MR. REID: Yes.

MR. BLENCOE: To what degree would they have to fund-raise to support?

HON. MR. REID: I would suggest beyond the $10 million that the taxpayers are presently putting out would probably be . . . . Because of the number of people who are attending the museum in Victoria, which is beyond a million and a half in 1987 - higher than any year in our history -there is a need to provide to that museum some improvements, some additions, etc.; and it's beyond the $10 million that the provincial taxpayers are currently putting into that operation that we see the society first of all administering the admission fees, and secondly looking to corporate donors around the province and internationally. Now because of the "royal" designation, we probably can also go to the international realm in acquiring attention and donations to the operations of this museum by people with an interest in it, solicited by a non-profit society.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, is it the intention of the government, therefore, over the next five years, say, to cut back its direct financial contribution to the museum, to the point where there will be minimal financial contribution from the province of British Columbia to its museum?

[12:30]

HON. MR. REID: The answer is no.

MR. SIHOTA: Madam Chairman, a question to the minister. Is the minister saying that it is the government's policy now to provide a par or basic level of funding to these museums and then leave it up to the society to make up the differential between that par level and the needs of the museum to maintain its operations?

HON. MR. REID: I think that that would be a good expression of the scenario we would be looking at. There's certainly no intention on behalf of the ministry at the moment to reduce any financial commitment to the facility - which is around $10 million - either now or in the foreseeable future.

MR. BLENCOE: We've heard it before.

HON. MR. REID: I want you to hear it one more time, because it doesn't look like you're listening.

The societies have expressed a need for improvement to the facility, because it was designed for 100, 000 people a year, the Victoria museum, but currently entertains a million and a half plus. The facilities are in need of some improvement.

MR. BLENCOE: You want to stop people going.

HON. MR. REID: I'll tell you what I'll do. You put any amount of money on the table, and I'll tell you we'll have more people in that museum in 1987 than in 1986. If you're prepared to put your money where your mouth is, I'll take your gamble.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to make a comment, and I want to throw some more questions in the direction of the minister.

On that last point, sitting right next to the Minister of Tourism is the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), who's talked about $5 user fees as a deterrent, and you're trying to tell us that $5 with respect to museums won't be a deterrent. Come on! It seems to me that the level of visits to that museum is going to go down with the imposition of a fee, particularly with respect to local people.

The other point is this. The member from Cowichan, who has now left . . . . If you want to get into the game of promoting British Columbia and Vancouver Island . . . . I've spent some time on tourism boards here in Victoria and in my riding as well. As an aside, I think that as a whole the ministry is doing a good job of promoting visitors coming to Vancouver Island, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if you want to promote that, if you want to increase the flow of people to Vancouver Island, then it seems to me that you've got the obligation to deal with institutions that they're going to come and visit, which you have the responsibility to manage; for example, the museum here in Victoria.

You can argue: "We're trying to do our best; we're putting more money into it." If I'm correct in that figure of 1.5 million - and going up, let's hope - then it seems to me that you've got the obligation to make sure that the facility can handle that number of people coming in. Therefore you've got to come up with the money, not leave it up to some type of society.

Those are the comments; now the questions. Mr. Minister, what you said to me is that there is a core level or a par level of funding that the ministry will provide, and the shortfall is up to the societies to come up with. You tell me where I'm wrong on this. My submission to you is that you're really vacating the field. You are getting away from your obligations to maintain that museum. You're saying that you want to set up an arm's-length or perhaps not arm's-length society -depending on the director relationship between the society and the ministry - to manage the affairs of the museum. You're going to say to them: "Look, it's for you people . . . ... It's too bad the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is gone too. "It's for you people to come up with a differential." As in schools, what you do is provide a core level of funding, and if your need is greater than that, it's up to the school board to tax, to raise the revenue.

Now you're saying it's up to the societies to make up that differential. You are starting that now by imposition of user

[ Page 2407 ]

fees. Then you're handing the ball over to them and saying: "You figure out the financial problems. You deal with the consequences of our promotion. You deal with the consequences of 1.5 million people starting to come into a facility that was built for 100, 000. We're not prepared to do that."

