1988 Legislative Session: 2nd

Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 4247 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Credit Union Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill

25). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 4247

Oral Questions

Privatization of liquor stores. Ms. A.

Hagen –– 4247

Beer and wine licence application. Mr.

Lovick –– 4248

Grape growing industry. Mr. Harcourt –– 4248

Tabling Documents –– 4249

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism,

Recreation and Culture estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Reid)

On vote 65: minister's office –– 4249

Hon. Mr. Reid

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Rose

Mrs. Boone

Mr. R. Fraser

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'd like to introduce three

constituents visiting us in the precincts today: Agnes Flynn, her

daughter Cindy and her friend Lorraine Terry.

MR. R. FRASER : I'd like to introduce to the

House today a group of about 85 students from Churchill secondary

school, along with their teachers, Mr. Martin and Mr. Williams. They've

been touring the buildings and other Victoria facilities, learning a

little bit about how the system works. I wouldn't be surprised if we

saw a few of them sitting in the House one day. Would you join me in

giving them a good welcome.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, I too would like

to bring greetings to all 85 students from Churchill secondary school,

and the Churchill Bulldogs. I happen to be one of the graduates of the

finest high school in British Columbia. Welcome to the Legislature.

MR. R. FRASER : I've made a special

exception today, Mr. Speaker: a separate introduction of the students

on behalf of my colleague the Hon. Stephen Rogers, Minister of Highways.

MR. LOVICK : I would also like to ask the

House to join me in welcoming a constituent of mine from Gabriola

Island, Mr. John Kenchenten.

MR. LOENEN : I'd like the House to welcome

someone who has worked a great deal on the exciting employee stock

ownership plan, and who's perhaps more knowledgeable about this plan

than anyone in British Columbia, Mr. Olaf Klassen. Would the House

please welcome him.

Introduction of Bills

CREDIT UNION AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Credit Union Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker, these

amendments to the Credit Union Act clarify that the Credit Union

Deposit Insurance Corporation possesses the ancillary powers necessary

to effect an amalgamation of supervised credit unions and that such an

amalgamation is binding on the credit union members. As well, the act

is being amended to facilitate the appointment of lawyers as directors

of credit unions.

Under the Credit Union Act CUDIC is given the power to direct

a credit union under supervision to amalgamate with another credit

union. However, the act does not expressly authorize CUDIC to take the

procedural steps necessary to complete an amalgamation, nor does it

make clear that such a direction by CUDIC is binding on the credit

union members.

These amendments to the Credit Union Act will clarify that

CUDIC has both the authority to direct an amalgamation of two credit

unions under supervision and to carry out the amalgamation. The

amendments will be retroactive to ensure that the credit union created

by the amalgamation of First Pacific Credit Union and Westcoast Savings

Credit Union is properly constituted and authorized to carry on

business.

I commend this bill for your consideration and urge its

passage.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first

time now.

Bill 25 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

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

House after today.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF LIQUOR STORES

MS. A. HAGEN : Mr. Speaker, my question is

to the Premier regarding privatization of liquor stores. Did the

government receive a single submission recommending the establishment

of privately operated liquor stores?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I'll defer to the

Minister of Labour and Consumer Services.

HON. L. HANSON : If I understand the

question: did we receive a single submission on the privatization of

liquor stores?

MS. A. HAGEN : In favour of.

HON. L. HANSON : We didn't receive any

submissions that I know of. The committee that was working on the

report on privatization of liquor stores, to the best of my knowledge,

didn't receive any submissions to that effect.

MS. A. HAGEN : A further question to the

Premier. The Minister of Labour and Consumer Services says that

government has decided not to sell existing government liquor stores,

because they can operate more efficiently than private stores. What

benefit will there be to the government or the public as a result of

establishing private liquor stores?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I think you may have

inadvertently misquoted the Minister of Labour, so I'll defer to the

Minister of Labour and Consumer Services.

HON. L. HANSON : I would like to see where

I'm quoted as saying government liquor stores operate more efficiently.

I think the statement did read — and I did say — that there

are some financial implications to privatization of those liquor

stores, and that may be where the misunderstanding is. Government

liquor stores operate quite efficiently, and the people who are in

charge of those operations are quite proud of that fact.

MS. A. HAGEN : I'd like to ask a further

question to the Premier in respect to the responses from his Minister

of Labour and Consumer Services that there was no submission in favour

of the privatization of liquor stores; his confirmation, in fact, that

government liquor stores operate very well. This has to do with a

broader policy.

A joint committee of ministry officials, police and

representatives of municipalities have been asked to report to

[ Page 4248 ]

government regarding problems that may

stem from liquor policy changes. Why has a policy regarding such

changes been announced before this committee has finalized its report,

and will the Premier now indicate that he has decided to delay any

further commitment to liquor privatization until we are assured that

the concerns of municipalities and the police can be satisfactorily

dealt with?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : This obviously

involves policy for the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services, so

I'll defer to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services.

[2:15]

HON. L. HANSON : I think the committee that

the member is referring to may be a committee made up of

representatives from UBCM and my ministry to look at such things as

special occasion licences, the 11 o'clock closing as it relates to

licensee retail stores and off sales within neighbourhood pubs and

hotels, and that the announcement made yesterday on the privatization

of liquor stores really has very little to do with that committee or

the information that we are expecting to come back from that committee.

There isn't any correlation between those two. Maybe the member can ask

a question that is more appropriate for that committee.

MS. A. HAGEN : To the Minister of Labour and

Consumer Services. Considering that the report of the Jansen committee

deals with the matter of access to liquor and the cost to society of

liquor in the order of $2 billion, can the minister afford this House

any reason why the announcement was made yesterday that all future

stores will be in the private sector and that he is moving to

deregulate the liquor industry in this province?

HON. L. HANSON : The assumption that the

member opposite has made is sort of interesting. If you go back and

look at the press release, we did not say that all future liquor stores

will be private liquor stores. I think what we said — as a

matter of fact I know what we said — is that when we see the

need for another liquor store in a location, we will offer that

location to the public on a tender or proposal process. Failing any

interest in that location by the public, there's a good possibility it

could be a government liquor store.

BEER AND WINE LICENCE APPLICATION

MR. LOVICK : My question is to the

ever-deferential Premier. Yesterday officials at the liquor control and

licensing board expressed surprise that a beer and wine store could be

built during the moratorium on granting new licences. The store at 57th

Avenue and Knight Road built by Peter Toigo is now ready to open, under

new ownership, on the same day the moratorium is lifted. The question

is this: can the Premier explain how and why Mr. Toigo was able to

proceed with this project if, as the liquor control officials inform

us, there was no hint given that the moratorium would be lifted? Can

the Premier explain that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I too heard about

this for the first time on television. It's not our area of research,

but certainly obviously it is for the opposition. In any event, I too

for the first time saw this. I didn't know what the building, or where

the building, or what it was all about, so I'll defer to the Minister

of Labour and Consumer Services.

HON. L. HANSON : The opposition should

address its questions in a different manner, it appears. In any case, I

know what you are referring to. The application was originally made on

September 8 for a neighbourhood pub at that site. It was not made by

Mr. Toigo. On September 18, 1986, a report was received by the local

liquor inspector, and on November 12, in correspondence again with the

applicant — whose name was McRobbie, by the way —

there was no mention at any time of a cold wine and beer store, but

there was mention of a neighbourhood pub.

On February 25, 1987, the Vancouver Council, Neighbourhood

Cultural and Community Services, approved that zoning location. The

owner of the pub, as required in the licensing process, has to be

stated. There is one individual stated on it and it is not Mr. Toigo.

There is 100 percent interest on it. There is a letter in the file in

the application from Whitbury Holdings, a company of Mr. Toigo’s, which

lays out a lease arrangement with the applicant for a longterm

lease — the rates and the square footage involved. Further to

that, a licence was finally granted to the operator and the plans were

approved. The plans that came into the liquor ministry included a space

for a wine and beer store.

The ministry staff members approved the plans as they related

to the neighbourhood pub but pointed out in a communication to the

applicant that they could not at any time agree to or approve the plans

for the licensed wine store because there was a moratorium on licensee

retail wine and beer stores.

The applicant chose on her volition to go ahead and have the

building built with the wine and beer store in it on the chance that

she may be able to get a licence at a later date. Since the moratorium,

the qualifications for a licence have been raised and will require her

to get a further approval from the municipality involved. They'll also

require her to get a further approval from the neighbourhood through

the referendum, provided that the question of the wine and beer store

was not asked on the original referendum. Following all of those steps

and those approvals, that lady will be able to get a wine and beer

store licence.

GRAPE GROWING INDUSTRY

MR. HARCOURT : I'd like to ask the Premier

what the budget is for the program to help the grape growers. This is

the program that the Premier announced spontaneously on Monday. Where

is that budget, since there's no provision in the current estimates?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : We've been working on

the policy for some months, and the Ministry of Labour and Consumer

Services, along with Agriculture, has been consulting with the

cooperative and the marketing board and others in the Okanagan. The

policy has also been discussed with the federal government. Of course,

they're considering this in light of the GATT ruling as well as free

trade and how it affects not only British Columbia but other provinces.

We've certainly seen some considerable pressure, some by members of the

New Democratic Party in Parliament, which created some anxiety in the

Okanagan community and certainly caused people to wonder about future

financing of their operations.

Because of all of this, we certainly were encouraged,

especially by the marketing board representing the Okanagan grape

growers, to announce the policy even if all the financial

[ Page 4249 ]

negotiations with the federal

government had not been completed. So the policy was announced; it was

extremely well received in the Okanagan by the grape growers, who are

once again aware that in all areas of business and agriculture, Social

Credit has a history of dealing fairly with these groups and

individuals, and they're very happy with it. We continue negotiations

with the federal government on the dollar amount, but I can assure the

Leader of the Opposition that we do have money provided in the budget

for, if and what the share required by the provincial government is.

MR. HARCOURT : Your minister was certainly

surprised by your announcement and so was the federal government,

because as of this morning the federal government has not even received

details of the Premier's proposal. Has the Premier's office sent

details to the federal negotiators, or was his statement on Monday just

so much style with nothing of substance to back it up?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The problem with the

Leader of the Opposition is that he believes he can communicate with

Nelson Riis and Ed Broadbent and expect to find out what the government

in Ottawa or the province of British Columbia is doing.

MR. ROSE : On a point of order, I think once

again we've seen the rules of question period offended. We've tried to

keep our questions very short today, but today, as in the past, we're

treated to lengthy answers that are really more suitable to a

ministerial statement than they are to question period.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : If you review the

question period questions and the answers, Mr. Speaker, you will note

that one question was posed with respect to a liquor licence

application. I would suspect that any member of the Legislative

Assembly in the province of British Columbia would know that the

application process is extremely extensive. Therefore if one is

questioning that process, one should be aware that there is going to be

an extensive answer and should be directed to in fact make that an

order-paper question as opposed to one that takes up the time of

question period.

Hon. Mr. Savage tabled the annual report of the Ministry of

Agriculture and Fisheries for 1986-87.

Orders of the Day

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 65: minister's office, $243,459.

HON. MR. REID : I want to especially thank

all British Columbians for being such super hosts and, as well, for

taking such obvious pride in their cultural heritage and recreational

resources, along with all of our "super, natural" British Columbia

products. Results in 1987 have provided the ministry with the momentum

for an equally spectacular 1988. Part of this was fallout from Expo 86;

but it's a fact that B.C.'s reputation as an outstanding destination

has been accelerating over the last many years.

