Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 4, Number 18

[ Page 3165 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

The Speaker: Before calling for introductions, I am going to exercise the prerogative of the Chair and make the first introduction. Joining us this afternoon is a man who will be no stranger to most of you, a former Speaker from this assembly, John Reynolds. Would you please make him welcome.

G. Wilson: It's my pleasure to again extend a warm welcome to Mr. Reynolds, who is with us today. Mr. Reynolds was Speaker at a time when I, as an unelected leader, needed access to these facilities, these buildings. He was the most gracious of Speakers, the most open and most non-partisan, from my perspective, and certainly allowed me the opportunity to have the seats in the gallery reserved and set aside so that I could participate, even from afar, in the proceedings of this House.

Mr. Reynolds is no stranger to the combat of political battle and is now back in combat as a Reform candidate in West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast. We welcome him back in Victoria, and I would ask all the House to wish him the best and Godspeed in his endeavours.

B. McKinnon: It gives me great pleasure to introduce another grade 5 class of 27 students and their teacher, Ms. Douglas, from Pacific Academy in Fraser Heights in Surrey-Cloverdale. I would like the House to make them welcome.

G. Plant: I am delighted today to know that John Ratel, who is the director of government affairs for the British Columbia Automobile Association and its almost 700,000 members, is with us in the gallery. I ask the House to make him welcome.

R. Thorpe: It is with pleasure that I introduce some visiting constituents today: Louise and Murray Webb. Murray has recently retired in Penticton. Louise and Murray are visiting here with Louise's mother, Mary Sachs, and she is from Oliver.

Mrs. Sachs has just recently published her own account of her life with her husband, called Determination . It highlights their trip -- leaving from Delisle, Saskatchewan, on October 26, 1939, and travelling across the Prairies in a customized house trailer drawn by two horses. Would the House please make these guests very welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Joining us today from the Peace to talk about agricultural issues are Jean Leahy and Patrick Michael. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: Visiting the Legislature today is a very important gentleman, the consul general from Spain to Canada. I would ask the House to make welcome Jose Antonio Zorrilla.

C. Clark: In the galleries today we have a very old friend of mine from when I used to participate in this House in Universities Model Parliament. His name is Ken Dickerson, and I hope the House would please make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT

(SUBSTANCE ABUSER REHABILITATION) ACT

G. Plant presented a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment (Substance Abuser Rehabilitation) Act.

G. Plant: Mr. Speaker, despite the threat of harsh penalties and the continuing efforts of police, the scourge of impaired driving continues to plague British Columbia. In 1995 there were no less than 146 alcohol-related traffic deaths and almost 5,000 alcohol-related crash injuries. The cost of impaired driving in financial terms is staggering -- over $200 million a year -- but the cost in wasted lives and destroyed families is yet more tragic.

Far too many impaired drivers are repeat offenders. Fully 57 percent of those charged with impaired driving have had a similar charge within the last five years. Impaired driving is not just a traffic safety issue, however; it's also a health issue. As many as 85 percent of first offenders have a significant problem with the use of alcohol. It's long past time to deal with these problems.

This bill, if enacted, would give the superintendent of motor vehicles the power to require drivers to submit to assessment and, if necessary, rehabilitation for substance abuse. The bill also prohibits persons convicted of impaired driving and related offences from driving until such time as they have been assessed for substance abuse problems and, if necessary, have undertaken rehabilitation.

My plan would impose no cost on government. Convicted offenders would be required to pay for assessment and counselling. My goal is to make our streets and highways safer for all who use them. Successful substance abuse counselling would result not only in safer streets but in healthier families, as well. It's time for government to take the steps necessary to ensure that drunk drivers not only lose their licences but also are forced to become responsible for their substance abuse problems.

Bill M207 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

SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING

A. Sanders: Hon. Speaker, it seems that the NDP's own members don't believe the government's promises on education. Among these is New Westminster trustee and NDP member James Janzen. He said: "A minister is hired, and an hour later he's an expert. His ignorance is vast; his arrogance is vaster." He went on to say: "This government got caught with their hand in the cookie jar once regarding the budget, and now they want to balance the budget on the backs of children." Can this minister tell me why students and parents should believe him when it's clear that his supporters do not?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This government has set out to protect education, and we are doing so. School boards, including the New Westminster school board, have

[ Page 3166 ]

received the highest per-student funding that any school district in this country has received this year -- bar none. I am pleased to report that all school districts have now submitted their budgets for the next year, and all of them have submitted balanced budgets.

[2:15]

A. Sanders: By law, school boards have to submit balanced budgets, something that we would look forward to from this provincial government.

Another NDP trustee, Vasant Saklikar, is urging the board to explore the possibility of suing the provincial government and the Ministry of Education for breach of the School Act. The minister was so fond of Mr. Saklikar that as Minister of Health he appointed this gentleman to the New Westminster board of health in 1994. If the minister was so confident in 1994 with these people's opinions, why three years later is he now ignoring them?

Hon. P. Ramsey: School districts around this province have carried through with the task that I know was not easy for many of them, and that was to take the increase in funding that we have provided this year -- the sixth increase in funding in a row for school districts tabled by this government . . . . And they have done the job, which is admittedly hard, of making reductions in services outside the classroom in order to put money into classroom services.

I gave them a clear challenge. I said, through the amalgamation process: "We're not going to demand that you do what the Liberals asked for and reduce budgets by $50 million; we're only going to ask that you reduce your budgets by $27 million in non-classroom services." And they have done it -- including New Westminster.

I have talked to the New Westminster press on this issue. I only hope that as the school trustees in New Westminster consider legal options, they don't spend any public money on it. Classrooms are more important.

C. Clark: Clearly the member for New Westminster has taken a beating, trying to defend this government's cuts to education in his own local riding. The NDP school board chair said that the ignorance of that MLA is quite evident. Another NDP trustee has said that it has prompted him to wonder whether his MLA can add and subtract -- which I think is a problem that's endemic on that side of the House.

Will the minister put an end to the member's confusion and tell him, clarify for him, that per-student funding has indeed been cut in the city of New Westminster?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I said before, and I'll say it again: I'm a former teacher, and I wish we had even more money to give school boards. This is a good budget for school boards. It's the best budget for our children of any government in Canada, and we're going to continue to make sure that children and education stay at the top of our priority list. That's where it's going to be.

I keep hearing from the opposition that somehow they've now had a conversion: they want to spend more on education after fighting the entire election on spending less. For them to stand up today, after their leader has said that the federal government should have cut more to transfer payments for health and education, that it didn't go far enough . . . . For them to stand up now and say they're not getting enough is shameful hypocrisy, hon. Speaker.

C. Clark: If this is indeed such a good budget for education, perhaps the minister can explain to this House why in New Westminster, which has among the lowest costs for administration in the province and which is third-highest in terms of spending money in the classroom, is still facing a $900,000 shortfall as a result of this budget. The member for New Westminster has even been forced to concede that there is a problem with the funding formula.

Can the minister tell us if he agrees with his colleague that there is indeed a problem with the funding formula for schools in British Columbia?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, a discussion of the funding formula might better take place during estimates, and I welcome a dialogue with the member during them.

Let me say this. The funding formula . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Please, let's hear the answer.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, we have a funding allocation formula in the K-to-12 education system that takes the $3.5 billion budget for school services and distributes it equitably to 59 school districts. Every year aspects of this formula are reviewed, and where changes are required they are made.

I have invited the New Mestwinster . . .

Interjections.

Hon. P. Ramsey: . . . New Westminster -- it's easy for you to say -- school district, if it has a specific concern with the funding allocation formula, to bring it forward for consideration in the 1998-99 budget.

M. de Jong: If it's any consolation to the minister, the trustees in New Westminster have the same difficulty pronouncing his name, I'm sure.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Let us hear the question.

M. de Jong: Those trustees are frustrated and they're afraid. The question they ask is: who besides them is going to speak up for the students in New Westminster? It won't be the NDP, and it won't be the member for New Westminster. They won't speak up for those students.

Maybe the minister could help us one more time. For those of us who don't understand his new math, explain to us how a $52-per-pupil reduction in funding actually equates with his supposed commitment to improving front-line services.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Parents and students across this province are concerned with making sure that education remains a top priority. That's why we were re-elected last year, hon. Speaker. And that's why in this budget we have preserved every bit of funding for special education, which will go up again this year; every bit of funding for aboriginal education, which will go up again this year; and every bit of the $10 million-a-year technology fund to improve the access of our students to new technology in our schools. Every bit of that money has gone to school districts across the province.

[ Page 3167 ]

Hon. Speaker, they are afraid. What they're afraid of is a Liberal government which would carry out its clear promise to slash education funding.

M. de Jong: The minister's ability to avoid answering the question, Mr. Speaker, maybe qualifies him to write a prospectus for Bre-X. But the fact of the matter is he refuses to address the key issue, which is a $52-per-pupil reduction in funding. He's going to have to answer for that; the member for New Westminster is going to have to answer for that.

Let me ask the minister this: how many more students, how many more school boards are going to have to speak out or threaten legal action against this minister and this government before he stands here and honestly admits that his supposed commitment to education is a scam and a sham and there is no plan?

Hon. P. Ramsey: My word, hon. Speaker. We build 95 new schools, and they say it's not enough. We fund an increase for education in the province for the sixth year in a row at the highest per capita rate, and they say it's not enough. This is the same opposition that, when the federal government cut $400 million out of transfer payments last year and another $300 million this year, drastically threatening our ability to deliver on health and education, requiring us to . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order, members on both sides. Let's hear answers and hear questions. Minister, please wrap it up.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Cuts to transfer payments clearly made it difficult and resulted in cuts to virtually every other ministry of government in order to put money into health and education. And what did this opposition say? The cuts weren't deep enough. That's their record on protecting education, and Lord help students if they ever form government.

LEASED VEHICLE FOR

CHAIR OF B.C. TRANSIT

D. Symons: From that answer I think we can figure out why so many people in British Columbia nowadays are wondering why they voted NDP last year.

When we last saw Derek Corrigan, he was rolling in some of the $120,000 he received for his work as the part-time chair of B.C. Transit.

An Hon. Member: A part-time job?

D. Symons: Yes, a part-time job. But that's not all. It turns out that the chair of B.C. Transit can't get to and from work by bus or by SkyTrain; he needs a company car.

Can the minister responsible for B.C. Transit tell us why on earth she would allow her part-time chair to lease a Saab 900 at taxpayers' expense?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll read a letter into the record that's dated April 29 to Derek Corrigan.

"Yesterday, I was informed that B.C. Transit board policy has allowed for the lease of a 1996 Saab 900 for your use as chair. The lease of this vehicle is inconsistent with the other major Crown corporations provide to chairs. Clearly, the lease of this vehicle contradicts government's policies to get our financial house in order.