It's a dereliction of your own responsibilities for management of that museum. You tell me where I'm wrong in that scenario, Mr. Minister. You are vacating the field, and you're allowing these societies to deal with a problem that you've handed them.

I have no difficulty with your setting up societies or Friends groups or volunteers or whatever to participate in the ongoing things that all of us do with museums - the Maritime Museum or the museum here. But I have a lot of difficulty when you start to remove your financial obligations to those institutions and say to these societies: "It is your function to come up with the dollars and cents."

It doesn't make any sense. That's where you're headed. You're headed directly towards the establishment of these societies, so you can say that it's their problem; it's not your problem. Then they're going to be left with a couple of options. They can increase the user fees that you introduced, but you can say: "We're at arm's length; it's up to them now." Or you can force them to enter into any other financing schemes over and above the core operations.

I'll tell you what will happen. The next thing that will happen is that there will be people in the private sector who will want to lease spaces within the museum for their favourite enterprise, Instead of having a hotdog kiosk as a turnstile, they'll be selling hotdogs in there through some entrepreneur. You'll be starting to sublease out portions of the museum.

I'll ask you a question right now; then let's hear the response. Is the government entertaining any initiatives right now to sublease portions of the museum to private sector companies?

HON. MR. REID: Not that I am aware of.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley would like to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to thank the House for providing leave. I'd like to introduce to the House my eldest daughter, Natalie, and her friend Tina, who are visiting Victoria today.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to ask the minister if he could explain to me the difference, and the reason he wanted it differently .... At the Provincial Museum he has a Friends group that is established and has offered to raise the money needed to leave the museum in control of the ministry. What is the difference between allowing that kind of thing to happen and having Friends groups for the other establishments, the other facilities, who would raise the money and leave the management in the hands of the ministry? Why is it that he wants to put management in the hands in the Friends and then say that he will contribute the funds? That becomes a questionable issue, because it seems that the minister is always saying that those other museums that are in charge of groups very similar to Friends groups, who are constantly having to go to regional and municipal governments for private funding because they don't get much funding from the provincial government - as a matter of fact small grants from cultural services . . . . Why is it that the minister wants to put it that way and lose control of the management of those facilities?

HON. MR. REID: I've answered it before.

MS. EDWARDS: The question is: why does the minister want to trade places with the Friends? The Friends now become the people who do the managing, and the ministry becomes the provider of the money, instead of the other way around. The Friends have volunteered to provide money, but you won't let them do that. Instead, you want to hand over the management to a different society, which you, 1 presume, would set up to be different from the one that is already in place.

MR. SIHOTA: Since the member for Kootenay just hit the nail on the head, the minister is not getting up to answer.

I'll ask another question. Is it not true that the reason why you're beginning to set up these societies, and the reason why we're beginning to see this movement afoot in Victoria, is that you realize that there is going to be increasing financial pressure on your ministry to finance the operations of the museums, and because you don't want to deal with that issue, you've now allowed the establishment of the societies that you'll provide the core funding to, and you say: "It's your problem to come up with a balance " ? Is it not true that this is the direction the minister is heading in? If that's not the case, I would like to ask the minister if he could explain where it is that that's an area that's wrong.

HON. MR. REID: The primary difficulty that the museum in Victoria has in relation to getting the kinds of money they need for additional improvements and the additional repairs and services is that it has drained as much out of the coffers - $10 million - as the government is prepared to put into it. There are other ministries who would do anything for a $14, 000 or $15, 000 addition, because they have problems of their own. There are corporate sector people out there, Mr. Member, who are prepared to contribute to an agency which is not government. Some of them have the same mind-set as you people: that the taxpayers should continue throwing it in the pot and pay the bills, The taxpayers are getting tired of being asked for more and more up front to run facilities in the province that they can't utilize.