[2:30]

My ministry's new mandate, which now includes cultural and

historical resources, puts us in an excellent position in the

competition for worldwide products. Our sales pitches can now be more

electrifying than ever.

Tourism is now the second-largest revenue-generating industry,

and everyone in this House has a responsibility to maintain its

integrity and accelerate that performance record. The most important

feature of tourism is how its economic benefits flow through so that

many sectors of the province are benefiting. As we diversify our

products, it becomes more of a year-round activity. Tourism revenues

reached nearly $3.1 billion last year, down just over $200 million from

our record-breaking 1986 Expo year.

While 11.6 million travelled for one or more nights into

British Columbia, taking in the excursionists — people who

travelled more than 50 kilometres from home, but not overnight —

the figure reached 16.7 million. Here's the breakdown of what our

visitors spent. British Columbians travelling in their own province

spent $1.2 billion. Canadians from other provinces and territories

spent $773.3 million. Americans spent $628 million. Overseas visitors,

primarily from Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany and Hong Kong, spent

$466 million in British Columbia. Of every tourist dollar spent in B.C.

between June and October last year, 17 cents went to transportation, 20

cents went to restaurant meals, 27 cents went to accommodation and 14

cents went on shopping and souvenirs, citing only the main spending

choices of our visitors.

If more attention is paid to detail, one sees money

redistributed within the ministry. Development has a substantial

increase because we are paying more attention to industry issues. As

well, marketing of government-owned attractions has moved out of the

marketing division, which instead will be focusing on selling all of

British Columbia as a destination. Marketing our attractions, while

naturally tying in with the larger picture in the future, must have its

own rationale. We welcome much more analytical, rational and serious

thought on the subject of marketing.

This fiscal year we are going to examine issues in a

qualitative rather than a quantitative manner. In addition to such

direction on the tourism side, we are accumulating very impressive

qualitative insights into the ministry's other activities. For example,

three task force reports are now in hand: the Project Pride review of

our heritage resources, the New Approaches task force report on public

library systems and the Artsreach analysis of our initiatives in the

arts.

We must strive for more social and economic impact for our

cultural, recreational and heritage conservation programs. The spending

proposals in these areas reveal a strong commitment by this government

to enhancing Super, Natural British Columbia, especially for those who

live here in British Columbia.

As the minister responsible for tourism, recreation and

culture, we're proud to present to this House the estimates for the

coming year 1988-89.

MS. EDWARDS : First of all, I'd like to

welcome to the House the deputy minister and the other senior

administrator. I'm very happy to hear the minister talking about

successes in tourism because of the importance and the significance that

[ Page 4250 ]

so many of us in British Columbia

think the tourism industry should have. The minister is certainly able

to say the tourism industry is second in British Columbia when measured

as gross domestic product. That's very true. It's a huge industry. It

has great potential to be even better. What I think we have to look at,

however, is whether or not it's going to achieve that kind of success

and future expectation that we all have laid upon it.

Instead of that, what one seems to see when one reviews what

this government has done is a continuing dissipation and dispersal and

dismissing of the ministry's activities in the areas of what's going on

in the industry. The marketing budget, which the minister says is going

to be looked at with a great deal more of a rationale, has been chopped

by one third. That's interesting, because the minister said in last

year's estimates that the mandate of the ministry was to promote and to

encourage, to encourage and to promote. "We want to tell everyone about

British Columbia," he said. It goes on and on. The ministry and the

minister himself have said for months and months — and for

even longer in some cases — that the major part of what the

ministry was doing was to be promotion, and told of examples where

promotion has created the kind of response that we need in this

province, the kinds of attractions and events that make the tourism

industry so valuable and put it where it should be. We continue to

market and promote the product, the minister says, but when it comes

down to the budget, it's not there.

Another thing that I think is missing is any kind of

recognition of the real value of this industry in the sense of how it

operates as an industry. Perhaps I'm laying too much of my reading on

the minister's statements, but sometimes he doesn't seem to recognize

what kind of an economic generator this industry can be, how ubiquitous

it is — that means it exists all over the province —

and how it provides these extremely excellent labour entry points. I

say he doesn't recognize it, not because he hasn't said those

things — he has said them on a number of occasions —

but because he and his ministry have not put forward any proposals to

lay out exactly how that industry operates and what the measure of it

is within the other industrial activity of this province. Besides that,

in too many cases there has been no particular advocacy of the

industry. The ministry was a sort of backward, foot-dragging cousin

coming into the establishment of South Moresby Park. When there have

been privatization moves that would obviously work against the good

tourism industry that we have, the minister has not spoken out or said

anything to be the advocate on behalf of the people who want the

industry to thrive and flourish in this province.

We have been talking about admission fees, and we will talk

about admission fees again, Mr. Minister. Certainly those fees are not

something that you have been able to demonstrate contribute to an

increased enjoyment or an increased attendance for the tourism industry

in this province.

The employment programs that supported and helped the tourist

industry have been wiped out. They're gone. And we see no evidence of

any advocacy on the part of this minister. Lake Koocanusa, to get

specific, is one example of what's going to happen with drought this

summer and the effect it's going to have on the tourism industry, and

where is he speaking out on that?

The value of the arts, heritage and culture: evidently a study

was promised during the discussion of last year's estimates. I don't

know where it is. I don't know whether we're going to get it or not.

The minister mentions three task forces that he had throughout the

province in the past year; what's coming out of them? Exactly what is

happening? Where are the results going to be on that?

In fact, one begins to wonder sometimes, because of the way

things are happening, whether this minister believes in the kind of

attitude put forward by Mr. Walter Block, who has written and suggested

that tourism ministries are not important. Is the minister working

toward a withering away of this particular ministry, perhaps a

withering away of the state? Is he trying to do what every good

committee does: to make himself absolutely unnecessary? If that's the

case, I suspect there are a lot of other people in this province who

have something different to say.

Those concerns are what I want to talk about in these

estimates. I would like first of all to ask the minister if in fact

those figures he was just bringing up — how many visitors we

had from home, how many from the United States, and how many from

overseas — are from his newest study, "Visitor '87." If so, is

that study going to be available? It has been promised, and I haven't

had any evidence of it. Is that where those figures come from?

HON. MR. REID : First, Mr. Speaker, if I may

have the courtesy, I would like to introduce my staff who have arrived,

inasmuch as we got off to a running start. My deputy minister, Grayden

Hayward, is to my left; Assistant Deputy Minister Jim Doswell is to my

right; and my assistant deputy minister in marketing, Mr. Ad van

Haaften, is also in the chamber.

In answer to the member's question, the final compilation of

"Visitor '87" has just been completed, and the document has only been

available in its total form for a week. You should now have it on your

desk; if you haven't got it on your desk, then it must be somewhere in

your files. A copy of "Visitor '87" was forwarded to you. It's

certainly available to you and to every other tourism component in the

province.

It's very exciting news, and those numbers that I gave you

earlier were compiled from it. It is more evidence of this ministry's

aggressive research, aggressive marketing, aggressive promotion, and

aggressive compiling of information — the best in North

America — about what happens in B.C., both with our visitors

and while they're here. When they leave, they leave with that

information. As a matter of fact, the federal government is currently

asking us for details of that report, it's so comprehensive.

Very significant to the nine regions around the province....

It's giving us a whole new focus on where to direct our marketing, what

our marketing potential is in some of the areas — according to

visitors who have been here — and what components of our

tourism infrastructure visitors want to see the most. The research is

so advanced. I'm sorry you don't have the copy. The copy you will be

receiving includes all nine regions and compiles all the details out of

it, and it certainly should be in the hands of every interested tourism

spokesperson in the province.

In answer to a couple of your other questions.... I take

exception to your reference to this minister having no recognition of

the industry as an economic generator. There's no question that

whenever I make any public appearance on behalf of this government....

Either that side or this side — collectively — I can

tell you that one thing I am adamant about is convincing the public

just how important the tourism industry is. It's the second-biggest

industry in the province

[ Page 4251 ]

and is destined to be number one if we

all work together toward the industry called tourism. So to say that I

have no concern for economic generation and the potential it has is

ludicrous.

"Not to be an advocate of the industry" — I won't

even comment on that one.

"Playing a backseat role to South Moresby" — I can

tell you that I have two of my staff meeting on a regular basis with

the federal government, trying to get them to make the final commitment

as to what's going to happen on South Moresby, when the park will be a

reality, and when we can work together with our tourism industry in

promoting that as a visitation site. It cannot be promoted as that at

the moment because the feds haven't finally determined all the

ramifications around South Moresby.

It's an exciting project, and my initial reaction prior to the

federal government determining that it would be a federal park was that

we have so many other products around the province that are available

and are marketable that we had some other communities to look after.

Now that we have another one to add once it's completely recognized by

the federal government, I can tell you without question that my staff

are excited about the opportunity and so am I, for what South Moresby

has to offer when an infrastructure is provided for the people who

visit there.... There isn't at the moment, and it's ludicrous of us to

go out and promote a product that doesn't have any amenities to service

the public you want to invite.

On admission fees, I've made the case so often before. It was

one of the smartest moves that we've made since I've been in the

ministry, and I won't comment on it any further, because you know my

feeling on it.

The employment program which was deleted in 1988 —

the JobTrac program — was one which was discussed by cabinet

and offered up in 1987 to create some employment for an unemployment

level which was unacceptable in B.C. The program was put in place and,

without question, was the most exciting project in B.C., the most

adventurous and productive that I think I've ever been involved with.

But the Treasury Board saw fit to allocate the funds in 1988 to some

other purposes. I can honestly say that I will continue to advocate

that that program should have been continued, and if I could win an

argument somewhere, if there were funds found, I would advocate that it

be put back in place. There's no question about that.

Lake Koocanusa from up in your region. I don't know what you

want this minister to do about raising the level of that lake. I do

everything else around the province to do with culture, heritage and

tourism. I've talked to all and sundry and made the case to the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and to the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) on the concerns we have for the tourism

infrastructure in and around there and the kind of dilemma that area

has relative to the level of the water. Short of going down to the

United States and getting the Bonneville Dam people to not drain the

water off and drain any power out of there, I don't know what you want

this minister to do. I'd be happy to do something positive if you can

give me a positive direction on what to do that could be endorsed by

other people. I can't make it rain. I can do everything else, but I'm

not a rainmaker. I'd sure like to be able to do that, because I'm

qualified in doing just about everything else to do with

tourism — but I can't make rain.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID : Oh, is he? Okay, I'll talk

to Keith Davey; fair enough.

The one issue that I wanted to relate to the member in case

she is not aware of the impact of it: the shuffle of marketing funds in

1988 was instituted by a brand-new process which we've put in place,

the 800 number. I can tell you that that new 800 number is not just an

800 phone number like most other organizations in other provinces have

in place. Ours is more sophisticated than that. As always, we do things

bigger and better than anybody else, and this is another case. We've

put in an 800 number which has ten travel counsellors who answer the

phone calls on an ongoing basis. We're getting on average right now 600

calls a day, which are directed to a travel counsellor. They talk to a

possible customer-visitor for in the range of two and a half minutes

per call, talking about what generated the call, what interests they

have in the product called British Columbia, what area they may have

some interest in visiting, and what ad they read in order to get the

phone number to generate their interest. Then the fulfilment pieces

which we then send to those people to attract them to the products that

they only saw a simple ad on and to further interest them in going into

the Kootenays, the Rocky Mountain area and the North-by-Northwest is

without exception the finest research and marketing program that any

venue in North America has, and we are proud of that one.