"I would like this matter brought to the board's attention at the earliest possible time. I expect the board to reconsider its policy of providing the chair with a vehicle . . . . Also, I would like the board to consider all options in terminating the lease for the 1996 Saab 900 to minimize the cost to the corporation."

D. Symons: It's rather interesting that after the Liberal opposition FOIs that information, the minister suddenly puts out a . . . . It's a little belated, I would think. I wonder why, then, when this handpicked NDP person, chosen for B.C. Transit . . . . And the government seemed not ashamed till this point . . . to be questioning the leasing of a Saab.

Can the minister responsible tell us why she would have given, in the first place, the authority or the ability to lease for $760 per month rather than use a three-zone bus pass?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I would think that this Liberal opposition would quit while they're ahead, but I will answer this question.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, that's true -- quit while they're behind.

The boards of Crown corporations set the policy for remuneration. When it did come to my attention, at the same time that it came to your attention, I acted immediately and took action. The lease will be terminated, and the appropriate policies of B.C. Transit will be followed.

If the hon. member would like to say that there's some good use out of their FOI-ing every single thing in the Legislature, I give them credit for that.

G. Farrell-Collins: I always thought the government was elected to manage the Crown corporations, not the opposition.

It was interesting, because while we were surfing the Net, we came across some comments about the Saab 900. Erik Carlsson, the legendary Saab rally driver, said: "The Saab feeling is all about having full control on the move."

To the minister responsible for B.C. Transit: will she confirm that the real reason she and the NDP-appointed B.C. Transit board allowed Derek Corrigan to choose a Saab 900 is because "AutoWeek" called the turbocharged edition: "A car with attitude and a social conscience to go along with it"?

Hon. J. MacPhail: When it came to my attention . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I'm sure we all want to hear this answer.

Hon. J. MacPhail: When it came to my attention that the chair had rented a Saab 900, I actually had to find out what a Saab 900 was. But I will say that the minute this issue came to our attention, we took immediate action to put our fiscal house in order throughout all of the Crown corporations.

[ Page 3168 ]

I would expect, with the management of the official opposition's own monetary matters -- such as $1 million mailouts, surfing the Net, etc. -- that they would take the same responsible action and put their fiscal house in order.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call committee for estimates. For the information of the members of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and then Aboriginal Affairs. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 9.

TOURISM BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(second reading continued)

T. Nebbeling: Yesterday, when I started to speak on Bill 9, I started to express some of the surprise I experienced when members opposite started to take credit for the major role the tourism industry plays today in job creation and in bringing wealth to this province.

I was really surprised, because as I explained yesterday, many of the good things that tourism developed in the eighties have been undone in the last four or five years. I will not repeat all of the elements that were brought in, but let it suffice to say that the many tools that were used in the past by the tourism industry to sell abroad the product called British Columbia and the beauty of British Columbia abroad have disappeared over the last five, six years, unfortunately.

Had that not been the case, I think we would have seen even more spectacular results in bringing tourists here and creating opportunities. Having said that, I think it is important also to recognize at this point with Bill 9 that the role of the tourism industry up to now has been a very major one indeed in contributing to that success. There are a number of players in the tourism industry that can claim credit for the results that we received today.

Tourism Victoria has been an incredible contributor in spreading the word about the beauty of this area, and it has worked the Asian market especially. The Asian market, no doubt, will develop even more in the future into a major contributor to the industry and thereby to wealth creation in this province. I can say the same thing for Tourism Vancouver. The same goes for the Okanagan tourism board and for an organization I've been a member of as well, the Whistler Resort Association.

I mention these four organizations, because these are the four that over the last couple of years have recognized that the money that was coming from this government was totally insufficient to create an infrastructure that would bring the most bang for our buck, if that is the proper expression. The one complaint the industry has always had, of course, is the lack of proper funding.

Considering that we're now looking at Bill 9, which will create a commission -- an advisory group to the government . . . . Unfortunately, I must say that in my opinion it is only an advisory group, because the choice of the board is not up to the industry itself but is subject to the approval of the Minister of Tourism and it's by order-in-council, which means that the very best people who could be participating on this level will not necessarily be part of the board. I'm afraid that other elements will come into the decision about who will serve on this board and who will not.

The point is that there are tremendously talented people in the industry today that want to participate, and they certainly hope they can do that through this special operating agency. The one thing that is immediately clear is that funding has always been lacking to really get the full impact of tourism promotion in this province, and the past funding has been reduced even more. Although $18 million may look like a lot of money, if you see what this $18 million has to do on a global basis, it truly does not in any way give the commission the tools to effectively make tourism a bigger and more contributing industry.

Up to now, there has been a lack of vision by the ministry when it comes to tourism. Like I said before, the results that we see today are definitely because of the industry itself having taken on responsibility -- and with that, often excessive costs. When I speak about this government's lack when it comes to tourism, I'll give you one example. Last year we had a tremendous opportunity to showcase British Columbia throughout the world. As some of you may recall, we had a spectacular event in the Sea to Sky corridor; it was the Eco-Challenge.

This was an event where teams from all over the world went into the wilderness for a week and had to basically survive on rations under very difficult conditions. It's an event that very few of us could ever participate in but many of us like to watch on TV.

The Discovery Channel, the American operation, filmed the whole Eco-Challenge, and this televised program goes to 140 countries. It consists of five one-hour programs that have been bought by 140 countries. At the time Discovery was in Whistler partaking in the filming of Eco-Challenge, the offer was made that in every program there could be a vignette: "This was filmed in British Columbia, Canada." This would have been a tremendous tool to promote Tourism B.C. for a very small cost. We are not talking hundreds of thousands of dollars; we are talking less than $100,000.

This offer by the Discovery Channel to broadcast the Whistler pictures at that cost is just a phenomenal offer. Unfortunately, the government did not take the Discovery Channel up on the offer. Since that time, I've been in Australia and in a number of countries in Europe. Believe it or not, I've seen these programs from the Discovery Channel in all these countries. So this story is to illustrate why the government is really missing the boat so often when there are opportunities to showcase British Columbia abroad.

To see an agency formed that will indeed help the tourism industry to become even bigger will have my strong support. When we go into committee with this bill, I hope that I and my colleagues will be able to present some amendments that will make the bill more effective and allow the people who will sit on that board to create the biggest bang for the tourism buck that we have available. If we do that as a partnership, this side and the government side can create a bill that will help tourism continue to be one of the major economic pillars and job creators in this province.

H. Giesbrecht: I rise in support of Bill 9, the Tourism British Columbia Act. When I walked into the debate as it was proceeding yesterday, it was certainly a slightly different tone than what I'm hearing at the beginning of today's debate. And that's probably a good thing. But it was fascinating listening to the debate. One expects when an issue like this, which has the unqualified support of the tourism industry, is brought to the

[ Page 3169 ]

floor of this House that the opposition would dispense with the usual negative criticism and endorse it and that we could go on with life. But no, true to form, they tear it apart and criticize and spread misinformation about the state of the tourism industry in B.C. in the hope that if they shout long and loud enough, people will actually believe them.

The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi made the suggestion that just because those on this side of the House actually support a bill that's endorsed by the industry and want to see it proceed, somehow that's equivalent to taking credit for all of the gains in tourism over the past six years. I don't know where one would draw that conclusion from. At least we on this side of the House recognize that there are some actions that government can take that can help. In this case, when it was supported by the industry, it seems strange that they wouldn't also take that position.

Listening to the rhetoric -- I'm specifically referring to the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain and the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi because I sat through some of their speeches -- I began to wonder if they had attended the same announcement that I attended about a month ago. Tourism B.C.'s John Williams was there and Pat Corbett, the chair of the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. They all said good things about it. Some of the things they said weren't even included in the news release.

They should have been, because they were extremely complimentary about the work that had been done by the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture and the Premier. They were quite optimistic about the results of this particular initiative. So I kept wondering whether or not I was actually in the same room or attended the same function.

But you know, sometimes ideology overrides common sense, and they've been in the critical mode for so long that maybe it's kind of hard to get out of it. Whenever there's some good news, they tend to object to that. Some of them, of course, have admitted that they'll vote in favour of this bill -- and I think that's great -- but it seems strange after they spend all their time speaking and trashing it, and the public must really be wondering about the kind of political game that's being played. It's small wonder that the opposition is sometimes viewed as lacking leadership or focus.

So if the stakeholders are pleased, why wouldn't the opposition be pleased? That's the sort of question I keep asking myself in listening to the debate. I think it's just because they can't stand to see the government getting it right. That's fundamentally what it's all about. So the opposition's position of speaking against and then voting for is somewhat puzzling and, some in my constituency would say, somewhat juvenile.

I want to get back to something the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain raised in her speech. Apparently she breezed into my constituency one day and talked to a few people and came up with all kinds of pessimistic views of what the tourism industry was going to do. I should assure her that the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine and I have been working on that for some time, and there will be a resolution. So there is no cause for alarm. But she did say that she had talked to somebody who said that the new fishing fees were going to cost him $100,000 and that he only earned $45,000 off his lodge.

I did a quick calculation here. If the new fees were going to cost that much, that meant the individual was probably eligible for around 2,500 rod-days, which sell for something like $400 to $500 a day. Of course, the number that I get in terms of the revenue created is over $1 million, and I keep wondering how this could be. So I think the facts were wrong somehow. What the member didn't do, of course -- and this is critical in terms of getting a sense of the mood of the general population up there -- was . . . . She never talked to any local anglers. I think that's a fundamental flaw.

Just to make the point, I thought I would read a portion of what was written in the local paper, in the column "Skeena Angler" by Rob Brown. He apparently got on the Internet and followed some of the debate that the Americans were having around the time that all this news was out there. From an American fisher, this was the comment:

"B.C. should not have to feel like some Third World nation where foreigners come in and extract most of the value of their natural resources. Even with catch and release, we do extract value. Every foreign angler takes up time and space on a stream that, theoretically at least, could have been utilized by a B.C. citizen. We don't have to like it, but we must respect their sovereignty."

So if she had talked to some of the local anglers, who have been quite supportive in terms of the new measures -- albeit there were some problems which are being worked out -- I think she would have got a slightly different view.

[2:45]

Then, of course, yesterday the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi said:

"We are looking today at a special operating agency for one reason. It's not this government's initiative, not this government's generosity towards the tourism industry -- because up to very recently many members opposite, including the minister, have been making very negative statements about the tourism industry as far as opportunity, jobs and wages are concerned."

I remember that on this side of the House we were asking him to quote something from Hansard where that was the case, or to provide some evidence of this. Instead, he got off on some tangent about the member for Skeena and how I had said: "What about terrorists?" Well, hon. Speaker, I never raised the subject of terrorists. What I challenged him to do was to come up with some evidence of that, and he was unable to do so. In other words, it simply wasn't correct.