MR. SIHOTA: What does the minister think he's doing by the fees? Is he not going to the taxpayers of this province and saying: "Pay up?" It's double taxation. I understand that some tourists go there too, Mr. Minister, and I live here; but you know as well as I do that a lot of people from these communities in this province also go to that museum. They pay for it through their tax dollars, and now you're asking them to cough up more in the form of user fees. Is that not double taxation?

HON. MR. REID: The answer to the member is this: 85 percent of the people attending the museum are not Victoria taxpayers. They are tourists to the province who are prepared to help pay for the cost of the best museum in North America.

[ Page 2408 ]

They have agreed to pay it in other locations, and they are going to pay it in Victoria in order to help improve the facility. We currently are beyond last year's attendance. We are not intending to reduce the attendance, but if it does reduce it slightly, I'll probably get some money from the member because he'll owe it to me.

I don't expect there to be a reduction in the attendance at the museum, but the improvements are much needed and necessary today; not tomorrow, not next year, but today. Those improvements must be provided. To take it out of health, to take it out of social services, to take it out of education: Mr. Member, this minister is not prepared to do that.

MR. SIHOTA: I can tell you where to take it out of. You can take it out of that $325, 000 party you threw just the other day.

You talk about 85 percent. Perhaps you could elaborate on that. How much of that 85 percent is foreign visitors, and how much is visitors from other parts of British Columbia?

HON. MR. REID: Probably 60 percent, and I don't know the exact number. If you call Americans foreign, you probably call everybody foreign. To you, everybody to Victoria is foreign, so it's 85 percent.

MR. SIHOTA: That type of frivolous stupidity . . . .

Interjections.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, can we tone this debate down, please.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll withdraw that comment. I would expect an honest answer from the minister, not a "probably" answer, not a cynical answer that everyone who's outside Victoria is foreign to myself. Come on, Mr. Minister, you know better than that. How much of that 85 percent is visitors from outside the province of British Columbia - now that you've got the answer?

HON. MR. REID: The answer to the question is that during the summer months, between now - the big season starts now, July 15 - and September 15, 85 percent are foreign visitors to Vancouver Island. Yearly, 60 percent are foreign visitors; 85 percent during this time of the year.

MR. SIHOTA: Is the minister saying - and we're off on a tangent here - that 60 percent of the visitors after the peak period are non-residents of British Columbia?

HON. MR. REID: On the full year.

MR. SIHOTA: Maybe I didn't quite understand that. Are 60 percent of the people that come during that time period residents of British Columbia, or are they not?

HON. MR. REID: I can't tell you that. I could tell you that they're not residents of Vancouver Island. We do not determine the visitors' cycle in relation to Victoria and then Esquimalt and then Port Renfrew and then up-Island. But we do know those people who come by virtue of ferries, and we do know those people who are British Columbia visitors, and 45 percent of tourism in the province of British Columbia is internal tourism. The people who are paying for this facility, Mr. Member, are coming from Fort St. John and from Tumbler Ridge, which they're happy to do when they have some holidays. And they're happy to pay to ride the ferry, and they're happy to pay to visit the museum, because they're tourists.

MR. SIHOTA: A segment of the population which is more than 15 percent - let's just put it that way, significantly more than 15 percent - are residents of British Columbia who are already paying for this facility; now you're asking them to pay again, and that's double taxation. That's hitting them twice.

Well, let's go back to the basic premise of what I was asking the minister.

[12:45]

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I only heard part of that comment. I'll talk to the member from Merritt later on about that.

The basic premise here is that you want to vacate your financial responsibilities for the maintenance, and all that, of the museum. You're going to hand it all over to a society and say it's their problem. What you said earlier on, Mr. Minister, is that you're not prepared to go beyond that $10 million figure under any circumstances. I don't know what it will be in next year's budget.

MR. BLENCOE: Five million.

MR. SIHOTA: If it's $5 million, then it will be up to the society to make up the balance. If it is $11 million, given inflation, it'll still be up to the society to make up the difference. What you're going to be saying is: we will give them a core level of funding and it's their problem after that. And that is a dereliction of your responsibilities, akin to the school system that I talked about earlier on, now that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is here.