[2:45]

MS. EDWARDS : I want to first of all make

some positive suggestions. We actually have rainmakers in my own riding

and I've had them make offers, so that part of it I can take care of,

thank you very much.

The point that I wanted to make and have been trying to make

and have been saying to this government over and over again is the

whole business of the reservoirs. You keep saying: it depends only on

what BPA wants. The Bonneville Power Authority, you seem to say, is

determining what kinds of lakes we're going to have in British

Columbia. It doesn't seem to me that you are recognizing very clearly

that the BPA, through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, decides how

much water will be drawn down out of those reservoirs. They decide in

concert with the Canadian entity, which is B.C. Hydro. This government

has input with B.C. Hydro into how much drawdown is allowed on those

reservoirs. What happened this summer indicated something that

evidently we didn't know before: there were all sorts of clauses to

deal with floods; there were no clauses to deal with drought.

I want the minister to insist that within his own government

there be some mechanism put in place so that government ministries that

deal with the recreational value of those particular reservoirs are

notified ahead of time by B.C. Hydro, which is the entity that controls

Columbia River Treaty reservoirs. I want some kind of mechanism that is

ongoing and that works, in order to tell the ministries that have some

interest in the recreational value of those reservoirs that they can do

something ahead of time or know that they're going to be able to do

something.

I also want — and this is something that's happening

right now with our U.S. neighbours who are making representations on a

regular basis and are meeting with one of their senators tomorrow

night; I've been asked to make some suggestions to some of the

residents there, because they're making exactly the same

representations — both countries to recognize the recreational

value of those reservoirs.

When the Columbia River Treaty began, it was considered that

there was only power generation and some flood

[ Page 4252 ]

control and a few other scattered

functions. However, the actual creation of the reservoirs was sold to

the people of both countries on the basis that there would be major

recreational values. If those recreational values are being hurt, and

if the reservoirs do not provide recreational value, I think it's time

that you, as minister, and other people interested in the recreational

value of these reservoirs, made a point within government and started

making a point to B.C. Hydro, the entity within Canada that decides how

much drawdown there can be, when it can be and for what reason...what

priority the recreational use of those reservoirs has vis--vis power

generation and flood control. I'd certainly be interested to have your

response to that.

MR. ROSE : This is really on the same

subject. I have not discussed it with the critic, but it appears to me

that if you can't convince B.C. Hydro of the process suggested by my

colleague, there might be a possibility for a reference to the

International Joint Commission under the Boundary Waters act. Since

that's a federal thing, it could probably take that route, as did the

Skagit Valley question of five or six years ago. I just put that

forward as a possible suggestion.

HON. MR. REID : I think we dealt a year ago

with the question about the International Joint Commission; we had to

deal with the question of the levels of the water in the drain just

behind Waleach. I think at that time we were consulted on a regular

basis because of the recreational value. I indicated before that I'd be

prepared to follow it up, because of the tourism potential and the

archaeological site, which comes under the other hat that I have.

I will address a letter to Hydro — I'll give you a

copy — as to our concern, and will see what Hydro will do with

that; also I'll send it on to the International Joint Commission for

their consideration, as it reflects on the ministry's involvement.

MS. EDWARDS : May I applaud you, Mr.

Minister. I'm extremely pleased with that approach. I certainly know

that this will be supported internationally by the residents of the

areas affected by these reservoirs. It's a great way to start.

Mr. Minister, I have some figures here that came from Pannell

Kerr Forster and the ministry that have some comparisons of trends in

tourism that I wanted to talk to you about, because they indicate some

things that I want to discuss for a minute.

They were dealing with U.S. vehicle entries, U.S. resident

entries and one-night-plus stay entries. They may be from the same

source that you were talking about earlier.

I have in front of me some figures for 1985, 1986 and 1987.

What they show is that U.S. vehicle entries and U.S. resident entries

are both down from 1986 — which we may have expected; perhaps

you did expect it after Expo 86 — and that the number of

people who stayed for one or more nights was down. The overseas entries

were down as well.

Because that doesn't perhaps give us the comparison that we

need when we look at trends, I took some figures that started with

1985, and discovered that in 1985 the trend in visitors from the U.S.

was a rise in vehicle entries instead of that fall that we noticed from

1986 to 1987. It had been a rise up to 1985. I'm not getting 1986

involved in this. I am trying to look at a trend. It showed a rise in

vehicle entries, resident entries and those one-night-plus stay entries

of between 7.1 percent and 7.2 percent.

If you look at 1987 and compare it to 1985, you will see that

the increase is averaged out to between 12 percent and 14 percent over

a two-year period, which is only 6 percent to 6.5 percent a year, which

means that the trend is levelling out again. I don't know if you looked

at those figures in that sense. I am just going to leave them there,

and talk about the hotel occupancy rate between 1985 and 1987, which

actually fell 2 percent in Vancouver.

Overseas visitors who were coming in decreasing numbers in

1985 have had an increase, and that may have been one of the major

successes of Expo. There is another success I want to talk about in a

minute. I want to know whether you have recognized that the rising

trend has levelled off. Do you have any expectations as to why that is

so? I will leave it at that.

HON. MR. REID : I am having some difficulty

following the numbers. I apologize for that. One thing that the staff

in my ministry is probably best at is compiling and giving factual

numbers. All the numbers I have been dealing with in the last year and

a half have been positive. If the increases are only in the

neighbourhood of 5 percent or 6 percent, that may not seem significant

to the member. When you are talking in the neighbourhood of 13 million

visitors, a 5 percent or 6 percent increase is quite a significant

number.

Let me give you some numbers that will tell you the kind of

success story we have going. I am not sure if you are in receipt of the

room rentals in 1988, which is what we're talking about in this fiscal

year and this budget we're now dealing with. In allowing us to continue

a momentum that we picked up in 1987, which is unheard of in the

history of world fair communities to even survive a year following a

world's fair without a disaster, we proved to all and sundry that we

were the best at that again. We not only had a successful year but a

phenomenal year. We had better than '85 in every increment you want to

match. Taking out the 1986 summer component, we even bettered 1986.

The kinds of things that you should know are in the total room

rental expenditures. This kind of flies in the face of the study that

we just had presented to us a week or so ago by the hotel industry,

because they didn't talk about the numbers which are most significant

to us today, and that's 1986, 1987 and 1988.

If they talk about those numbers, let me give them to you so

that you can make a note of them to tell you how significant the

tourism industry is in one component, the hotel industry. In January

1985 the income in B.C. for hotel expenditures — and that's

not only for hotels but it's for lodges, motels, fishing camps and

guest ranches — was $21 million; in 1986 that rose to $22.7

million; and in 1987, just past, it rose to $24 million; and lo and

behold, in 1988 — just the last January past — the

number is now $29.5 million.

If you get into February 1985, the income for hotel

expenditures in B.C., across the whole province — and I have

it broken down by region — was $23.9 million. It rose to $25.7

million in February 1986. It then rose to $28.5 million last year, and

this year it has risen already to $33.4 million in February.

This morning I received an up-to-date Price Waterhouse of

March. March occupancy is up 56.8 percent over 1987. The breakdown on

those numbers I gave you before is spread out across the whole province.

You could take any region across the province and the

significant numbers of dollars in the hotel industry in 1988

[ Page 4253 ]

are already up in the neighbourhood of

30 percent to 40 percent across the first three months. The momentum is

there. The interesting part to the province, of course, is that we

collect an 8 percent room tax on all those rooms, so that increment of

$5 million in the month of February alone equates to $400,000 in income

to the taxpayers.

[3:00]

Just so that you have some idea of the numbers and what they

equate to in the industry, they are very strong. The same thing is

happening at border crossings. The same thing happened in '85 to '87

with the retail sales on tourism generated revenues. If you didn't

research the numbers, you might not have known that we had budgeted for

an income of $35 million for hotel tax in '87. Lo and behold, because

of the success of the ministry, we generated $40 million, an increase

of $5 million over and above the budgeted number.

Tourism revenue in 1987, as you know — you've got the

number already — was up $600 million over 1985, and that

momentum is continuing. U.S. visitors were up 10.4 percent. Westbound

traffic through Rogers Pass was up 7.7 percent. Ferry passengers were

up 10.9 percent. Accommodation in hotels and motels was up, as I

pointed out earlier, almost $100 million over 1985. Restaurant sales

were up 19.7 percent in '87 over '86. Overseas visitors were up 9.7

percent.

The strength of the economy of the province and the strength

of the employment factor of the hospitality industry are so strong that

we're setting records that no other province in Canada can even hope to

keep up with. Recent indications are that because of the interest in

the industry and the pride that's been developed in the industry, the

employment factors projected over the next four years are an 18 percent

growth. We currently employ in the neighbourhood of 400,000 employees

in the industry in B.C. By 1992 we're going to employ another

64,740 — by projection. The economy, as it relates to that

industry, is very strong, and British Columbia, as always, is leading

Canada in relation to the income and the product called tourism.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr. Minister, your figures

always sound great. What you give us are always very positive figures.

Part of my question is: are you looking at some of the negative

figures? Because there are some spots where we need to have some

support.

HON. MR. REID : I don't have any negative

numbers.

MS. EDWARDS : You don't have any negative

figures. As I say, the Vancouver hotel occupancy, for example, is

not....The upward trend is still there, but the trend is not as steep

as it was. There are 10 percent of hotels in receivership over the past

year, and those sorts of things. I want to know how the minister deals

with those figures as well, and where they come from.

As I say, I'm always very pleased to see that we have had some

very good figures come back. I think they're indicative of exactly what

I was saying in my introduction, that this industry is going to be very

strong. There are some places where it's going up faster than others,

and so on and so forth, but basically, it's an industry that people in

this province have identified with and that they believe is going to

work. They believe, somehow, that the ministry's function in all of

this is to promote British Columbia as a tourist destination.

You say that you're going to do it, but you haven't been doing

it. You have now cut the budget. You cut the budget by 33⅓

percent or more. You are using the phrase now that you're going to use

a more rational approach, but that's not how it's seen by all of us who

have been watching very closely, including tourism associations and

hotel associations. All the people in the industry are not happy with

the announcement that the global promotions will be cut — $5

million off the budget for the global advertising, Super, Natural

British Columbia, I assume.

What you just said makes me wonder if that is where it's going

to be cut. Is the $5 million that you have taken out of the marketing

of British Columbia...? I would like to know how you're going to be

what you call "more rational" about this. Are you going to advertise,

as you seem to have said, to promote markets within British Columbia?

Or are you going to put more efforts to California and eastern Canada,

which you've frequently said was where you were putting all your

advertising dollars and which worked so extremely well to bring the

U.S. visitors onto Vancouver Island and up to Expo and to make them

continue to come after Expo?

All that, Mr. Minister, was attributed to good marketing. Now

I'd like to know where you're going to do the marketing, where you're

going to make cuts and what your rationale is for being more rational.