I have to go back to some of the highlights in terms of what's in this particular act. Now, the highlights aren't secret; there has been lots of documentation presented in terms of what it's expected to do.

The information says that it will contribute to revenue and job growth in B.C.'s tourism industry, stimulating 25,000 new jobs by the year 2001; that it provides a secure, permanent funding formula based on a percentage of the existing hotel room tax that will strengthen Tourism B.C.'s ability to develop long-term marketing and development strategies -- that's got to be good; and that it provides increased revenues for Tourism B.C. as the industry grows -- now, that's got to be good. I can't understand why they would object to something like that.

It gives Tourism B.C. greater flexibility to capitalize on new opportunities in the competitive world tourism market -- that's got to be good -- and it allows Tourism B.C. to operate closer to the private sector, giving industry greater influence over marketing and promotional activities, the job they know best. And it provides for a 15-member board of directors representing the diverse components of B.C.'s tourism industry -- there's the avenue for consultation that's built into the act.

So, hon. Speaker, I can't see from anything suggested there that any of the opposition would be anything but supportive of this particular initiative. But they've tried to paint a bleak picture of tourism in B.C. Just for the record, since 1991 the number of tourism-related businesses in B.C. has grown from about 10,000 to more than 15,000. Over the past six years tourism revenue has grown from $4 billion to an estimated $7

[ Page 3170 ]

billion, and it's more than $7 billion now. Between 1990 and 1996, B.C. realized a 12 percent annual compounded growth in direct entries from overseas and 3 percent annual compounded growth in U.S. direct entries. Compare that to the 7 percent and the 1 percent for Canada respectively, and you get a sense of how vital and how good the tourism industry is in B.C.

Over half of all visitors to B.C. travel outside Victoria and Vancouver; those are the ones we'd like to attract up to my constituency. Here's an opportunity for Tourism B.C. to undertake some initiatives that would encourage people to go outside the urban areas and the lower mainland. I think there's an excellent opportunity for that to be achieved. It's the fastest-growing industry in B.C. All the gloom and doom from that side of the House is nothing more than a figment of their imagination. Hotel and motel stays are on the increase, which means that B.C. tourism revenue would increase.

Now, there's a valid debate on how much money is enough to promote tourism. If a $100 million investment produces $7 billion in tourism revenue, it doesn't necessarily follow that if you spent $200 million in investment, it would create $14 billion in tourism revenue. There has to be some common sense exercised in where you put that. That's what Tourism B.C. is supposed to do. They're the ones in the business, and they're the ones that will have that expertise. That's what we have said all along, notwithstanding some of the comments made by members opposite.

This new independent agency will be responsible for marketing B.C. as a tourism destination. They have the expertise to make the best use of tourism investment dollars. In fact the tourism industry, unlike many, has an awful lot of volunteers that assist in providing activities and attractions for tourists coming into this province. It's one of those industries that is worthy of that kind of support and that kind of consistent funding. So I'm pleased that the minister and the Premier undertook this initiative. I speak in favour, and I'll also vote in favour. That's the only principled position to take in this particular case.

V. Anderson: I rise to speak to Bill 9, Tourism British Columbia Act. In doing so, I would like to respond to the member for Skeena, because he asked why we had some questions about it when the stakeholders were pleased with this development -- and when we had commented on many good aspects of it, as well. In response to that, hon. member, the questions are asked . . . .

I have often risen in this House over the last five years to commend the government on some of their intentions and some of their plans, only to be concerned that they have not been implemented, or that they have been implemented in a way directly opposite to that which had been portrayed in the House. Time after time, members of my constituency and people I work with have come back and said: "How come we had promises that have not been fulfilled? We had good ideas that have been destroyed." We're concerned that this may happen once again, as has happened on so many occasions.

That's unfortunate, because the legislative process loses credibility.

There are some reasons for concern. The member for Skeena just talked about it being an independent body, but at best it's semi-independent because out of the 15 directors, only ten of the 15 can be recommended to come from the constituency. The other five are appointed by the government itself. And even those ten . . . . Though nominations and recommendations may come from the constituency, the phrase is that they "may be" appointed from those representative members.

Even though there is hopefully an opportunity for a representative of the Council of Tourism Associations to be represented, the phrase again is "may." We've learned in the past that "may" is not good enough when you're dealing with this particular government.

The member for Skeena was commenting about questions that he had put to the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, but the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi assures me that there had been no conversation between them and that there were no questions either asked or answered. So we have a concern about things that are stated that have actually not taken place.

I come to the purpose of this act because that's the essence of the undertaking, and I would like to read it: "The purpose of the corporation is to promote development and growth in the tourism industry to increase revenue and employment in that industry throughout British Columbia and to increase the economic benefits generated by the industry." They're all very good and proper undertakings that we've also discussed with members of the tourism industry.

But one item is not mentioned, except in one word in passing -- that is, the "diversity" of our population. One of the realities of our country that we're very proud of and pleased with is the diversity of our population and the multicultural heritage of our people from coast to coast, north to south. That's a heritage which reaches around the world and has been getting increasing recognition and attention.

I would like to mention and recommend that the minister, when she has the opportunity, give us some suggestion as to how she sees the diversity of our country -- its cultural heritage, the opportunity to share with other countries around the world our strengths and our lessons -- being reflected in this new body they have created, this tourism council.

I think that's a very important part of the opportunity we have. Tourists may come here not because they have money to spend, not just because they create jobs -- both of which are important -- but because they're able to come here and share their culture with our culture and our culture with their culture. We are living in a world where the multicultural reality is more important than ever. We need to learn to share together with one another in ever more increasing and effective ways -- to understand each other.

To understand each other even in the way we do business or the way that we serve people who come here from around the world, there needs to be a continual development of our appreciation of the cultures and customs of the people with whom we associate. We need to understand that the way we do business is not necessarily the way they are used to doing business, and we need to make some favourable adjustments for that.

They come here to learn not just about the scenery and the country and not just to go skiing and fishing but also to learn about our culture and our history and our method of being able to live together in harmony one with the other without taking away from the validity of each of our particular cultures. So I think there's a very important element that needs to be stressed here and highlighted in the activities in which we are engaged.

That's a point I hope the minister will deal with when she responds. I ask the minister: what opportunities do they have in mind when we come -- and we'll discuss this more in committee stage -- to give special training in multicultural approaches and understanding to those people who are employed in the tourist industry who can share our culture and our history with them? It's not only a one-way street,

[ Page 3171 ]

because the sharing of culture as people come into our communities . . . . Many students have come here for education. They have brought with them their culture and their customs, and they have enriched our country, as have many people who have come into our country -- not because of tourism but because they were refugees, because they were desperate. They have brought with them a culture and a custom which is extremely important.

I was recently at a festival put on by the Vietnamese people, and I have not been to any better celebration or festival than I was on that particular day. They may not be large in numbers, but they are great in warmth and in cultural history. It was a real privilege to be able to attend their event, which began at 12 noon and went until almost 5 o'clock in the afternoon. There was one presentation after another of their heritage and their culture, with no repetition, by young people of early school years up to senior adults -- the whole range of their population.

In the planning for tourism, I'm asking the minister how they take into account the many ethnic community associations that are able to share their culture and their history. Have they taken into account the kinds of festivals that go on throughout the year that these people may be able to participate in and contribute to as they share in our country?

Tourism is not just about making money, although that's important for those who are employed by it. It's not only about providing entertainment for people who come, but it's also about providing cultural interaction and cultural exchange. Because in the world in which we live, that cultural exchange is extremely important.

[3:00]

I've mentioned before and I highlight in this particular discussion the illustration which impressed me a number of years ago when the United States and China did not have open relationships with each other. There had been diplomatic attempts to try and establish something, but the breakthrough was the international ping-pong tournament, when the ping-pong players of the United States went to China and took

part in that tournament. They had the opportunity to interact, and the doors began to be open. At one of the award nights of our Sport B.C. I had the privilege to sit beside the person who had been coaching the Chinese team in that particular event, who is now living in Burnaby, I believe, and is coaching here in Canada. That intercultural interaction is of fundamental importance, and I trust it will be highlighted in what we're presenting here in our undertaking.

It's very important that we have the privilege to ask the minister if she will highlight for us what opportunities and responsibilities she sees being available in the whole development of this undertaking in this act. I think it's a good move. The association -- those involved in tourism -- are excited about the privilege. I trust that they will have the opportunity to continue independently to be able to do the things they need to do and that the minister will support them. I particularly trust that the minister will support them with the multicultural support that they will need most in this undertaking.

R. Neufeld: I rise to reply to Bill 9, the Tourism British Columbia Act. To put on the record from the start, I support the act. I will be voting in favour of it, although coming from the north, I do have a few concerns about what could happen to the tourist industry in the north if any minister that is in charge of Tourism B.C. is not careful about how they select the folks that will represent the different regions of British Columbia.

At the present time, we in the northeast -- in fact, a good part of British Columbia -- are represented by the Peace River Alaska Highway Tourist Association. I believe it's one of 28 organizations across the province that make up COTA. We have been fairly successful in supporting tourism and encouraging more tourism in the northeast. Many of you will know that the northeast part of British Columbia -- the Alaska Highway -- has a great historical record. It's well known around the world. It's one of the wonders of the world, I always say -- the construction of it and the reason for it.

Along that corridor there is some of the greatest scenery and wildlife in North America. In fact, the area just north of Fort St. John and west of Fort Nelson is called the Serengeti of the North. It is country that covers a great part of the province. It encompasses all kinds of things other than economic activity in the oil and gas industry and forestry -- that being tourism.

The Peace River Alaska Highway Tourist Association has been very successful in encouraging people from Europe, specifically Germany, to come to that part of the province -- and not always just for hunting and fishing. Many of them come just to look at our great, vast country and take pictures and go home and talk about it. So we want to try and encourage that type of tourism in the north. The Guide-Outfitters Association brings people from all over the world -- and has, ever since we've had guide and outfitters in the north. People from all over the world come to the region that I represent.

They hunt and fish and do all those things that they are not able to do at home because they don't have the wonderful real estate that we do.

Having said that, and having kind of laid out some of what we have in the north, I am rather surprised that the member for Skeena or the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine are not as concerned as I am about what can happen with the creation of five or nine super-regions across British Columbia. What happens so often -- in fact, happens all the time -- is that we just go north of Vancouver a little way, and we kind of cut it off and say: "That's all of British Columbia -- and that's the rest."

All too often the north comprises British Columbia from 100 Mile House or Williams Lake north and thus gets funded less, thus gets less exposure, thus gets less representation on all the boards. It's consistent. On the B.C. Rail board, for instance . . . . I was reminded of it when the new member from Fort St. John, Jean Leahy, was introduced in the House earlier as the new member to B.C. Rail, representing the north for the first time since the Socreds were in power. Before that we had no one, yet B.C. Rail is very important to us. That happens consistently.