The minister said in this morning's paper that the fees are on a trial basis. Could the minister explain that comment? What does he mean by a trial basis?

HON. MR. REID: We need to be cautious as government. We need to be cautious as protectors of taxpayers' artifacts, etc., but we also have to be cognizant .... If and when we find, after the application of the fees, much to the surprise of this minister and this government, that in fact there is nobody going to the museum, and now we have to put more money into it from some other source, we'll have to revisit it. What we were saying is that we're putting it in place, and after it's in place for a period of time, certainly we'll revisit, to see the total effect of the admission fee; whether the fees should be modified; whether the $10 fee for a whole family to attend every day of the year, if they want, is too onerous - $10 for a whole family to go to all those other attractions in the province. We will look at all those things; revisit them to find out if we have created a problem for some of our taxpayers and some of the attendees. We will revisit it on an ongoing basis, as good management of any organization ever does.

MR. SIHOTA: A good business person would know that you do your studies beforehand, and forecast the whole

[ Page 2409 ]

situation. So don't give me this mumbo-jumbo: "Well, we'll come back and revisit."

I want to know from the minister: what are the criteria that you will apply? You don't have to have a degree in economics to realize that the visits will never fall down to zero. But what are the criteria that the minister intends to apply in his reevaluation? And when does he intend to re-evaluate?

HON. MR. REID: We have to continue to evaluate the processes we're putting in place. We will be consulting with the Attorney-General's (Hon. B.R. Smith's) mother, because she is highly conversant . . . . She's an adviser to the fee structure that we're putting in place. Because of his mother, we will appeal to her later on in the fall, to find out what her research was in application of the fees.

We will give you this assurance, Mr. Member If there is a requirement for us to discuss on an ongoing basis, especially with those members in Cranbrook, where Fort Steele is, those members in the Kilby House area, and those members in the Victoria area, what the impact was - whether it had some detrimental effect on tourism - we will revisit the question. No guarantee, because if it works we won't fix it.

MR. SIHOTA: I asked what the criteria are, Fm sure the criterion is not that you're going to ask the mother of the Attorney-General. The criterion, according to the minister, is that he's going to ask the mother of the Attorney-General, and it's on that basis that he'll decide whether or not he's going to remove user fees. That's consistent with the mentality of the minister.

HON. MR. REID: Let me make it abundantly clear: we have many consultants and many advisers out there, and one of the ones that we cherish most is the one who offers us advice on an ongoing basis through her son, sitting in this House. So I give you the assurance that we will use her advice, in cooperation with many others.

MS. EDWARDS: I was actually thinking of rising on a point of order. I don't believe it's correct to make comments about the mothers of other members. but I guess the Attorney-General doesn't object.

1 want to address one question on fees before we close this down for today, because I don't want this to go away. The whole issue comes up again and again that there was no forward planning. These fees came in higgledy-piggledy, rolling down the street. All of a sudden we have fees in the middle of the season, and it has hurt a number of people. 1 want the minister to comment on what he expects to do and why be put these fees in, even though he did not reach agreement with the concessionaires and with people who had contracts with the heritage parks.

HON. MR. REID: In one short answer, we considered it for many reasons. The main reason we considered it was that when I took over the ministry on November 1, 1 acquired a master plan and some reports from previous management structures in place at Fort Steele, Barkerville and the Museum, and without exception they all had visited and revisited since 1975 and 1976 the question of admission fees to attractions. The recommendation on an ongoing basis is that they should be applied when the time is appropriate, when the costs outstrip the available funds from taxpayers, and that's where we reached the consensus.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague the opposition House Leader has a motion to move, and we will be granting leave for that.

MR. ROSE: Motion 83 on the order paper today. [See appendix.]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:54 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

83 Mr. Rose to move-

That Mr. Lovick be substituted for Mr. Harcourt on the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Transportation and Municipal Affairs.