HON. MR. REID : Well, one of the most

fortunate things we were able to do in our ministry in the last three

years is the innovative program we put in place called Partners in

Tourism. We started out in 1985 with $800,000 — in round

numbers. That's the contribution to the Partners in Tourism program

across B.C. In '86, it went to $3.4 million, during Expo year. Last

year we put in $4.5 million. This year we're putting roughly $4 million

into that program.

The program has generated more interest by the communities out

there in realizing the potential of the product they've been keeping a

secret to themselves. Because of the interest of the ministry and the

interest of my marketing department, strengthening the focus of the

product, giving a more quality production in their marketing roles,

creating a world-class image on an ongoing basis, we have generated the

kind of visits and the kind of income we're getting. The one thing we

have gained from all that is that the private sector has come into the

marketing field, marketing their products better than they ever have

before.

Even though we put roughly $4.5 million into Partners in

Tourism in 1987, they put in excess of $4.5 million into the program. I

think they exceeded it by $2 million to $3 million by the time the year

was out. The momentum that the private sector has created towards....

They are interested in marketing their products collectively; we take

credit for that initiative. I think it would be beneficial to all of

us, especially in government, if in the foreseeable future we could

hand that all off to the private sector, where it ideally belongs.

Because of the interest we had in getting the products put

together, getting to sell their products collectively, has it ever

worked! With our $4.5 million, we generated a minimum of $9 million

last year. This year we are going to be generating, I would think....

Partners in Tourism is going to have a total of at least $7 million in

it, not including the increment the private sector will throw in on top

of that.

The amounts that regions around the province got in

1987-88 — rounded off so you can write them down easily:

Vancouver Island got $774,000 matching dollars; southwest B.C. and

Vancouver got $1.2 million; Okanagan, $805,000 of Partners money; the

Kootenays, $176,000 last year; High

[ Page 4254 ]

Country, $266,000 last year; Cariboo,

$285,000 last year; North by Northwest, $168,000; Peace River, $41,000;

B.C. Rockies, $460,000. If you understand the program, all of this is

only generated by a program in place by the private sector that puts

together a product that needs some embellishment, which we agree to

give it — the real whammy which our ministry has the pizzazz

to do.

We then come to this year's budget, just to show you, as there

have been some misconceptions out there.

MR. R. FRASER : Speak slowly, please;

otherwise they won't hear it.

HON. MR. REID : Oh, okay.

There are some misconceptions out there about the 1988-89

Partners in Tourism money. The fact of the matter is, Vancouver Island

this year will get $610,600; southwest B.C. will get $847,400; the

Okanagan, $600,000 — and that means a minimum of $1.2 million

in the Okanagan because it's matching dollars. The Kootenays gets an

increase from $176,000 — this one should really interest

you — to $222,000, which tells us in the ministry that the

tourism product and component in the Kootenays is finally coming to the

party, coming to the marketing program with accelerated dollars, with a

product they kept a secret forever, until we got involved. They weren't

spending anywhere near those kinds of dollars in 1984 or 1985. Now look

what they're doing. We're happy with that, so our contribution to your

region this year is $220,000.

High Country gets $242,000 this year; the Cariboo, $222,000,

matching the Kootenays — the Cariboo and the Kootenays have

the same amount of Partners money this year; North by Northwest,

$162,000. Peace River went from $41,000 to $101,000 because they

finally got all of their people together and decided the program works.

Now they're putting $101,000 into it in 1988-89. The B.C. Rockies gets

$343,000 in 1988-89. That's a total of $3,350,000 — a pretty

significant number; taxpayers' money to generate matching dollars for

Partners in Tourism, in tourism marketing.

It's the envy of every other province. In fact, Alberta, I

think, is trying to copy it. They're two years behind the times, but

they're trying to copy it. So is everybody else, because it works. It

got the private sector to tell their story, and all we do is help them

tell it even better.

The success of marketing programs, those kinds of things, have

led us now.... We can sit back and take a look at what we're doing. We

can refocus our direction as the "Visitor '87" survey, which tells us

in each region of the province where we should strengthen our marketing

and what products will get more attention and draw more people in....

We've got that now in our hip pocket. We've got the Partners in Tourism

program working very well, and we've got very aggressive regional

associations doing an excellent job out there on behalf of the second

largest industry in B.C.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just

remind the minister that my constituency is in the Rocky Mountains —

the Rockies area — and we are the greatest user of the Partners in

Tourism program and have been almost from the beginning. So I know how

this program works. I know that it works very well, and that everybody

who has been involved in it has applauded it, and it is all the things

that the minister has said about it. We have given it the embellishment

that we can give it. We are the envy of every other province in this

program. It works, you say.

What kind of organization or institution or entity puts that

much money into something and says, "It works," and then says: "Okay,

we won't do it anymore"? You've cut back from — as you say — $4.5

million last year to less than $3.5 million this year, and you're

talking about sitting back and pulling out more funds from the Partners

in Tourism budget.

You also have said — and I think it's very clear that you

would be asked for it if you responded to everybody who wanted to

participate in this program — that you could easily spend $7 million or

$8 million. Those are dollars that, as you say, worked very well. They

got double the punch for every buck that you spent from the province

and every buck that every member of the tourism industry spends. You

are saying that you are pulling back on this program.

Somebody said to me: "Do you know what Coca Cola would do if

they had that kind of an investment, and it was working so well? Would

they step back and stop putting the money in?"

What I also hear consistently is that for some reason or

another this ministry, which has said that it's a great marketer and

promoter, somehow thinks of this marketing and promotion as an expense

instead of an investment. These dollars are invested dollars. What kind

of return do you get on those invested dollars? That's the figure I

would like to see as well, because I think those figures would be

useful. I think the minister needs to do some real explaining as to why

he is reducing the amount in this successful program that he himself

says is particularly successful and, in fact, in an industry where the

government and this minister in particular keep saying: "We want the

industry to grow." You even talk about making it the number one

industry in B.C., and everybody says, "Hurrah, hurrah." Instead of

that, the marketing goes down and the investment goes down. Is there

any reason in the world why you would not continue in this particular

program which gets double the bang for every buck that's spent by

everybody involved?

[3:15]

HON. MR. REID : When you're allocated a

certain amount of money to run a ministry in a given year by the

treasury, you have to go to your staff, who are the best in North

America — we've proven it; we're world-class.... We know that with

a certain amount of dollars.... We do research on a daily basis to

get the biggest bang for the buck. If you're not paying attention,

we're spending $1.2 million on the 800 number. It's research-driven,

but it's fulfilment-driven. The regions around the province which

currently are partnered in tourism....

We will be, on our own initiative, responding to visitors who

are asking about the product in the Kootenays, in the Rocky Mountains,

in North-by-Northwest and in the Queen Charlottes — you name it. Those

products will be responded to directly by my ministry through the

postal system with the fulfilment pieces we have available. That is not

partnered. We're putting that up front in 1988, which was not available

in '87, and it's $1.2 million.

It's the most advanced system of tracking tourists in North

America. Because it's so advanced, I'm telling you today that our

partners out there have not appreciated the impact of the 800 number

and the 600 direct person-to-person phone calls we're getting daily

wanting information on specific areas of B.C., where they're coming

from, how long they're coming for, how much money they're going to

spend and what products they want to see.

[ Page 4255 ]

So it's falling upon us to encourage the regions to spend

money marketing North-by-Northwest, for instance, over and beyond what

we've done in the last three years, if they're not certain at this

point that the product that they're putting out is going to be visited

by people from Dallas, Texas. We're going to be able to go back to the

regions within a short period of time and say: "Now look, your focus

has been on rubber tire track out of California, but our research tells

us that you're going to have a lot more people coming from Quebec and

Ontario. So redirect some of your marketing money back there, and we're

going to redirect some of ours, and that way the product gets a better

impact."

To say that we've reduced Partners in Tourism to the detriment

of the industry is a socialist attitude. This government should not be

funding Partners in Tourism if we don't need to. We should be able to

step away from this over the next four to five years, and if we don't

look at it that way, and the industry's coming up with $5 million and

$6 million and $7 million more than they did two years ago, the program

is a total success. And if you're getting $200 million more in income

into the hotel industry this year over last year, what do you call a

failure? I can't believe that you could be so negative about numbers

that are so positive. Fill up the hotels, the resorts and the

attractions. People are all here spending their money — somebody else's

money. What else do you want?

MS. EDWARDS : I think the minister has an

amazing attitude. We've been terribly successful because we have

promoted this province, so we're not going to promote it anymore.

That's what you are saying: be satisfied — here it is. Why should we

spend any more money? We've done fine. We want to get bigger and

somehow or other, all of a sudden, everything is going to happen all by

itself, because this is just going to take off without that kind of

investment that you've recognized.

I understand that the money that you reallocated to the 1-800

line did not come out of what might be called a $4 million allocation

that originally in last year's estimates was assigned to Partners in

Tourism. This year we get $3.35 million and the rest of it is directed

from the ministry itself, but that does not cover the amount in that $4

million. That doesn't cover the 1-800 line.

HON. MR. REID : Yes, it does. Add it up —

3.5 and 1.2 is 4.7.

MS. EDWARDS : Okay. Then it's not in the

estimates that way. I'm following the right line. However, Mr.

Minister, there is a $4 million allocation in the line that I was

reading, and it certainly doesn't add up to $4.5 million. I was told

that out of that $4 million there was $650,000 worth of projects that

would be directed from the ministry, which did not include the $1.2

million that you say is going to be spent on the 1-800 line.

The 1-800 line, as I understand, is replacing another program

that your ministry is not going to do. I don't see any reason to

include it in any discussion saying that it is replacing a Partners in

Tourism function. As I understand it, it replaces a number of other

things which may be only one and may be a number of magazine pullouts.

Is that correct? If that's the case, could you give me a comparison of

the usefulness of those magazine pullouts with the 1-800 line? I'm

presuming you're calculating that it would be 600 calls per business

day over the year. Is that correct?

HON. MR. REID : It's happening right now.

MS. EDWARDS : I would like to know what you

calculate are the number of calls that you are going to have on that

1-800 line. I also am curious about the kind of surveying you are going

to do. In other words, are you going to survey everybody who calls that

line? Are you going to only survey a certain number of people? I

understood that at one point someone said there were only a certain

number of those callers who would be surveyed for what they were going

to do.

One of the other things that I'm curious about is that you

have said that you will move out to cover all the attractions in the

province. Is that something that you are expanding right now and does

not come into the function of the 800 line? Can you not cover all the

attractions within the industry and the province right now? What is the

expansion that you foresee?

HON. MR. REID : First of all, an explanation

of the 800 number. The 800 number has 10 at a time working on the

answering panels. There are 20 fully trained travel counsellors, who

are trained in all the products available in British Columbia available

to be seen.

Each of the travel counsellors, in identifying the customer,

talks about the adventure packages: adventure package 1 is general

nature adventure: adventure package 2 is saltwater packages; adventure

package 3 is fresh-water fishing and river rafting; adventure number 4

is touring; 5 is touring in the islands; 6 is touring with no

accommodation; 7 is skiing; 8 is student-teacher product; and number 9

is additional information required. Then that travel planner also gets

into the question of what attractions they are interested in seeing,

what border crossing they will be entering the province of British

Columbia at, what major event they will be seeing or coming for, what

the exchange rates are, what the ferry systems provide, what fishing

accommodations are available and which areas of the province have

different kinds of fishing available to the visitor, if that's what

they're interested in. It gets into holiday destination locations,

hospital and medical facilities, hunting attractions in whichever

region is involved, the liquor laws and mileages between different

destinations.