People in the north, people from the Peace River Alaska Highway Tourist Association and communities up and down the Alaska Highway all rely heavily on tourism traffic as much as businesses in Victoria on Government Street do in the summertime. Their shops are open late at night. It's no different on the Alaska Highway, except there are not quite as many tourists. That will come, because there are 250-some million U.S. citizens south of us that all want to visit the last frontier, that being Alaska. And they have to travel mostly through my area of the province or else Bulkley Valley-Stikine to get there, unless they go by water.

So it's with a bit of sadness that I've learned that of the nine tourist regions, the one that I live in will encompass

[ Page 3172 ]

about 50 percent of the land mass of the province. Unless I'm badly misinformed, I find it hard to believe that that would even be considered, especially knowing full well what has taken place in the past, with the representation of the Peace River Alaska Highway Tourist Association representing just the northeast and on up that corridor.

Now to all of a sudden say that 50 percent of the province -- I'll use that for a round figure; I'm not going to argue over 1 percent -- will be represented by one person on this board of 15 is unfair. I read the legislation, and part of it says that the public interest and the diversity of the population of British Columbia must be honoured. Rural, urban and regional interests must be honoured.

I have a copy of a clipping out of the Alaska Highway News , where the minister has been quoted. I want to thank her for coming to the north on some of her journeys around the province. She is on record as saying that the north will be fairly represented on the board of a newly created Tourism British Columbia independent agency. I appreciate that. When I read the newspaper, I was lulled into thinking, well, yes, the minister has said this, and that is what's going to happen.

Since that time, unfortunately, I've been given some information that the northern person may be someone from the region of the member for Skeena, or something to that effect. That is a very important and distinct part of British Columbia, and I'm not saying that a person from there wouldn't be welcome. What I am saying is that for marketing, the Queen Charlotte Islands and the Alaska Highway are two totally distinct and different regions of the province. Each has its own distinctiveness, and each has its vast area that has to be represented fairly on this board.

Those are the major concerns that I, as a representative of Peace River North, have with the legislation in total. Like I said when I started my remarks, I support the bill, and I think it's a move in the right direction. I guess I should probably qualify that. I have a bit of concern -- and this doesn't come from my area so much, but from myself -- that when the government, in all its wisdom, puts forward these Crown corporations, whether it's FRBC, Tourism B.C. or the new fisheries Crown corporation, there is always specific funding put in place for them. But what has happened in the past is that the funding is reduced or minimized to a certain degree after everything is in place.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but the Local Government Grants Act is a very good example of that. When people, having once been, shall I say, suckered into the fact that there's a piece of the pie, and that's what they've got to live with, find out just a few years later, "I'm sorry, folks, we're not even going to consult with you; we're just going to cut a good part of it out," they become a bit suspicious of what could happen in the future.

Everybody understands -- I do -- that if things get really bad financially in the province, if there's a real recession or anything like that, then everybody would obviously suck in their belts and work a little harder with a bit less money. But we haven't seen that. We have the government telling us they're creating the most jobs of any province in Canada. On one hand, they are telling us that they have the best economy of any province in Canada, and so on and so forth, and B.C. is so wonderful. Then on the other hand, they're saying: "We have to take this money away, because we can't afford it anymore."

One begins to wonder just where all the money is going to and into what pot, and where it's being spent. Obviously people in British Columbia are not seeing a reduction in the personal taxes or the corporation taxes, or in all the hundreds and hundreds of fees that have been put in place or doubled or tripled or increased by a thousand percent over the last four or five years. Those are real concerns of the people I represent, and I think they're legitimate, genuine concerns.

I again say to the minister that we hope, and I hope, that after supporting the idea of having the Crown corporation administer this . . . . Like I say, I think it's a good idea. If we have people from industry who are appointed, industry can have their people on the board, and the government of the day can have its people on the board so that we can look at all these areas. We may not always agree -- and probably won't -- but we still have to work together as a group to try and reach the end as best we can.

Hopefully, the end will be that we have a stronger tourism organization in the province and more tourism for the province. It's obviously going to have to be a bigger part of the province's revenue share.

The biggest concern I have is the fact that we in the north -- out of the Peace River country, the Alaska Highway -- will end up being lumped in with half of the province or even a third of the province. It's just far too large, too diverse, too different just to have one person. I know that out of the Peace River Alaska Highway Tourist Association recommendations have been made to the minister of three individuals, I believe, who would be acceptable to everyone in the region. I would hope that the minister . . . . She nods her head, so she has those names. I know that they are supported by everyone.

Although they come from different areas of my region, they are supported by everyone and nominated by those folks who have represented tourism in the northeast.

I hope that by saying those words to the minister, she will look closely at how the board is formed and where those people come from. It's not just my region of the province that she has to be very careful about. The northwest is distinct unto itself. Although it has some things in common with us in tourism, there are some things that are not in common with us -- how they promote tourism and how they derive their livelihood out of tourism.

With those few words, I hope that the minister will look carefully at the northeast and look favourably at the members who have been recommended by the Peace River Alaska Highway Tourist Association to be one of the board members of the 15-member board. With that, I will take my place.

[3:15]

A. Sanders: I rise today to address the issue of tourism under the bill under discussion. Specifically, the member for Skeena, who has now had his turn, was concerned that tourism was growing and that the opposition was not in favour of this. Make no mistake, hon. Chair, we are very much in favour of it. I would have to say that the tourism industry is growing despite NDP policies, and it is arrogant of us in this House to take credit for our beautiful province as the reason our tourism industry has grown. It is not government. It has grown in spite of government and will continue to do so.

I come from a part of the province where tourism is vital. Overall, it is B.C.'s second-largest industry, contributing $7 billion annually to our economy. What we're looking at, however, in the Okanagan especially, is that since 1986 and Expo, we've had a yearly incremental increase in the Okanagan in tourism. The momentum is continuous.

What's very important in the Okanagan is that a tourism dollar is a virtual profit. When a tourist spends money in our communities, there is no implied demand on that cash. There are no hospitals and schools that need to be built for the cash

[ Page 3173 ]

given. There is straight cash going to jobs, profit and expansion within the community. In my specific instance, that is Vernon. Seventy percent of our tourism dollars are coming from British Columbia residents, about 5 percent from Asian residents and 10 percent from the U.S.A. We certainly get our share of all three of those groups in the Okanagan. It is the fastest-growing job sector in the province. Youth depend vitally on this industry for their entry-level jobs. Students require tourist jobs for their tuition funds. It is no use making places at universities for students if there are not jobs in the tourist industry for them to earn their tuition.

Recently there has been some concern that the government has tampered with the success of tourism programs. With its promise to create jobs and its desire for investment, tourism must be a primary focus in my area, yet there has been a drop in the funding that was to be set aside for tourism. Originally, in December 1996, the Minister of Transportation's budget was $25 million. Then a $10 million cut was vowed. Finally, there was enough fuss that an $18 million final figure was arrived at. No matter how it's delivered, a cut is still a cut, and the ministry is $7 million short.

We are seeing that effect in Vernon, where this year, for the first time since I have been there, we will experience the closure of our Vernon tourism office.

Not only do the cuts plague the industry, but fees are critically important to the industry, as well. With a tour operator booking 8,000 people for trips that include a ferry pass, for example, a present $1 increase is an $8,000 hit to that operator. They must cover that or find another way to raise the income. Our industry is a growing one, and these small incremental changes can have huge impacts on people who have had to buy licences for their tours at this time. That money has come directly out of their pockets.

Presently, tourism funding is administered by the special operating agency, an independent board whose members are appointed by government. This SOA is a very useful tool, but many in the industry feel it could be less bureaucratic and more streamlined, with funds being channelled directly between the agency and the community.

As well, the opposition would prefer to see an independent board of directors. Speaker after speaker has made that point. We would prefer that to the existing system of appointed individuals, which is a common practice in the NDP government. From looking at the community health councils, hospital boards, etc., I do not feel that it has worked as well as it could. In fact, I think it skews the distribution of opinion quite considerably in favour of the present government, and that does not, in all cases, reflect community value systems.

Most ministry funds are distributed through the special operating agency under Partners in Tourism grants. Dollar for dollar, the government matches the money with community and projects. This is important for us locally in Vernon. On a hot summer day in Vernon, sizzling in traffic, it's hard to remember that tourists are an essential part of the economy of the area from which I come.

However, many of our tourists simply pass through the area on their way between the coast and the mountains, and we need to increase the number of individuals who stay. Our recent North Okanagan Council for Economic Development report suggested that much more could be done. We have not yet received our full designation as a tourist destination. We have beaches in Vernon, but they are not the same as the south Okanagan or Kelowna, in terms of access. Vernon is not situated directly on the lake, and other forms of recreation, such as hiking, must fill in the gap.

Projects such as camping, fishing and hiking facilities are well suited to the area and offer alternatives to beach frontage. They are essential to our economy in the area of Okanagan-Vernon.

We have a number of wonderful facilities, from Silver Star all the way to the golf courses, which are certainly Canada-renowned and, in some places, North Americarenowned. We have agritourism, which is an area in Vernon I'm becoming very, very interested in. Many farming community members are using their lives and their farms as a form of tourism, offering tours to people in the Okanagan who are there as tourists.

We are trying to become a tourist destination market, but funding cuts from the ministry do not help. We've seen the impact of budget cuts in Vernon with the closure of the south office. This is important, because this means that people coming from that direction have nowhere to stop for information. To me that is counterintuitive if you're trying to increase -- or boasting about the increase of -- tourism dollars in B.C. This is a direct problem in terms of actually getting those people to stop in your community.

Since the majority of tourism funds from the ministry are dispensed by the SOA through Partners in Tourism, and since they're matched dollar for dollar, how are we going to be sure that we get our share in Vernon? It's easier for larger operators to raise funds than it is for the smaller towns. What we're hoping to do is look into pooling resources -- with smaller centres coming together in a regional tourism option -- in order to increase our funding. While tourism supplies jobs, labour implications reduce the number of people employed.

Employment standards, WCB, etc., have reduced the number of people in our tourism employee categories. With forestry becoming less and less an engine in our area of the province, we are hoping, and trying to see if we can get -- in places like Lumby, for example -- an increase in tourism dollars through recreational development and local tourism initiatives.

One of the things that's come under recent legislation that is concerning the tourism industry in Vernon is the red tape that restricts access to tourism development. In the region called Keefer Lake, one of my constituents has a lodge there and has been trying to work to expand his fishing camp. He wants to make it into a year-round resort and has cabins and camping; and he does have a dream.