If they're only coming for two or three days, the travel

planner will know not to tell them to try to go to Skidegate, Queen

Charlottes, because they just can't get there by rubber-tire traffic in

three days. It would know to say: "If you're planning to go there,

don't do it this trip; or if you are, you need six days." That's the

travel counsellor's position. That's the kind of information given out

over the two-and-a-half minute response.

It also talks about the parks in the province — both RV parks

and provincial and federal parks — where the major cities are, what

distances they are, postal rates and postal information. That's how

detailed the answer to each call is, and it's computer recorded the

minute the call comes in. First of all they find out where the call is

coming from. If it's from Dallas, Texas, the respondent then

automatically says: "You're calling from Dallas. How did you get the

phone number? What are you interested in? How long are you staying? Who

are you bringing with you? How many are in your party? What kind of

money do you spend? What kind of attractions do you want to see?" All

that is recorded and researched as the number is answered.

The important thing to know is that from April 18 when it

started to just yesterday, we have had 14,773 calls all

[ Page 4256 ]

answered in the same manner that I've just described to you.

The interesting thing is that we also know exactly the location it

comes from and whether it's Canadian or American. The 800 number does

not apply in British Columbia, so we're talking outside B.C. in Canada

and the United States. Of the current numbers, they're running on

average 600 a day, and they're running, for instance, 358 from the U.S.

to 138 from Canada; 354 from the U.S. to 107 from Canada; 427 from the

U.S. to 233 from Canada. So the percentages are running about 3 to 1 or

4 to 1. They're averaging 2.3 minutes per call at the moment.

The interesting thing, Madam Member, is the increase in the

usage of this number, and the advertisement's only been out since April

1. For the first 18 days the number wasn't in place; it's only been in

place since April 18. The number has increased from 164 a day to 600 a

day, and it's growing. Each call is responded to personally and

directly.

In answer to your other question, we were not aware when we

started this number how successful it was going to be and how

interested people were going to be in some of the products available.

Now my ministry's postal response will be to provide not only a map of

British Columbia and the area they want to see and general information,

but if it happens to be in the Rocky Mountain area or in the Cariboo,

we will be providing in the kit, as an automatic fulfilment, the Gold

Rush Trail package and the Fort Steele package so that the person can

read about Fort Steele and some of the other attractions in and around

the Rocky Mountains and the Kootenays.

That's the advantage we have now that it's area-specific. If

people are coming in from Spokane and going into only the Rocky

Mountain area, there's no point in us spending X number of.... We

spend $2 million a year on publications. We're going to run out this

year because of the interest in the product. So we're going to have to

go after further funds for publications, only because of the success of

this number already.

As this number generates further interest in these products,

they're going to be area-specific. How innovative for a province to

have area-specific responses and fulfilment packages! You used to pull

the old one out of a magazine — which was your other question — and

say: "My name is Anne Edwards. I live in Fernie, B.C. Please send me

all the tourism stuff you've got for B.C." So we'd send out a big,

brown envelope and it covered everything from the Yukon Territory all

the way down to the Rocky Mountains and all the way over to the south

tip of Vancouver Island, without knowing what the people particularly

wanted to see. We'd send out three or four pieces of fulfilment

material, which probably some would throw away.

We're now specific. We know what they want to see. We know how

long they're coming for. We know, in general, how much money they're

going to spend. We know what kind of visitors they are because our '87

survey told us on average how many are going to be in each car and how

much they're going to spend — $54 a day, $131 per carload. Those are

the things we know now. We know that if they're going to spend 5 or 6

days here, we can tell you in advance how much money we're going to

generate, by and large, in the province and how many visitors are going

to come. We'll tell you by June how many are going to be here. That's

the kind of information we have available.

That's why we say we're quantitative now in the direction of

our marketing money. Because the Health minister (Hon. Mr. Dueck)

needed more money for some of his programs this year, I wasn't able to

win my argument because the momentum is so strong. But the other reason

I didn't have to win the argument is that we've got over $10 million

in total to market the products in British Columbia this year, and

because of that we're going to be innovative. The 800 number, Partners

in Tourism and everything is going to continue this momentum, so we're

still going to be number one in Canada in increases in tourism.

MS. EDWARDS : It almost seems out of place

for me to applaud you for something. I'm not complaining about the 800

line per se, Mr. Minister, and what you say indicates to me that it's

quite different than what I originally thought — if in fact $1.2

million is the ultimate cost of this whole program. Is that the

ultimate cost, or is that simply the cost of the personnel? Does it

include the cost of response, postage, materials, personnel, renting

the phone line, office expenses — even to get down to those sorts of

things? If that's the case, what you're saying to me, I assume, is that

it will cost approximately $8 per phone call.

[3:30]

HON. MR. REID : The estimated number of

calls we're going to get now as a result of the success we've had in

the last two or three weeks is in excess of 180,000 direct response

calls, if the continual momentum stays there. The total cost of the

program was estimated to be $1.2 million, I think, predicted on around

150,000 to 160,000 calls. If the calls are beyond that number, the

800 number must be paid per call. So the $1.2 million number will not

be sufficient, but it's not capped unless we want to pull the plug in

November and December, and we won't be doing that.

What I am saying to you is that we currently have allocated

sufficient money to cover the total program, which included the

training, the computer programming, the 800 number rentals,

contingencies for the staff component, and training films that are

needed.

The year one has some non-recurring capital costs of $250,000. In other words, in the first year the equipment, the programming

and the components put in place on the screens for the girls — and boys — to use.... We hire both.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID : Excellent.

Because of the program we put in place, we've already had to

modify it a little, because there is interest beyond the scope we

provided the system as a result of our '87 survey. The capital cost —

which is some of the equipment and programming — is non-recurring, so

we're looking at probably a million dollars next year, not counting the

incremental gains I am sure we are going to be faced with with the

extra calls and extra fulfilment of material.

What we will be able to do now as a result of this.... We're only six weeks into it, so you're going to have to give us a

little breathing-room when being critical of the amount of material

we're going to provide to the customer, because we may be in the

predicament of having to ask some of the regions who have more adequate

fulfilment pieces to do with their specific attraction that we can

provide on a mail-out to the customers that are calling in.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr. Minister, I am curious

about a couple of things. There is a list of questions that occurred to

me as you were talking.

[ Page 4257 ]

What is the source of the information that you have? I say

that not, you know . . . . Is it the members of the industry who

necessarily advertise in one of your publications, or does it come from

the travel regions, the travel associations? What I am saying is: how

does the poor guy who runs a bumper car operation at Yahk get on . . .

. You may not get this detailed; it may be a poor example. What I'm

saying is: what about the small operator in the interior of the

province who doesn't always advertise a whole lot? How does he get into

this? Does your information cover a very broad range of the industry

participants?

I want to know whether you feel very strongly that the whole

industry is represented in this information — or is there a sort of

screen that keeps some of them out, which might be simply an

advertising amount or something?

I am interested to know if the men and women who are now

operating this phone number are new employees, or were they moved from

somewhere else? I am interested in knowing whether you would be able —

because it is a highly technological thing — to decentralize this and

use employees in other parts of the province instead of having them all

sitting perhaps at one particular place.

You say the amount of money that you spend on this program

will not be capped this year. Are you expecting that to go on? What is

your projection as to what is going to happen, and what kind of

evaluation measures are you going to use to see whether the program

works better that some other sorts of measures?

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MR. REID : The difficulty we're having

with the 800 number is that like everything else my ministry has done

since I've been the minister, it's too successful. This is another

example of it. In general terms, in answer to your question, we cannot

be too product-specific unless it's one that we continue to market on

our own. If it's one that we run, then my ministry staff talk to each

other daily and show internal staff what the product is doing and

what's happening out there. If you're talking about the bumper cars in

Nelson or the museum in Kaslo or whatever, at this point we had not

anticipated the response we're getting. I think it's going to be

incumbent on us, on an ongoing basis, to bring in . . . .

Let me just backtrack for a second. You asked about employees.

The employees are all working for Canadian Facts, the company we

contracted with for a specified service, with specific training

requirements and the kind of response personnel that we wanted them to

have on staff. So they're not Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and

Culture staff, they are staff of Canadian Facts. They are currently

located around 1100 West Pender, fifth, sixth floor. The phone-bank

system that was put in has to be, by virtue of the design and process,

I think, within the confines of one building. That building does not

have to be at West Pender. If you can win the argument with Canadian

Facts to relocate their facility in downtown Cranbrook, I wouldn't have

any argument there. All we want is the information that's generated,

and we want the material supplied immediately. Whether or not the

facility is physically located there is no requirement of ours. We just

need them to be able to provide the material, the instant response, the

computer update as to what's happening, the daily response to the calls — where they're coming from and those kinds of things.

One of the things we've run into with this is that it's given

us a broader range of possibilities for providing more specific detail

about particular products. I'm thinking out loud here, but I'm trying

to answer your question so that you know how exciting the 800 number is

and what it's doing for us as a government. It's giving us a whole new

opportunity of addressing the customer firsthand and getting the

material almost instantaneously, which we've never been able to do

before. It's also giving us an opportunity to talk to the product

providers — a regional association, a local product such as the

bumper

car people. Somewhere down the line we are going to have to work on a

partnership deal where those people can buy into the system. If they

want to be part of the system, we'll say to them, "We're getting ten

calls a day on bumper cars in Nelson" — or the streetcar or

whatever. "You'd better give us some up-to-date material so that we can

provide

it in the kit." It won't be up to the government to provide it if

they're talking about product-specific. But that's down the road a

little.

As I said to you before, the number is so successful at the

moment that we've really been caught off guard. We thought we'd be able

to research this as we went along, train the staff a little bit more on

other products. I don't know if we're going to have time to keep

bringing the Canadian Facts staff up to date on other products that

they're not even aware of at the moment. That's the weakness in it. I

don't know if we have the time to do that. It has just been too

successful.

MRS. BOONE : I have an interesting

newsletter here from the Alexander Mackenzie Trail Association that has

to do with a 1982 federal-provincial agreement for a trail that was

developed. There's only one applicable trail, and it goes between the

Cariboo from the Blackwater Road down to Bella Coola. There's no usable

field directions to get to this eastern trail end from either Prince

George or Quesnel. At the same time, there are some 15,000 brochures

in circulation inviting people to explore the day trails at the east

and west trailheads. Apparently there's a full-colour all-over

Mackenzie Trail brochure at the printers for major distribution this

spring.

The directors, who are partners with the government in this

heritage and tourist attraction, are distressed that we continue to

promote the Mackenzie Trail as a draw to the Cariboo and Chilcotin when

an on-site highway and community program is not ready. These are the

concerns expressed by this association. In addition, there is

considerable concern because the agreement that was reached in 1985,

and signed by the federal and provincial ministers, allocated funds for

the

interpretation of the program at highway sites and in local museum

and tourist sites from Prince George to Bella Coola, but Parks Canada's

50 percent share of this funding has for three years been sent back to

the federal treasury because B.C.'s matching shares were not provided.

I'd like to ask the minister what kind of promotion that is for the

Cariboo Chilcotin-Prince George area, and why we're sending back

federal money because we won't match it at the provincial end.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr. Chairman, I ask leave

to make introductions.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I'm indeed pleased to rise

in the assembly today to introduce several members of Delta council who

are here to meet with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

Would this assembly make them welcome.

[ Page 4258 ]

HON. MR. REID : Mr. Chairman, before I

answer the questions from the other member, I want to say a very

special welcome to those people from Delta, the community in which I

cut my teeth in the political arena. A couple of them sitting in the

audience up there helped me get where I am today. I hope that I'm doing

them justice.

We welcome them to Victoria, and we hope you are successful

with your plea today. As you know, I was there at the council chamber

in Delta in 1978, when we put the money to cover half the cost of

upgrading Scott Road in the pot. We hope the other partners help you

reach that goal, so that tourists travelling back and forth on Scott

Road, in and out of Surrey and into White Rock and the Crescent Beach

area, have a chance to access the Annacis crossing, which you people

had so much involvement with.

I commend that council and all the people in Delta for their

foresight, for all the activities happening in tourism, recreation and

culture in your community. Thanks for being here today.

Back to the estimates and the question of the Mackenzie Trail.

If the member is not aware, it was this minister who finally

accelerated the definition and the actual designation of the Alexander

Mackenzie Trail from the Cariboo to Bella Coola — and was excited about

that. I was not aware until you raised it — and my deputy tells me he

found out this morning — of the program you're talking about, the

federal-provincial funding towards the Alexander Mackenzie Trail.

Let me give you my assurance today that we will be meeting

within days — my deputy with the deputies from Environment and Parks

and from Forests and Lands — to discuss the acceleration of that

particular product. There's no question in my mind that if the

brochures are being made by the community up there . . . . If they're

starting to talk about a product they want to market and promote, we

have to be ready. Normally we're ahead of most communities. This is one

product which I thought we were up to speed with. If we're not, I give

you the assurance that working together with those other two

ministries, we will not leave the brochures in that community out to

dry. If there were federal funds sent out here that I had any right to

spend.... I will give you this assurance: they would never have got

back to Ottawa, because I would have made certain they were disbursed

in that manner. That will never happen again. That product will get the

attention it deserves from this ministry; and on behalf of our ministry

and your community, we will press on with Environment and Parks and

Forests and Lands towards that.

MRS. BOONE : I thank the minister for that

assurance. I'm sure the residents in both Cariboo and Chilcotin and in

my community will look forward to this. As you know, in our areas we

depend a great deal on the outdoors, and a tremendous amount on trails

and lakes and fishing and all those things. It's really distressing to

see federal money being sent back and no promotion at that end.

[3:45]

On another note, these people have indicated — I'm not sure

whether this would be through your ministry or through Parks — that

they don't even know if the grant-in-aid for their work as a

cooperating society on the Mackenzie Trail is available. They have a

tremendous number of volunteers that work each year. "The annual budget

costs for our services exceed our membership fees and other earnings by

$3,000." Directors, volunteers, etc., do all their work free, and do

all their travel at no expense at all. But they do have some

bookkeeping expenses, and they're really concerned that they as a

society — that is, the Alexander Mackenzie Trail Association — will not

be receiving a grant in order for them to exist to do the promotional

work that they do. Apparently they have been in contact with the

ministry and have been negotiating with them. They've written to the

ministry. A final paragraph says: "We submit that this kind of

privatization" — and this should be a word that the minister would perk

up at — "by our volunteers is a pretty good bargain for the people of

B.C."

I certainly agree that if these people are doing the

promotional business out there, if they are working to promote our

area, and if, as they state here, they are privatizing those areas and

working at no expense, then the government should certainly look to

fund this organization so that they can provide the services out there.

They are a good organization, and one that serves a very large area. So

I would ask the minister to look into this and give me assurances

again, as he did, that the money would not be returned and that there

would be some funding out there to provide the highway sites. The

concern that this association has is that the brochures are out there

telling people to come to this trail, to travel our trail, and yet

there's no highway information telling them how to get there or any

information at the areas there.

I'd like assurances from the minister that he will give

personal consideration to giving some funding to this organization so

they can exist and work on behalf of the communities, and also that you

will work with the Highways people to put the highway signs and

whatever's necessary out there to indicate that the trail exists.

HON. MR. REID : Madam Member, the last

question first, about the signage. I don't know if you're aware that

just last Monday the Highways minister and I were at Alexandra Bridge —

no relation to your area, because it's quite a bit further south. But

we did unveil, last Monday, the very first of the Gold Rush Trail

signage, which indicates the highway from Hope right through to Prince

George as the specific highway which will embellish the Gold Rush Trail

production that we put out last year. We indicated all those neat

things along the way that are attractions up to your area.

The question about the Alexander Mackenzie Trail Society

receiving funds from my ministry. I don't have an avenue in which to do

that, but we do work with the regional associations, and, if they have

funds, advise them that they should make them available to certain

societies that are doing things, as you say, on a volunteer basis in

order to complement a product and draw people into the area. So it's

incumbent upon the private sector up there to help them with those

funds they need. My ministry doesn't have money for that.

MRS. BOONE : I guess they have in the past,

and I'm not sure where they would get their money from for these types

of things. They talk about a grant-in-aid for working as a cooperating

society. Perhaps it's a grant through lotteries; perhaps it's a grant

through something else. They also talk about some JobTrac programs that

they had available. Will there be JobTrac programs available this year

for these people?

HON. MR. REID : There isn't a program called

JobTrac as such. There is, under the Ministry of Social Services and

Housing, a program coming back on stream in 1988 of which

[ Page 4259 ]

we will get part of the component called the tourism

assistance program. It's called "Tourism Civic Pride," and it will be

similar to what we had in JobTrac. It relates directly to our

ministry's involvement. The project hasn't been fine-tuned, and the

regulations and applications haven't been completed yet, but it will be

available. I don't know the total dollars involved, but it is a similar

project to Community Pride, which we had last year, although it's not

exactly the same.

In answer to your question, as long as it has a Tourism

component to it — which is what you're talking about — I would perceive

that it would be eligible to apply to that. So you just keep an eye on

your desk, and when you see a news release come out from that minister

on the subject, I'd be happy to talk to you about it.

MRS. BOONE : Do you have a date when this

will be ready? Because we are getting into the tourist season here.

Fishing areas have started, and this is the time when people start to

open up. People have to make plans, and they have to know how they're

going to staff and if they're going to be able to have anybody. Do you

have a date when this information will be available?

HON. MR. REID : Unfortunately, I cannot be

specific about when it will be available, but my advice to you would be

to contact your organization, have them write a letter through you to

me, and we'll put it on top of the list of considerations for projects.

If it qualifies under the regulations when they come down, we will

certainly deal with it right away. It's in the chute. I can't give you

the details because it's not out of my ministry, but I have been

talking to the minister responsible and he tells me it's very close to

being finalized.

I don't want to leave you hanging, but I will say to you to

get the request in for them, knowing the constraints that used to be on

the JobTrac program and having a similar application. It's people on

social assistance in the area who are looking for jobs and training in

order to generate out into the job market. It's similar to that, and

because I can't be too specific, to encourage you about it, please have

them send in an application through you about what they have in mind,

and then when it comes through, if it doesn't quite qualify, you and I

can talk and you can get back to them and get them to fine-tune it.

MRS. BOONE : On a slightly different note on

hotels and the hotel business. I recently met with members from my

hotel association, and they were expressing considerable distress about

what was happening to them. A large percentage of our hotels have been

in receivership in the past few years. We are not similar to hotels in

the lower mainland. We do not have a tremendous amount of tourism or

convention business, or any of those things, coming to our area. In

fact, the hotels provide accommodation but to a large extent they

depend on sales of alcohol to keep themselves afloat.

They expressed considerable problems with regard to the 10

percent tax that has come down on draft beer, and given that there was

previously a raise in the licence from $150 to $ 1,000, and removal of

a 5 percent tax, this 10 percent tax is really causing them a hardship.

I was wondering if the Minister of Tourism has consulted with the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) about the problems the hotels

will be having in the smaller communities, because they are just not

going to be able to stay in the black, given this 10 percent tax. Has

the minister consulted with the Minister of Finance about this tax that

has gone on the industry?

HON. MR. REID : Yes, I have discussed it

with the Minister of Finance. Up until last week, the numbers that the

hotel industry provided to me and to my ministry certainly weren't the

most current ones. They were dealing with up to 1985, which is

unfortunate because we all went through some difficult years between

'81 and '85 in every industry in B.C., including this government which

brought in the restraint program in '83 because of the concerns with

the economy. But since '85 there has been quite an upturn. I have some

numbers for your particular region that indicate. . . . Not to show

unconcern for your people; some of the people in the hotel industry are

in dire straits. They also had to refinance some of those hotels back

in the tough years, in 1981 to 1985, and had to get up into the 20

percent refinancing stages, which has created some major problems.

The positive thing is that your industry and your area is up

over the last four years in January and February already, and the

average occupancy in your region is better than most in the province.

It's 54.8 percent in Prince George, and it's up 11.3 over the same time

last year, 1987. So even though you don't have major conventions coming

in, you have a plus-11.3 factor in January and February of 1988, which

indicates to me that the momentum and the trend is continuing in your

region. As I said to the other member earlier, our research and our

details from every region around the province show that the numbers are

up. They're not up 100 percent; they're not up 50 percent. Maybe in the

case of some of these hotels and establishments, they're in real

trouble unless they do get those kind of increments, but they won't

happen anywhere, ever.

Our momentum is there: the incremental gains are there. The 6.1's

and the 6.5's and so on that the other member talks about are very

positive numbers. I can't guarantee the hotel industry incremental

numbers any larger than that. I think it's pretty positive to have

those continual increases.

The interesting number that was presented to me just yesterday

was that not only is occupancy up 56.8 percent in March over 1987

across the province but the hotels have increased their rates by 3.4

percent over the previous year. They see fit, even if they're having

the difficulties that you're talking about, to increase the rates at

the same time. But the occupancy is up by 58 percent, so I don't know

what else you can do. Talk to the industry and tell them . . . . Maybe

they're not talking to their accountants or their bookkeepers. Maybe

they're talking to each other, or maybe they're talking to many NDPers

and getting negative responses out there and not positive ones.

I don't know the numbers. I have a concern if you can give me

some specifics, but we're doing everything we can. We're filling up the

hotels. January, February and March — 54 percent. It's higher than

almost any other region in the province outside the two major cities. I

don't know what else they could ask us to do.

MR. R. FRASER : I was trying to resist

making a presentation today, but I just can't help myself. Listening to

that opposition of socialists over there would just drive you right out

of your mind. I knew the minister was getting a little tired of

listening to it.

They're the kind of people who would have a sign on a trail

saying: "Alexander Mackenzie, this is the way." They

[ Page 4260 ]

want a sign for him, the very first guy. This minister here,

not doing a bad job, would say to the tourists: "Why don't you go

north? Why don't you find something out there and have a little fun and

look around?" Do you have to read a brochure every time you go

somewhere? Can't you explore? Can't you figure it out? But no, we have

to have a signpost on the trail for Alexander Mackenzie and probably a

sign on the river for Simon Fraser, saying: "This is the river. Get in

your boat and go from here to there."