Unfortunately, to expand his facilities to include mountain biking trails and winter recreation -- cross-country skiing, etc. -- he would have to develop a way to deal with the red tape and the lack of cooperation he finds in terms of the Ministry of Tourism. I think this is an area that we need to look at, and I will ask this minister to see if we aren't actually impeding the development of year-round tourism facilities in many of our areas.

As an engine for the provincial economy, forestry is decreasing in the Vernon area, tourism is increasing and the parameters are changing. We would very much like to see tourism become part of the sustainable growth that's essential for our area. On my behalf, I would like to have cooperation with our chambers, councils and regions. But I am looking to this government to really exercise the interest that they need to in the imposition of increased fees and licenses, such as the angling licence -- and what impact this will have on losing competitive edge for many of the facilities in my area.

Through the SOA, I would also like to see a move towards more independence. I'm hoping that this minister will consider these things when she looks at the future of her ministry.

[ Page 3174 ]

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to participate in this second reading debate of Bill 9, the Tourism British Columbia Act. I want to make a few comments from my perspective as critic for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

I speak in support of the bill. I think that my comments probably relate to the issue of appointment of directors and the purpose and mandate of the bill, particularly the issues under the mandate that talk about the responsibilities of the corporation, the marketing of B.C. as a tourist destination, and also under

section 4(1)(

e) where the bill talks about "encouraging and facilitating the creation of jobs in the tourism industry."

As I travel British Columbia in my critic role, I'm always very struck by the natural beauty of the province, and I always wonder whether or not we are capitalizing on that natural beauty and those many opportunities throughout rural British Columbia for tourism -- whether it's fishing, hunting, sightseeing or any other form of passive or active recreation. I'm not very familiar with the tourism industry specifically, but as I said, I continue to wonder if we take full advantage of it.

There's a fair bit of effort by the industry and by government to preserve the natural beauty of British Columbia, to maintain forest land for purposes other than just logging. We have a lot of parks; we have a lot of lakes. We try and be responsible environmentally. Again I say: I wonder if we are taking full advantage of that from a tourism point of view.

If I look at some of the aspects of tourism that intersect with the ministry I am involved in, I look at things like agritourism. There's certainly been some initiatives within the ministry and other ministries in government to promote, enhance and develop the agritourism sector. We've had initiatives, for example, working with the wine industry in the Okanagan. I just checked with my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton. Some of the initiatives that were started a year or a year and a half ago to try and take advantage of tourism opportunities through our wine industry in the Okanagan . . . .

Some of that work is bearing fruit. I mention that, because in addition to having the major initiatives -- and the sort of umbrella initiatives, which I see Tourism B.C. as -- I think that there's always a lot of nuts-and-bolts type of work that needs to be done that involves a number of ministries. It involves other levels of government and is just as critical as the umbrella legislation. That's the kind of bill that we're talking about here.

Ecotourism is kind of a loaded description, and it's a very broad term. But, again, I don't think we are taking advantage and maximizing our opportunities in that area. I hope that in the course of establishing this Crown corporation -- establishing the board and working through its mandate -- that it does make the effort to specifically address the whole broad area of ecotourism to see what can be done to maximize economic activity, maximize jobs and maximize revenue to the province.

[3:30]

The sports fishing sector, both the saltwater sector . . . I think is very much an underrated industry, and we need to continue to work with that sector and maintain and expand that sector. And the freshwater sector . . . . I had the opportunity recently to meet with some of the people involved in the freshwater lodges, people that are involved in guiding throughout British Columbia. I want to raise a couple of examples of the kinds of things that I'm talking about when I talk about working on the nuts-and-bolts issues; some of the day-to-day issues that I think are an impediment to the expansion of the tourist sector, particularly in rural British Columbia.

The first one I want to mention has certainly had a fair bit of discussion, but given the implications of it, I think it warrants raising again. That is the whole issue of freshwater angling fees. There are really two issues there. One is having the necessary consultation, but also the necessary lead time for the industry when those types of announcements are made.

In response to one of the comments by the member for Skeena, I know that there's a number of different aspects to the announcement on freshwater angling fees, but I think the one in particular that concerns the industry is a 400 percent increase in non-resident licence fees. This involves tourism dollars from outside the province; it doesn't directly involve people within the province.

But tourism dollars from outside the province . . . . When you have an increase of 400 percent, that is very significant. What that kind of increase does is generate a response whereby people go looking for other options. That's an area that I understand the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks is reviewing, and I would very much encourage the minister to see if some of those more onerous increases could not be reconsidered.

The other area that I want to mention with respect to the freshwater sector . . . . I'm talking about the people who operate lodges and retreats and provide guiding services, the people who are actually operating their facilities on land which is leased from the province. A large percentage of the small business operators in the freshwater sector operate on Crown land, and they have leases that have been signed with the Crown lands

section of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. These are small businesses. Most of them don't operate year-round, and they have to make their revenues in three to five months of the year. They have been severely hard-hit by massive increases in their lease costs. Their lease costs are tied -- on a percentage basis -- to anywhere from 3 percent to 5 percent of the assessed value of the property that they are operating on. They also pay property taxes based on that assessed value.

The concern is that there have been massive increases, for various reasons, in the assessed values of a lot of these properties. While it's certainly in the interest -- and the rightful interest -- of the province to try and get a reasonable return on a public resource, some of the massive increases that we've seen in the past three or four years warrant a very serious and considered look by the government. The kinds of increases that have been brought forward are simply not realistic in terms of the economics of those operations.

These operations generate a lot of economic activity. They provide jobs, very often in rural areas where there are not a lot of jobs. They generate significant revenue to the province in terms of various types of taxes.

I understand that a lot of those operators are simply not paying the increases. A lot of them have said: "We will increase our lease payment to the province by 10 percent a year." So they're going further and further into arrears. I think that the government should take a good, honest look at this and see if this whole area can't be revisited and some new formula developed which is sustainable in terms of the business activity that these operations are in.

I think it's particularly important. From the perspective of rural British Columbia, again, a lot of the people who are involved in the tourism industry are restaurant and hotel

[ Page 3175 ]

operators. A lot of them are larger operators, but rural British Columbia really depends on these small businesses that are involved in the freshwater fishing area -- guiding, etc. So I would urge the Minister of Tourism to consult with her colleague in cabinet to see if it isn't warranted to do a review in that area.

I want to sum up, Mr. Speaker, by reiterating what I think a lot of the operators in the tourism sector require, and that is consistency, certainty, predictability, stability and an ongoing steady, predictable partnership with government. I think that's very critical. We've seen some examples in the last two years -- some of them involving the federal government in terms of the saltwater sport fishing sector last year, and some of them involving the provincial government this year -- that I think have been very damaging to the sector and to ongoing progress for all of us as British Columbians.

So I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill, and I will be supporting the bill when it comes to a vote.

S. Hawkins: I would like to rise and speak to this bill. We heard from other speakers and we all recognize that the tourism industry is one of the largest industries in the province -- it happens to be one of the lifebloods of my constituency, located in the beautiful Okanagan Valley. We all know and recognize that it's one of the fastest-growing industries in B.C. Certainly this industry has many positive spinoffs in the way of economic growth and job creation. I heard the member for Skeena saying that the bill is supported by representatives of the tourism industry. That's very true.

But it's also true that this industry has some very real concerns about this bill and the way the government might implement this bill. I'd like to raise some of these concerns.

The first issue I'd like to raise is the one of funding certainty over the next three years. In estimates last year I believe that $23 million was budgeted for this kind of agency. Over the course of the year, I understand, that $23 million dropped down to $18 million -- a 25 percent cut. They promised $23 million and they promised certainty, yet less than a year later we see a 25 percent cut in the funding that was promised. So this is a very real concern for the industry, because they do worry about certainty. And I'll tell you: we've seen the government promising certainty to other areas of the industry and to other groups.

An example comes to mind very quickly, and that is Bill 2, which we debated earlier. This government promised certainty, predictability and stability to local governments, to municipalities, for municipal grants. And what did we see? We saw them legislate it; we saw them promise it; we saw speaker after speaker on that side of the House get up and talk about how wonderful this government was and how the municipalities were going to get certainty, predictability and stability. And less than two years later -- just earlier -- we saw them vote to repeal the

section that promised certainty, predictability and stability to local governments for grants, and now they've got nothing. They've got instability, they've got uncertainty, and they've got a government that they can predict will say one thing and do another. So that is a very real concern for the tourism industry in ensuring that there is some kind of funding certainty for this agency that's being set up.

Another concern I'd like to raise -- and certainly I'm hearing it from representatives of the tourism industry in my riding -- is about the independence of the new board.

We really, truly hope, along with the tourism industry, that this board will be autonomous, that the stakeholders will have a real say in who gets appointed to this board and that this government is not going to stack this board with their friends and insiders who will do their bidding -- so if, for some reason, there happens to be a larger amount of money in the fund that's supposed to fund this agency, this government won't then say to their friends and insiders: "Hey, we're having a little bit of a problem with our budgeting. Pass that money off to us."

We've seen it happen. We saw it happen under FRBC, hon. Speaker. The tourism industry is very concerned about the independence of the board, and they hope that they have a real voice in who gets appointed to this board. It just sets a really bad example because, again, they say that this will be an independent board. Well, we'll certainly wait and see, won't we?

Another concern I raise -- again on behalf of my constituents -- is that, hopefully, this agency will be encouraged to market and promote all of B.C. We certainly heard speakers from this side of the House raise those kinds of issues. We saw speakers from this side of the House talk about promotion and marketing for all of B.C. and not just Victoria and the lower mainland, because there is country outside of Victoria and the lower mainland. Certainly, there's more to B.C. than just promoting the lower mainland and Victoria, and certainly there's more to B.C. than just promoting the lower mainland.

We heard the member for Peace River North talk about his riding, and I'll speak up for mine, because the people that work in tourism value individual enterprise. They're out there. They're putting their lives on the line; they're putting their livelihood on the line for these kinds of jobs.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

If you're going to set up an agency like this, hopefully the government won't be just targeting the lower mainland. Hopefully, people from all over B.C. will be represented, and we hope that the marketing strategies and programs flowing from this agency will be fair and will promote the rest of B.C.

I heard the member for Skeena saying that all we do is criticize, that we're always negative. Well, we are supporting this bill. This side of the House is going to support this bill, because we do support the tourism industry, and we've talked to the representatives. But I think we also have to be responsible. Where there are shortfalls in this bill, where we need to raise some issues, where we need to raise concerns, we will do that. I think what we've heard from this side of the House are some very constructive concerns about the independence of the board and about certainty in funding, because that's what that side of the House is providing -- or saying they're promising.

We've seen over and over again that they've broken those kinds of promises. They say one thing and do another, so we're just raising that here, because that's what the industry is worried about. Twenty-three million dollars was budgeted last year. We've seen a 25 percent cut in their funding, down to $18 million. We're just raising that concern. That's what people in British Columbia expect us to do. It's been said over and over again, and not just from this side of the House.

If you have been listening to people in the tourism industry, it is hard to trust this government when they set examples like that, when they break their promises, when they say they're going to do one thing and they do another. So we're raising those concerns.

[ Page 3176 ]

[3:45]

Like I said, we will be supporting this bill, but I also want to say that this side of the House is going to be very vigilant. We'll be watching. We've seen agencies like this set up before, and we've seen them ripped off. We will be watching, and we'll make sure that we raise the issues for industry when they come up. We'll raise the issues and hold the government to account if they fall short of their commitments in this bill.

M. Coell: I'd like to offer a few comments on the Tourism British Columbia Act that we're debating today. I will be supporting this act because I think the intention of the act is sound. But I have one area of concern that I wish to address, and that is of the board that will be appointed to oversee the tourism act.

This government does not have a good reputation for appointing boards that are representative of the community. It has a reputation of appointing friends and insiders to boards, and I want to ensure that this board will represent the tourism community and the people of British Columbia as a whole.

Over the last 20 years, tourism has developed into a significant and world-class industry in this province. It's done that without a lot of government intervention and without a lot of centralized control of the industry. I hope that the government will recognize the history of tourism in this province, where it came from, and that where it's going will not become a bureaucratic and centralized control by the NDP government.

They have a reputation for wanting everything to be under their control, and I can assure you that tourism will be a disaster if it becomes part of this government's controlling mechanism. So I want to see that this board is independent of this government's manipulation and this government's continual desire to control everything in its grasp. Tourism is a success because of the men and women who work in that industry; it's not a success because of government manipulation and control. This board has to be independent, and it shouldn't be full of party hacks and insiders.

It's got to be the people in this industry controlling this board, or it will be a failure. We'll be watching to make sure that this board is a success, but we'll be watching to make sure that it's not a way for this government to manipulate the industry and manipulate the people in the industry.

The intention of this act is sound. But as in many things this government does, the implementation won't be. That's where we are going to be watching very closely to make sure that this board acts in the best interests of tourism and employment, not of ideology and philosophy.

Hon. L. Boone: It gives me great pleasure to stand in support of this bill -- a bill that I want to give credit to the hon. member for bringing forward.

I can't help but mention and comment on the comments of the last speaker with regard to the boards that are out there. We have worked very hard in this province to get a cross-section of British Columbians to sit on all boards. When we came into power in 1991 those boards were represented very, very vastly by white, male individuals. There were very few females on those boards; there were very few aboriginals; there were very few people from the regions.

We have worked extremely hard to make sure that there is representation on these boards from all sectors: women, aboriginal communities, visible minorities and multicultural organizations from the regions. That is what we have tried to do. For members to stand there and talk in such terms as the previous member did about people who often give their time and effort with no money whatsoever -- who put their time and effort into service to communities and service to the province -- I think is an absolute shame.

I can't help but be a little amazed when I hear some of the people saying: "We are very concerned about the cuts that have come in this ministry." Yes, I'm concerned about the cuts that have come in this ministry, as I'm concerned about the cuts that have come in my ministry. Just earlier, they were standing in this House complaining, because they were saying they weren't having enough money spent in education. We have made incredible cuts in every other area of this government in order to keep funding up for health and education -- incredible cuts everywhere.

They're not ones that we want to make, but they're ones that are necessary for us to make sure that we can put the dollars where the province believes they are the most important: into education, into health care, into the services that are very important for everybody out there.

So yes, there have been cuts, and there have been cuts throughout this whole province in every other jurisdiction. But you can't have it both ways. You can't say: "Bring in a balanced budget . . . . "

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, the previous member . . . . I fail to understand why you can't be quiet while I'm speaking.

I believe it's time that the opposition over there really got their act together. Do they really want us to spend more money in everything? Is that what they want? Do they want the deficit increased? Do they want the debt increased? Or are they concerned, and they want us to realistically cut costs, bring in some reductions so that we can save those areas that we consider most important: health and education? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say "Don't cut" in every other area, condemn those things and then demand more money at every opportunity, which is what this opposition does.

This is a good bill. This is a bill that will give tourism what they have been looking for and is one that I think will be good for all British Columbians.

G. Wilson: You know, I think only in this House will you get an argument and heckling and debate between two sides that both support the same thing. I find that quite interesting.

So let me enter into this debate and say that while the member for Okanagan West may speak for the Liberal side of this House, the Progressive Democratic Alliance does not support this bill. We don't support it, because we believe it to be poorly drafted legislation. We believe it to be, in principle, the wrong thing to be doing in the province at this time. It also requires that the government enact this bill and invoke retroactivity for law that is passed in May to make it retroactive to April 1, which, in principle, we cannot support at any time, because we believe it to be poor practice and poor public policy.

Let me speak to the reasons why. I know -- having been around this business long enough -- that the spin, of course, will go out to certain sectors of the tourist industry that we don't support tourism in British Columbia because we don't support this bill. That, of course, is absolute rubbish.

[ Page 3177 ]

What does this bill do? I think it's important as we speak in principle to this bill to talk about what it does. What this bill does is establish yet one more Crown corporation with a maximum of 15 directors -- all of whom will be appointed by this government -- who are going to hire a new chief executive officer who will no doubt be a representative of the principles and policies of this government. It says throughout this bill that the board must act in accordance with government policy. Throughout the whole bill, it talks about acting in response to government policy.

Hon. Speaker, I don't think that the tourist industry in British Columbia has been built on the basis of government policy. What is the government policy? Well, one of the government policies was to invoke a hotel tax, the very tax that now is going to be taken to finance this new Crown corporation. You want to promote tourism? Get rid of the hotel tax. Make it cheaper for people to come into this province and to live within this province and to travel within this province and to stay in the hotels of this province.

Don't take as a source of revenue for your brand-new government Crown corporation a percentage of a portion of a tax that is in itself an impediment to tourism spending. The very funding base -- which was alluded to by one of the members in the Liberal Party, saying that security of funding is something that is going to have to be looked at -- is going to have to be addressed.

I can point to . . . . I was going to do this. Looking at the clock, I'm not sure I'm going to take the amount of time, because I'd like to focus on some other areas. But certainly a review, just a cursory review, of the Crown corporations -- not just those created by this government but those created by former governments . . . . Look at their spending records; look at their cost records; look at their debt records. Crown corporations historically, traditionally, are not a sensible way to commit public funds.

And they're certainly not if we're going to start to create Crown corporations that will now have a revenue stream that is based upon a tax set by government directly. We did one. It was called Forest Renewal B.C. -- a 12 cent or 10 cent surtax directly on timber. At the time that FRBC came in, I said: "Hey, taking a surtax for putting money back into the forest is a great idea. Don't put it in a Crown corporation, because the Crown corporation will become a bureaucracy: ineffective, unable to commit those funds." Guess what, folks.

We've got a Crown corporation sitting, spending 30 to 40 percent on administration . . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The minister says 11 percent. Well, certainly, depending on how you want to look at those numbers . . . . Even if it's 11 percent, if those moneys that were required were returned directly to those communities -- and clearly it is not 11 percent -- how would you do it? We've suggested how it could be done: take those dollars, put those dollars back on deposit within the credit union system, within the communities, so that we can have direct access by community-based boards.

This Crown corporation, the one we are debating here -- which the Minister of Transportation is becoming so focused on as I tend to diverge into comments on FRBC, and I'll stick to the point -- has exactly the same kind of financing scheme. If you read the back of this bill, what it says is that they're going to take a percentage of the 8 percent tax, which is essentially the hotel room tax. What that's going to do is it's going to take a percentage of that -- 1.65 percent -- and it's going to direct it into this Crown corporation.

So it's one more opportunity for a government-appointed bureaucracy to take money out of the tax stream, put it into that bureaucracy and feed that bureaucracy in the name of promoting tourism.

Philosophically, in any direction, it's the wrong way to go. Tourism happens at the community level. Tourism happens with people who are predominantly small business operators, who are trying to put up services, whether it's in the fishing industry, where this government has just jacked up the fees on licences -- another impediment to tourism . . . .

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Do you want to promote tourism? Get rid of the increase in licence fees. That's the way to do it. Don't create a new Crown corporation, a new bureaucracy. Get rid of those licence fees. Make it more accessible for all British Columbians and people who travel to this province to be able to benefit from our tourism, whether they're involved in the hunting regulations, coming in for hunting, as part of an overall experience in British Columbia . . . . Again, this government has jacked up the fees. Do you want to promote tourism? Do you want to promote the development of regional economies? Get rid of those fees. Get rid of those licences and make it more affordable and more economical.

[4:00]

Hon. Speaker, we could go on and on and on. With respect to provincial campgrounds, look at the costs associated with camping in this province. If you want to look at just the general costs for people who come in from outside the province to spend money here, you will see that they are hit time and time and time again with taxes that this government has introduced.

Even the tourism industry -- yes, indeed, the tourism industry -- is affected by the corporation capital tax, not just the big banks. It's not just the big corporate banks. Even the poor ma-and-pa operators in the tourism industry are affected by the corporation capital tax.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I see the minister is saying no. Well, clearly the minister needs to check it out. In fact, they are affected, and they pass those costs on to people who require their services in the form of tourism.

We have to look at what's being intended here. I'll tell you that any time you have the establishment of a new government-appointed Crown corporation, a new bureaucracy, that has as a source of funding a tax on the very industry that they're trying to support, you've really got to question whether or not this is a wise and sensible way to proceed.

Now, hon. Speaker, just to give support to what I'm saying, look at

section 8 -- and I know we're not in committee stage, but we'll get there. Take a look at what it says under

section 8(3): "The chief executive officer . . . . " Keep in mind, there'll be a CEO, who will have a reasonable salary, obviously, because CEOs of Crown corporations get paid a reasonable salary; I don't take issue with that. But we'll have a new CEO who has a reasonable salary, who will appoint officers and employees of the corporation as necessary to carry out its business.

[ Page 3178 ]

We've got job creation, new government job creation. We will now be hiring people out of the very revenues that should be going back to the communities, should be going back into the tourism industry, to feed this new system.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear the minister over there saying: "No, no, that's wrong."

Hon. Speaker, when we looked at the establishment of the Crown corporation agencies, of FRBC, of ICBC -- and you can go through a whole host of them -- we warned -- this party, the PDA, anyway -- that if you establish those corporations, those corporations will grow because their whole raison d'�tre will require that additional expansion of revenue supply. So quite clearly what we are doing in this bill is creating a new Crown agency, a new Crown bureaucracy, that is going to be fed off the very revenues that are taken out of a tax on the very industry that we're trying to support. It simply is the wrong way to go.