It's so incredible. Every time it's negative. I know one thing

for sure: there was not one NDP member or socialist of any kind who

explored this country, because they would have had to have a brochure

first. They wouldn't have had signposts on the trail. It's embarrassing

for me as a British Columbian who has done a little travelling from

time to time, to come back to this beautiful country of ours and say:

"This is the place." To drink the beautiful water we have here, you

don't need a sign: "This is a tap. Turn it on. Fill the glass. Drink

here." You don't need that. You come to B.C., you look and say: "That's

an interesting building. Why don't we go there?" No, you wouldn't do

that as a socialist. You'd phone and say: "Do you have a brochure on

something that I could look at out there?" You open your eyes. You just

look somewhere.

This minister here has the right idea when he says we pushed

the program after Expo because we were expecting a bit of downturn. We

were certainly told by the members opposite that the world was going to

come to an end after Expo, that nothing would happen after Expo. They

didn't even want Expo to come. Your glorious leader over there said

that the city of Vancouver would not be fooled by Expo. Six million

visits or 13 million visits — oh, no, that wasn't going to work, no

way. "By the way, don't come, we don't want you." Well, he was right.

We didn't get 13 million visits; we got 22.5 million visits — not bad

for a little province stuck off in the corner of the continent.

AN HON. MEMBER : With no signs.

MR. R. FRASER : That's right, no signs. Have

a look around at British Columbia. I want the minister to repeat that

once we get the thing going, once the pump is primed, he'll not spend

taxpayers' money where it's not necessary, he'll commit himself to

starting it up and then let the private sector do it, not paying one

bit of attention to those members opposite who will never understand

that you don't need a brochure to find something interesting in tourism.

[4:00]

MR. ROSE : Why do you have them on the ferry?

MR. R. FRASER : Because people like you need

them. That's why we have them on the ferry. The opposition House Leader

has to.... "This is Victoria. This is how you get on the ferry. You get

off at the other end. Get in your car and drive to the parliament

buildings." You need a brochure to find your way around from A to B.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER : You're not heckling loud

enough; I can't hear you.

MR. ROSE : You couldn't find your way to

Victoria for a whole week.

MR. R. FRASER : It was two weeks. I wasn't

looking for Victoria; that's why I couldn't find it. I can't believe

it. My colleague down here from Kelowna found his way down here without

a brochure; my friend from Surrey found his way here without a

brochure, just looking and thinking: "I know where it is." How many of

you over there have driven from one end of Vancouver Island to the

other? I have.

MRS. BOONE : I did.

MR. R. FRASER : That's one of you. That's

good. Did you have a brochure? Actually you've got great country up

there. They speak of you up there. They tell me you're incredible.

We'll leave it at that.

Mr. Minister, tell me one more time. Tell all these people

here what a great province we've got and that it's being promoted by

the industry, the tourism operators and the hotel people as it should

be. Don't let those guys have you spend those taxpayers' dollars

unnecessarily.

MRS. BOONE : I am sure that all those people

in the industry that support you will love to hear that statement. I

might ask: how do you — the entrepreneur out there — as a salesman

promote your things if you don't advertise? That is what we're talking

about: advertising. Would you take all those people and send them to

the Cariboo, let them out in some area and have them wander around in

our wilderness without any information at all, and then send our

Provincial Secretary's emergency team out to find them? Come on, let's

have some reality here.

We have a trail; the trail is going to be built and we want to

promote it. We are talking promotion here. We are not talking about

brochures; we are talking about selling promotion, and any entrepreneur

ought to know that that's what you have to do and that's what the

people of B.C. have to do.

How did you find the Bahamas? Did you just wander through the

ocean until you ran into them? I don't think so. You had a brochure

that told you to go to the Bahamas. I'd like you to get another one to

go back, please, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER : This is unfair.

MRS. BOONE : No, it is not. It is a true

thing.

Mr. Minister, we have a great country and we have a great part

of our country, and we want to see some of those things promoted. We

want to see the areas promoted, regardless of what the member for

Vancouver South, who probably couldn't even find the Chilcotin if he

was to look for it, says. We believe the people out there have to know

that the Chilcotin exists. They have to know that the Alexander

Mackenzie Trail exists. We have to sell that to them. We have to do

those signs just to indicate that it's there, because by gosh, you're

not going to find that trail unless there is some kind of sign out

there to indicate it.

So please, Mr. Minister, do not listen to the member for

Vancouver South. From whence he comes you don't need any brochures to

tell us, and I am sure he could find his way home somehow on the bus

routes or what have you. Don't listen to him.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr. Chairman, I actually tried

to short circuit this, because our number one wanderer over there, our

caucus member, who obviously was lost in the wilderness for two weeks,

has very little to tell us about trails.

[ Page 4261 ]

However, before we go any further — and I want to get back to

the Gold Rush Trail project, because it is one that has aroused a lot

of interest — I wonder if you could clarify for me some figures in the

book.

I am trying to find where the figures are for the 800 line.

When I look at it, as you suggested, line 82 is the $4 million Partners

in Tourism program. It includes the Partners in Tourism money, most of

which is regionally driven, some of which is centrally driven. I

assume, since you said that Canadian Facts is running the 800 line,

that some of it is under line 20, under marketing, but it only has

$441,000 there. Where is the rest of that $1.2 million?

HON. MR. REID : I can't specifically answer

your question relative to.... It comes under the global marketing

budget — the $1.2 million allocated for the 800 number. What I should

emphasize so that you understand is that the marketing money also

includes three other components which you won't find in the blue

printout, because the marketing budget has a global number attached to

it which covers the $1.2 million.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Co-op advertising for Alaska in the north region. . . . We

are also doing an initial $200,000 program this year with the area of

the north from the other member's riding, which goes right up into the

Alaska Highway in the Yukon and Alaska. We're also doing a co-op

provincial association marketing program with the fish camp, ranch and

ski operators for an additional $150,000, and an Asia-Europe co-op

program with such things as Air Canada and Canadian Airlines

International to the tune of $300,000 in Partners marketing money.

The specific answer to your question about the $1.2 million is

under vote 66, code 40, on page 92. The number is $11 million, I think;

I can hardly read it because the print's so small, but it's in the

overall marketing budget.

MS. EDWARDS : Under marketing, Mr. Minister,

on line 40 there is $3.8 million, by my book. Is that correct? The

co-op advertising you were talking about, as I understand it, comes out

of code 82.

HON. MR. REID : It is lumped in under

section 40, total marketing budget. That's where the allocations for

these other programs are, and that's one of them. It comes under the

total global scene called marketing. When this was printed, we were

heavily into our 1988 marketing program. The numbers were reshuffled

around when the numbers came down in March, and you won't find them in

here as it relates to the ministry. I can tell you what our global

number is. The global number for the 800 number is $1.2 million. It's

not broken down in a code 40. It's in the total code 40 number, which

is $5.3 million in 1988-89.

MS. EDWARDS : I'm a little confused with

this, Mr. Minister. Is the $5.3 million a total for code 40? But it's

not all marketing money. Is that correct? I would assume this is

marketing money we're talking about — or is it not? It goes right

across....

HON. MR. REID : Can you go on?

MS. EDWARDS : Yes, I can go on and get....

I wanted to go back to the Gold Rush Trail, because this is a major

program, one of the promotions that the ministry was talking about last

year. It was under "Programs" and it was also to be marketed. As I

understand it, $150,000 was to be spent last year out of the promotion

budget on promoting the Gold Rush Trail. I am curious to know whether

in fact that was spent and what it was spent on and what the result

was. Before I sit down, I will refer to a November 27, 1987, private

member's statement by the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), who

discussed this and said:

". . . the Gold Rush Trail has certainly

not hit its potential. It hasn't come close. Last year the signs did

not go up" — a Socred complaining about no signs, Mr. Minister, so I

think you should pay attention — "and the season went by, and tourists

were not able to take advantage of many of the advertisements that had

been placed on the western side of the continent. I ask the minister to

make this a priority this year and see that the signs go up prior to

the tourist season, not after the tourist season is over. I also

suggest that the Gold Rush Trail can be used in conjunction with other

programs . . . ."

And so on.

What I'm saying is that this program was given a lot of

significance by the ministry itself. It was to be promoted by $150,000.

It had with it, as I understand, some promotion money that went

somewhere to a Gold Rush Trail ride. I would like to know what happened

to the Gold Rush Trail ride, where the project itself is — Gold Rush

Trail marketing and development and so on — and what kind of promotion

it will have this year. Where is the signage being done? Is it done?

That kind of thing.

HON. MR. REID : As I indicated earlier, we

just unveiled last Monday the first of the very professional Gold Rush

Trail signs. My apologies to my colleagues from the Cariboo. The

signage that we had encouraged be up during the summer and the fall of

last year.... We ran into difficulty with the sign shop, which is run

by the Highways ministry. The production time didn't provide the signs

in time for the season last year. It wasn't appropriate to put them up

in the fall. We had them ready for this tourism season, and they've

started up as of Monday. They will be in place for this year. They are

very effective. In spite of that, we had a very successful year on the

Gold Rush Trail in 1987, but 1988 will even be better.

The answers to your other question about the Gold Rush

marketing activities of 1987-88. We produced 100,000 of those

brochures called "The Gold Rush Trail," which cost us $140,000. We

had an advertising campaign around the whole province talking about the

touring marketing. We spent a total of $574,000 on that around the

province, of which a large portion was earmarked in and around the Gold

Rush Trail. That was one of the products. We didn't specifically market

that one, but it was a part of the overall touring marketing.

The Ride of a Lifetime did go ahead last year. It cost us

$150,000 and was very successful. That started in New Westminster and

went right on through into Barkerville. It was a very innovative idea

in tourism marketing and had some tourists come in and be part of the

Ride of a Lifetime. I don't know if you know how it worked. Visitors

and guests actually became part of that trail ride in any segment that

they wanted to be part of — starting from New Westminster, picking up

anywhere along the way — and actually went with the ride for a day or

two or three, depending on their stamina. They actually dressed the

part. They rode the stagecoach and

[ Page 4262 ]

sat around with colleagues in the evening and had a barbecue —

beans and beans — and actually dragged water out of the creek to look

after the facilities and that kind of thing. It was very successful,

and we were very pleased with it. It was a very innovative idea on

behalf of a private entrepreneur and his group from up there who needed

some assistance from us. It was a marketing tool for us internationally

on some of the quality products that are available in tourism.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr. Minister, how many people

participated in the Ride of a Lifetime? Were they local? Were they from

outside the province or the country, and do you have any indication

that any of them may return? Are you going to sponsor this kind of

thing again? You said that you gave some assistance to a local

entrepreneur. Could you tell me what kind of assistance? How much, how

was it managed and how did you control the expenditure of that money?

[4:15]

HON. MR. REID : We had a contract with the

gentleman and his firm. It was for $150,000 in total, which included

marketing and promotion of the trail ride and some contractual

arrangements we had in order that, if it started, it be able to

continue through to its completion, inasmuch as it was new and

innovative, which we were very successful with as a ministry. We saw

this as an innovative package to promote internationally. I cannot

give you the numbers specifically, because that was not a requirement

of the program. We thought it was innovative and exciting, and it was

successful. I'm not so sure you can always measure the success of

anything by numbers, except in dollars into the till of the province of

British Columbia.

Whether it's continuing on in 1988 and 1989 is totally up to

the proponent. The ministry will not be involved with financial

assistance to it this year, but we will be encouraging it. It was a

very neat product and was well accepted by the people who did

participate. We heard lots of good things about it across the United

States and Canada.

MS. EDWARDS : You say that it was $150,000.