So what should we be doing here? What are the alternatives here? Many members have already spoken -- at least members of the Liberal and Reform opposition have spoken, and I think quite correctly so -- about the need, the necessity, to make sure that we have a viable tourism industry, because quite clearly, tourism becomes the lifeblood of many small communities that are dependent upon it.

One of the ways that the government ought to be acting is by providing assistance at the community level through core funding associated with community-based organizations and operators who can pull together -- whether it's through tourism associations, chambers of commerce or other community-based tourism-supported agencies -- to promote their communities. And you do it at the community level.

Notwithstanding the fact that

section 4(2), under the mandate of this Crown corporation agency, doesn't say "must have" and it doesn't say "will have . . . . " It says: " . . . should have regard for . . . promoting all regions of" the province. For any of us who have been involved in tourism promotion at the local level, we have historically seen that all regions of the province do not get that kind of support. They certainly don't get that kind of support if every single person sitting on the board is appointed by the government of British Columbia in its own partisan manner and is responsible to promote, as it says throughout this bill, "government policy."

What does that mean? Does it mean that the community is going to have access to those funds? Does it mean that at the community level they will be able to do on-the-ground tourism promotion where it's needed, which is at the community level? The answer is no. It will not happen that way. On that basis, we cannot support what they're attempting to do in this particular bill, because all regions will not be promoted.

It clearly hasn't happened in the past, and notwithstanding the good intentions of this minister -- and I believe this minister is well-intentioned in respect of the delivery of tourism service -- I don't believe it's going to happen under this model, this proposal, this new Crown corporation, which is going to live off the taxes taken off the very industry that it's trying to support. So the bill is flawed in its philosophy.

Let me speak for a moment and suggest that the bill is extremely poorly drafted. When I'm given the opportunity to get up and speak to the document in committee stage, it will be demonstrated how this bill is contradictory in a number of sections and extremely vague in others. It provides no comfort whatsoever to those of us who are concerned about the degree to which government appointees will simply appoint more representatives of the same. It provides no comfort whatsoever with respect to the degree to which the British Columbia special operating agency or advisory board will have its involvement beyond the initial stages.

There is some real concern about the language and text and the manner in which this bill is drafted. Also, as I alluded to earlier on, this bill does what I believe no bill should do. Under the commencement section,

section 25, it says that this bill essentially will, with the exception of the hotel room tax side of it -- and I want to talk to that in a moment -- be deemed to have been in effect since April 1, 1997. It will retroactively create a corporation. That is extremely poor public policy. Whether it's to go back on a promise to municipalities, whether it's to bring in government-appointed hospital boards when the act says we should have elected hospital boards, or whether it's to create a new agency -- a new Crown corporation in tourism -- you don't bring in bills in a retroactive manner. It's bad public policy.

It's poor precedent. It's not something that we should be establishing as a general means of practice in this House.

One other area that I'm extremely concerned with in respect to the provisions in the text of this bill has to do with the

section that deals primarily with the conflict regulations of those people that sit on the board and the question of disclosure of interest levels. This says that as long as a director who sits on the Crown corporation discloses that they have a pecuniary interest in a decision being taken, they can profit from it. That's what this says. It doesn't say that they are exempted from profit, it doesn't say that they must be excluded from it, it doesn't say that they even have to absent themselves from the vote, necessarily.

It says that as long as they say, "If we make this decision, if this new Crown corporation passes this, I stand to financially gain . . . . " As long as they say that that's clear and it's on the table and the rest of the directors say, "Don't worry about it, chum; we're all behind you," that person can benefit directly from the actions they take as a director of this corporation. That's what the bills says, the way it's drafted.

I don't think for one second . . . . At least, I hope that the minister does not intend for this conflict legislation, or what's called disclosure of interest --

section 16 and

section 17, the director liability

section . . . . I'm hoping that the minister doesn't expect us to pass this bill without some significant amendments to

section 16 and

section 17, because that is extremely bad public policy. If we're going to simply say that your pecuniary interest can be advanced as long as you say, "Okay, guys, I'm going to make a bundle out of this decision," and everybody says: "Well, that's fine. We don't have a problem with that. That's great . . . . " So you go ahead, make the decision, and guess what: you pocket the change.

That's bad, bad legislation. I don't know who drafted it for the minister, and I'm hoping whoever did draft it might be following this debate so that they might read those sections, because when they do, I think they will see what I'm referring to. Perhaps by the time we get to committee stage the government may bring in some amendments to this language so that those two sections can be amended to make it much more clear that an individual who sits on that board cannot benefit by virtue of their attendance on the board if they have a direct conflict, or even an indirect conflict, with respect to their corporate holdings.

It seems to me that if the government was really serious about helping tourism in this province, it would establish a mechanism to be able to take revenue from government in

[ Page 3179 ]

terms of assistance and put it straight into the community-based organizations where there are community-based tourism associations, chambers of commerce and other social service organizations that are involved in the development of arts and the artistic communities. All over the province people have writers' festivals. They have artistic festivals. They have all kinds of various activities which enhance the community and expand arts in the community. It expands the tourism potential in the community. All of them could benefit by direct funding in a core funding program for community-based tourism promotion.

Because that is the way that that money will most effectively and most properly be used -- not putting it into another huge government Crown corporation that is going to expand into one more bureaucracy that is simply going to cost us a huge sum of money.

If we were to go to community-based tourism development, if we were in fact going to trust the people of the province with their own money, allow the people of the province to have enough release from this government's onerous tax burden which it puts on the small business operator, it puts on the tourist operator, it taxes the hotel owner, and continually puts on those who seek to have new and more innovative ways of taking the public out to enjoy our great wilderness, whether it's by increasing fishing or hunting licences or the other fees that they've put on the parks and so on around the province . . . .

If the government were serious, it would start to remove those financial impediments. It would take dollars and put them right on deposit in the community and trust British Columbians with their own money to do the best they can within their community for themselves. That reduces the size of government, it stops the intrusive form of government, and it stops the creation of government-appointed and government-run Crown corporations that live off the tax funds they get from the very industry they're trying to support.

For all of those reasons we believe there's a much better way to promote tourism in British Columbia. When I hear members opposite say, "Well, people in the industry are all supporting this," the question is: did they have any choices? Were there any options ever given to them? Did you ever talk about going to community-based activities? Did you talk about some opportunities and various aspects of changes that might be made for the people of British Columbia and the people in the tourism industry? My guess is that they had no choices at all. My guess is that the government said: "This is what we intend to do.

It's government policy. It's a new Crown corporation. We control it because we appoint the members to it. We fund it because we generate the tax revenue from the hotel tax to support it. Therefore this keeps tourism firmly in our control" -- the control of the New Democratic government, not in the hands of the people of British Columbia. It doesn't trust the people with their own money.

For all of those reasons, I say that this is the wrong way to go. This is poor public policy; it creates retroactivity, which is completely unacceptable for the members of this party. Furthermore, it is an extremely poorly drafted bill. The wording and drafting of this bill is bad. It's vague, it's contradictory, and it should not go into law in this form. I hope those who are drafting it are paying attention in particular to the conflict regulations with respect to sections 16 and 17.

With that, I will take my seat and say that I, as the representative of my party, will not be supporting this bill in second stage.

T. Stevenson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

T. Stevenson: I see in the gallery a councillor from the city of Vancouver, George Puil. I would like all members to make him welcome.

T. Nebbeling: From this side, I would also like to recognize the chairman role that Mr. Puil is playing for the GVRD. We welcome him with both titles.

B. Penner: I also seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Penner: It is my honour and privilege today to introduce to the House a former elementary school teacher of mine -- I believe he was my grade 7 teacher -- Mr. Adrian Stoutjesdyk. He is now the principal of Mount Cheam Christian School in Chilliwack. He has brought with him today 14 grade 12 students who have had a busy schedule, as I understand it, in the capital region so far today. Earlier today they visited Esquimalt and toured the naval base there, and they've just completed a tour of the legislative building. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you may recall that we just bumped into you in the hallway a few moments ago as I was sneaking them into the Legislative Library.

With that, I would ask all members of this House to please extend a warm welcome to the students visiting here today from Chilliwack.

[4:15]

B. Goodacre: I am also pleased to rise to support this legislation. The tourism industry in Bulkley Valley-Stikine is a very rapidly growing industry. I'm sure everybody is aware that both ecotourism and tourism in wilderness areas are probably the fastest-growing segments of the tourism industry throughout the world, and we're getting a very good portion of that traffic up through my riding.

Leading up to this bill, I was talking to people involved with the industry in my area, and I was getting some very positive comments. One of the most encouraging comments was the assurance they were given that the northern part of the province was going to be properly represented on the board that was going to be created, and it was one of the fine things that the people in my area put forward as a reason why they're supporting this initiative. The other big one was that getting government to change its role in promoting tourism in British Columbia was something they saw as quite positive.

Doing a partnership with the private sector in promoting what is essentially a multibillion-dollar business throughout the world is something that is seen as a very positive move in the direction of making this a healthier industry in the future.

So I'm very pleased to add my voice to the support of this bill. I'm looking forward to its being put in place and to the benefits coming to my part of the world when this thing is up and running.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I must say thank you to the opposition, or to most of the opposition -- I understand that one member is going to vote against. But the rest have made it very clear that they will be voting for this legislation, and I appreciate that support.

[ Page 3180 ]

However, over the few hours that we've debated this legislation, I have been listening with great interest to the opposition Liberals talk about absolutely everything under the sun except this legislation. We've talked about fish, we've talked about intercultural relations, we've talked about sport and Crown land leases. We've even heard about one member's travels around the world, and another one brought up ping-pong.

This has been a most amazing debate, and I can only assume that the reason they're all over the map is because they really don't want to say that this is fabulous legislation, that the tourism industry is nothing short of ecstatic about it, that they've wanted it for decades, that the former free enterprise coalition would never deliver to the tourism industry what we are in fact delivering here. So I guess that's the only reason I can come up with as to why the members opposite in the Liberal Party are talking about everything from ping-pong to fish.

In any case, I'm very pleased that despite all their negative comments they are in fact going to be supporting the legislation, and that's good.

I want to address a couple of the concerns and a number of the comments that I have heard throughout this debate. For instance, the member for Okanagan-Penticton said that this is a promise that industry has had many, many times. I want to be clear on the record that unless it was from the free enterprise coalition before the one that is currently in opposition, that is simply not true.

Similarly, the member from Oak Bay talked about the industry signing an agreement with government and saying that we had violated it. That too is not correct; industry did not sign an agreement with government.

The member for Parksville-Qualicum made it clear that he expected some sort of legislation would happen last year with respect to the special operating agreement between my ministry and the Ministry of Finance -- the signatories to it -- and that somehow by not bringing in legislation last year, we had violated a commitment. That is not true. An SOA -- a special operating agreement -- is an agreement between a ministry and the Ministry of Finance, and that is what we have had. We made a commitment to the industry that we would provide stable, long-term funding, and in this legislation we are moving a significant, historic step forward along that road.

Rather than selling out, as the members opposite are trying to pretend is happening -- with incorrect information and wrong statements -- in fact we are strengthening our commitment. We are moving further along the road; we are creating a mechanism that as far as we can find in our rather extensive search, doesn't exist anywhere else. And the tourism industry is ecstatic.

John Williams, the current chair of the SOA advisory board, says this is a real high-water mark for tourism, and he said: "I want to thank you, Mr. Premier, for getting it right." The tourism industry is absolutely delighted to have this legislation, because they've wanted it for a long, long time. And this government is delivering on something that the free enterprise coalition had 20 years to deliver on and didn't. They wouldn't do it.

The other compliment we had at that same celebration of this legislation was that it was this government that provided tourism with a legislated voice in land use decisions. They were ecstatic about that. That was Pat Corbett, who, in congratulating the government for this step, said that we have done two very significant things. One is that we provided a legislated voice for tourism in land use decisions. Mr. Corbett said: "You have to understand the historic significance of this agreement. This package is world-leading. We've been advocating this for so many years." Those are his words -- not solicited, freely spoken.

Mr. Speaker, that completely puts the run on what the members opposite are trying to say, which is that this was their idea. The words that they've used are . . . . They're calling this the scraps, the remnants. They're saying that we're overstating the case. The fact is that this legislation is on the leading edge. It will help our tourism industry maintain its competitive position in the world. It's good legislation, and I wish they would recognize it for what it is, rather than doing all sorts of creative speaking about what it isn't and trying to pretend that's what it is.

I want to more seriously address the concerns of the member for Powell River. I appreciate his thoughtful comments. I want to explain that the hotel room tax is a tax that was asked for by industry some years ago. It was imposed by the free enterprise coalition of the day, the Social Credit one. They asked for that tax, and the Socred government introduced it.

What we're doing here is simply taking the existing CEO, the existing staff and the existing funding and moving them into a vehicle that the tourism industry has wanted for years: that is, the vehicle of an agency of the Crown so that they can have the marriage of two things. One is public funding that is fully accountable through this Legislature. As the Opposition House Leader said earlier today, government is elected to manage Crown corporations, and we should maintain that responsibility and that connection. I agree.

An Hon. Member: Not control.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Manage, control: it's the same thing; I'm sorry.

The hon. members seem to think that a sector -- some people -- should magically rise out of the community, make the appointments and have the control of $18 million-plus of taxpayers' money in a completely unaccountable way. The Liberals want to do that with no controls, no democratic process. I find it absolutely amazing that they don't want the democratic process of the elected people and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- i.e., the cabinet -- properly making the appointments. They don't want that to happen. They want to self-select by a special interest group out in the community, and that's reprehensible.

But we are taking existing staff who have been cut. They're moving over into this new agency. We're taking an existing chunk of the tax that we've negotiated with the industry and moving it over to fund it. That is something that they have wanted. The member may still disagree, but that in fact is what has happened.

I want to thank some of the members for their comments . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, I'm having a little trouble speaking over the loud voices of the men in the opposition.

[ Page 3181 ]

The member for Peace River North, a Reform Party member: I very much appreciated his comments in arguing that there should be northern representation on the board. I absolutely agree. The current self-selected board from industry is concentrated in Victoria and Vancouver. It is not balanced in terms of gender representation, nor is there anyone . . . .

T. Nebbeling: Nonsense. There are board members from the interior, Williams Lake, 100 Mile House. That is not . . . .

The Speaker: Member, I hope I don't have to continue to interrupt. We really must do a little better job in this House -- on both sides -- of allowing people to be heard. The constant noise level, quite frankly, is really not appropriate. So I'd ask all members to please take that caution.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Thank you.

The member for Peace River North argued that we should have northern representation, and I absolutely agree. As I was saying, the current, mostly self-selected board, is concentrated in . . . . There are some members from outside Vancouver and Victoria, but it is almost entirely male. It's almost entirely Vancouver and Victoria. There are no first nations people on the board, nor are there any multicultural, visible minorities on the board.

So I very much appreciate the members for Vancouver-Langara, Okanagan West and West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who have just said that we all agree that there should be diversity on the board. I will expect strong support from every member of the opposition when I ensure that there are men and women, there is representation from groups such as first nations and there is a diversity on the board from the regions of British Columbia. I thank them for that support. I will certainly pass onto the industry -- as we talk about the board and sign a memorandum of understanding -- that the opposition is united in demanding diversity on the board. I congratulate them for that. That's good. Good for you.

I want to address some other comments that the opposition argued. Some of them stood up and argued that the policies of this government are hindering tourism, that tourism is a disaster in British Columbia, and we're driving the economy into the ground because of our policies. They argued passionately to drive down the minimum wage -- they'd love a differential wage for youth that's lower. They argue that we should get rid of regulations. We all know they want to mine and log in the parks; they've argued that for years.

They've argued, in effect, to roll back employment standards, to bring back the Socreds' Bill 19, which was branded by the ILO of the United Nations as unfair and oppressive to workers.

We know that they want to do all of those things, and they have made those commitments again and again and again. But the only problem with their argument is that the evidence doesn't support it. Since 1991 we have created 250 parks, we have begun to manage our forests on a sustainable basis, we have been building the infrastructure of British Columbia, and we have been working with communities for regional economic development around the province.

All of these things, from growth management to Forest Renewal B.C. -- which is repairing the damage of the past and employing workers while they do it -- to the new Fisheries Renewal B.C., which will do a similar kind of thing in the fisheries . . . . Those kinds of policies have changed a very bad international reputation for British Columbia into a very good one. We have won international awards for land use management and planning, for parks such as the Tatshenshini, for a number of things that we've done.

I find it difficult to believe that the members opposite would even attempt to argue what they're arguing about this industry. Let's not forget that since 1991, when we first became government, this industry has virtually doubled. For all of the years when the free enterprise coalition was in office and had a low-wage strategy and had unfair labour legislation and had outdated laws of every kind and who allowed the big international corporations to own and destroy our forests -- all of that time -- we were the laughingstock of the world for environment.

Now we've gone from the back of the pack to the front. We've created 250 parks, which they objected to and voted against, and Forest Renewal B.C., which is repairing our watersheds and which they argued against and voted against. All of those things they voted against and argued against. Now they're trying to pretend that somehow what our government has done is stood in the way . . . .

[4:30]

T. Nebbeling: Point of order.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. Excuse me, minister. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

T. Nebbeling: I've been patiently waiting for the minister to speak on the bill. The minister keeps going into the forest industry. She keeps going into the fishery industry. I would really like her to get on the bill.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I think you well know that that is not really a point of order. If we invoked that rule, we wouldn't have allowed about 70 percent of what we've heard thus far in the debate. But I thank you for the caution.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I'm referring to yesterday as well as today, member.

Minister, please carry on.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The fact is that because we have taken on the issues of land and resource use management seriously, because we are building the infrastructure in B.C. -- which the free enterprise coalition wouldn't do in the 1980s -- because we have decent employment standards, because we've got a decent minimum wage . . . . Let's not forget that over half of the tourist dollars are from British Columbians travelling around. So decent wages and decent jobs and job creation are critical to the tourism industry. Let's not make any mistake or pretend it's otherwise.

We have virtually doubled the tourism dollars in British Columbia since 1991. That's 23,000 new jobs, 5,000 new small businesses -- most of them small, small businesses. The members opposite are simply distorting the truth when they say otherwise. It is not so. The fact remains that B.C. has led the way in job creation for six years -- the best job creation record in the country -- has the lowest per capita debt and the highest credit rating, and they don't want to acknowledge that.

[ Page 3182 ]

This legislation shows once again that this government is committed to tourism, that we are committed to seeing this industry develop and that we are committed to keeping our leading-edge position in tourism as it becomes more competitive.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I truly regret that the opposition has called this . . . . The member for Parksville-Qualicum said it was sleazy -- this legislation and the way it was done -- when it's been done in full consultation with the industry. Full consultation: they call that sleazy.

The member for Okanagan-Penticton said that this was the scraps when in fact it's the leading edge. This is innovative. It doesn't exist anywhere else. Pat Corbett and John Williams and others in the tourism industry stood up and said: "You did it right -- congratulations." I have worked with the tourism industry to get us this far, as have my ministry and excellent staff, and I will continue to work with the tourism industry to see that the promise of this legislation is fulfilled.

I deeply regret that the Liberals couldn't find it in themselves to stand up and say: "This is wonderful legislation. Good on you." They couldn't do that. Instead, they cry about everything from fish to ping-pong. They complain about the fact that we've had to reduce funding, and I don't like that either. I'd like to point out, however, that it's about a fifth of what they promised to cut out of government.

I'd like to point out that the governments that they emulate in Ontario and Alberta have virtually gutted tourism funding. They have virtually wiped out their tourism marketing in Ontario and Alberta. We're going the other way; we're making it more secure. I regret that they have done that. The tourism industry in this province appreciates the fact that we've maintained our commitment to small business, to tourism and to job creation and that we're moving along that way.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I would suggest to the opposition that they would do much better, rather than name-calling and making things up, to simply acknowledge that this is a wonderful piece of legislation and that the tourism industry isn't complaining about the things you're complaining about. The tourism industry is delighted. They think this is the right way to go, and I am very, very pleased to be the minister to bring this legislation forward. It's something I talked to the tourism industry about years ago. We could never get the Socreds to move on it, but we are.

This unique partnership between business and government is a major milestone in the history of tourism in our province. It builds on and strengthens our commitment to tourism, our commitment to small business and our commitment to job creation in this province.

I want to acknowledge people like Pat Corbett, the chair of COTA, who I have worked very closely with; and John Williams, who's one of the co-chairs of our current special operating advisory board; and the other people in the tourism industry that we've worked with, who have bargained hard and worked hard with us to bring this legislation about. We've worked together to get this far, and together we will build on British Columbia's position as one of the premiere tourism destinations in the world. I look forward to the support of all the members opposite, and I thank everyone for their remarks.

Second reading of Bill 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 64

Evans

McGregor

Boone

Hammell

Streifel

Pullinger

Farnworth

Kwan

Waddell

Calendino

Stevenson

Bowbrick

Goodacre

Giesbrecht

Walsh

Kasper

Orcherton

Hartley

Priddy

Petter

Miller

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Cashore

Ramsey

Brewin

Sihota

Randall

Sawicki

Lali

Doyle

Gillespie

Robertson

Smallwood

Conroy

Janssen

Dalton

Gingell

Reid