I presume it is the same $150,000 you were talking about with 100,000

brochures. Or was it another $150,000?

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS : Okay. Ride of a Lifetime had

$150,000; the Gold Rush Trail had $600,000 or $700,000 — something

like that to promote it. I would say 100,000 brochures and an ad

campaign, which is $574,000. Is that correct?

HON. MR. REID : I want to make this

abundantly clear. We spent $574,000 on tour marketing around the

province, and part of the component of that was the Gold Rush Trail. It

totalled $574,000, so please don't refer to it as the cost for doing

the Gold Rush Trail promotion. The Gold Rush Trail identification can

be specifically earmarked at the brochures, which was 100,000

publications at $140,000. The Ride of a Lifetime was a tourism

attraction program, a public relations program and a photo opportunity

for the media, international media people, to see what kind of

opportunities there are in a kind of rustic, Cariboo-Chilcotin type of

tourism. It seemed to us to be a neat product, and it worked very well.

Specifically, we contributed only $150,000 in total to the Ride of a Lifetime. Including all of the components that we were

involved, contractual and otherwise, it was $150,000 maximum, and

$140,000 was for the brochures. The other component comes out of the

total $574,000 for marketing around the province, of which the Gold

Rush Trail was one component.

MS. EDWARDS : You talked about promoting it

internationally, and you said part of it was for marketing and

promotion. Now you say you had some international journalist there for

photos and so on and so forth. That was part of the $150,000 promotion

figure. Was the ministry involved in any of the costs for that? We're

talking international marketing, the kind of stuff I'm encouraging you

to continue. How did that work? I'm even more curious when you say you

did marketing and promotion, and then you say there were some needs for

the completion of the ride. Can you elaborate on that?

HON. MR. REID : I don't know how I used the

words "needs for the completion of the ride." We agreed that it was a

neat product and a neat promotion, and something which didn't exist in

B.C. up until that time. We wanted to use that component for public

relations purposes for marketing the Chilcotin and the Cariboo. This

particular Ride of a Lifetime promotion cost the ministry — are you

paying attention? — $150,000 in total for all of our involvement. I

don't know if you want me to tell you how many stamps we sent out, how

many brochures and booklets were asked for, and all those kinds of

things, but the Ride of a Lifetime component towards tourism public

relations in the promotion program.... The photo opportunities were

provided to people on the ride. It was nothing to do with the

government or the ministry.

This was a new, innovative product, and one we couldn't talk

about to anybody else around the world. Since it was so innovative, we

had the media from each of the communities along the way welcoming the

Ride of a Lifetime, gathering the local people in for an evening around

the ride people and the visitors who picked up the ride from other

areas around the United States and Canada and became part of it. So

when they entered a little town like Boston Bar, the evening was made

up of the whole aura around the Ride of a Lifetime: the stagecoach ride

in the old days; they sang songs; they had beans and wieners. I don't

think the minister paid for any beans and wieners; I didn't really care

about it. It cost us totally $150,000, the best investment we've ever

made to market the product that has been the best-kept secret in the

world: the Cariboo and the Chilcotin. Barkerville, Fort Wells and those

areas benefited immensely from the program — a great program.

MS. EDWARDS : Could the minister elaborate

on how the area benefited from the program? You tell me you don't have

any counts as to who went on the ride or how many people participated,

or any of those figures. It seems to me that when it comes to wieners

and beans, it's time to count the beans.

Why would you spend $150,000? You don't know if it's going on

again this year, you don't know how many people participated, and so

on. How do you evaluate this expenditure of $150,000?

HON. MR. REID : I don't have to, because

it's not in my 1988-89 budget. I don't have it in the budget, so I

don't know

[ Page 4263 ]

why you're pursuing it. I gave you the reasons. It was a very

effective public relations program. People from as far away as Germany

participated. I don't have their names and addresses, but I'm sure that

Hans Dankel, the man who ran the program, can tell you how excited my

ministry was about the opportunity for a brand-new product to be

promoted. We're not promoting it in 1988-89 as a product of the

ministry, because of our choice to diversify our marketing money. It is

not a program in 1988-89; it's not in the estimates. I don't know why

the Chairman is allowing you to proceed with the discussion, because

it's not a part of our budget in 1988-89.

MS. EDWARDS : I think, Mr. Minister, it

deals with the continuing promotion, as I understand it, of the Gold

Rush Trail itself. There is a continuing promotion, and I'm curious as

to how the ministry evaluates the kinds of promotions it does. This was

a very clear one; it was one of the two last year. There were very

limited directions to the promotion money. One of them was what was

called in the headline a culture campaign in the U.S., which I haven't

even mentioned yet. Another was the Gold Rush Trail ride, and I was

hoping you might have some very clear figures to show me how that one

worked, and you would tell me what you're planning to do this year that

would take the promotion dollars.

Maybe what you're telling me is that there are no promotion

dollars for this kind of thing this year. Maybe it's time to get down

to the $11 million — as you say, sometimes $10 million, sometimes $11

million; somewhere between $10 million and $11 million — for global

marketing. Could you give me an answer now on exactly how the ministry

plans to do with $10 million what it had to do with $15 million last

year? In other words, we're dealing again with a cut in the marketing

budget. We're dealing with what you're going to do with that $10

million for global marketing.

HON. MR. REID : If you'll just give us a

second, we'll get a breakdown on the $10 million for marketing. Let me

read you, Madam Member, the tourism advertising and marketing

summary.

You may be able to pick the numbers out of it, because I haven't read

this particular page until now.

"The research conducted in the last two

years enables the ministry to identify target groups who have a greater

interest in visiting B.C. and the best means to convince them to travel

here. By evaluating the responses to our advertising, we've been able

to direct the development of our creative material and selection of our

media to obtain a better return on the government's investment in

tourism advertising."

As I told you before, we talk daily about innovative ideas to

get a bigger bang for our buck. The 800 number is one of them; Partners

in Tourism is another; the three co-op programs are specific

identifications of programs which were not in place last year but are

in this year. The research and testing will continue in 1988 to

influence future marketing decisions, which are made on an ongoing

basis in order to respond to the market. The market, by virtue of our

visitor survey — the one that I'm sorry you do not have, but we have

breakdowns of it.... This survey indicates to us a different thrust in

our marketing. What we didn't know in September, we now know in

January. So my staff have been instructed to modify our programs so

that we get a bigger bang for our buck in the United States, eastern

Canada, Europe and the Pacific Rim. We have programs in place....

The publication program, for instance, was in place prior to

the allocation of funds. So there is roughly a $2 million allocation

for the number of publications we have, which are the travel guides,

the accommodation guides, the saltwater and freshwater fishing guides,

the Gold Rush Trail publications, the maps and those kinds of things.

In 1987-88 our tourism advertisement reached a magazine

circulation of approximately 30 million people. In 1988-89 we'll be

reaching a circulation of approximately 24 million people. While the

ministry's television advertising will be limited to four weeks on

cable networks in April this year, magazine advertisements will end in

May. There will be a residual effect of our advertising for several

months. The Partners in Tourism program will help fill some of these

variations and changes.

Our implementation of the 800 toll-free number — a line for

customer inquiries — will create savings over 1987-88 and make for

better handling of our customers.

I know that's not specific. My deputy is going to break down,

in rough numbers, out of the $10 million proposed marketing

programs.... As I say, we modify them almost daily, and we will be

changing a

lot of those that we had in place in '87-88, as a result of our results

in '87 and our visitor survey, which is telling us different focuses.

One of the directions we've changed since the publication of the

budget.... The numbers went into the Finance ministry. The 800 number

is a

very good example of that. So we're seeing the strength of that, and if

we had our druthers I guess we'd put even more funds into an 800 number

expansion, as a result of the success it's having.

Also, our publications, without fail, are winning awards

internationally for the quality productions we're making with the money

we're investing in them.

[4:30]

MS. EDWARDS : Maybe a specific question will

help, but I think the minister said that he is reaching a certain

circulation right now with print ads, with only four weeks of cable ads

in April; that the magazine ads will peter out during May. You are

hoping, with good luck and great optimism, that perhaps the Partners in

Tourism program will take over for a while. I assume that's in all the

media you use. Then you say, Mr. Minister, that the 800 line, of

course, will give information to a huge number of people.

Could you explain to me how you're going to get that 800

number out if you have a much more limited print marketing program in

particular? I would think it was most important.... Although you may

find — and I'm not trying to limit you — that

the number works very

well in television presentations or something, or even radio.... But

could you tell me how you expect the 800 line to work if in fact

the rest of the marketing program and the rest of what's out there...?

I mean, nobody knows the number if it doesn't get out there. How do

you get it out there?

HON. MR. REID : If the member is under the

impression that we're not spending any marketing money, nothing could

be further from the truth. We're spending $10 million in 1988-89 on

marketing, and it's divided up into $6 million generic and $4 million

in Partners, in round numbers. Forty-six percent of our $6 million will

be spent in B.C.; 5 percent in general in Alberta: 5 percent in

Ontario; 34 percent in California, because that's one of our major

markets; 7 percent in Washington; and 3 percent in the other parts of

the United

[ Page 4264 ]

States. It will be in the range of the very high-impact ads

that we now have out there, which are working . . . .

Already we know they're working in such things as Sunset

Magazine and Field and Stream . We're still into those magazines, and

what we found out from that "Visitor '87" survey is that there are some

processes . . . . Some marketing programs we were using were not as

effective and maybe not as area-specific as they could have been as a

result of the tourists who were here and the direction we will now go

into. So if we can be more specific to an area of the central United

States, in relation to the attractions and the areas that they want to

visit in B.C., we can be very specific in material and in

advertisements that go there.

Our television marketing. For instance, we found out that if

we're very selective in our television marketing in the Los Angeles and

California market, and we specifically zero in at particular times, we

get a tremendous response. The 800 number is just starting to get some

of the television ads, because it's only been out there for a short

time. But it has been in publications since April 1. All of our ads

internally will carry the 800 number, but there is a corporate

community, a private sector community, out there that also wants to

tell the story about our 800 number and the effect it's having and what

the advantage is for them. So the 800 number is a number that anybody

can use to market Tourism B.C. Give the number, and if it's something

area-specific that they want some help with, they give out the number — 1-800-663-6000, I think.

I'm optimistic. I'm of the opinion that what we've been doing

in the last four years has been so successful that there's momentum

there. We have an opportunity to shift gears a little in 1988-89 and

take advantage of area-specific marketing, so that we continue that

momentum. I give you the assurance that 1988 will be a bigger year than

1987, and '89 will be bigger than '88; you can quote me now and

forever. And 1990 will even be bigger yet, because what we're doing is

the right thing at the right time. Sometimes it's not the bulk of the

money; it's the way it's spent and the direction in which it's utilized

to get the biggest bang for the buck.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr. Minister, forgive me if I

don't have too much faith in your plunking the money on the table,

because we've had some experience of it not necessarily working out too

well, vis--vis the fees. You remember: "There'll be more tourists.

They love to pay fees. We'll increase our attendance even though we

have admission fees." Well, ho, ho, ho, Mr. Minister, but I hope

you're right this time.

You're talking about targeting, about going into California

because it's a great market. That's good. I have no problems with the

fact that you build on your own success. But how much do you expand the

market? How are you deciding if you're going to expand the market? More

importantly, who are you targeting? Could you tell us that? What kind

of tou