1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5059 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

B.C. Systems Corporation. Mr. Levi –– 5059

Government video production studio. Mrs. Dailly –– 5060

Mr. Cocke –– 5060

Mr. Lea –– 5060

Colenutt case. Mr. Macdonald –– 5061

Northeast coal development. Hon. Mr. Phillips replies –– 5061

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Jordan)

On vote 183: minister's office –– 5061

Mr. Hall

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Lea

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Barber

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Lauk

On the amendment to vote 183 –– 5082

Hon. Mrs. Jordan

Appendix –– 5083

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in the

members' gallery today is Mrs. Ruth Harkins, who was from the interior

and now lives in Victoria. She is accompanied by her granddaughter,

Mrs. Kate Crowcroft, and Mr. Tom Bonar. I'd like the members to make

them welcome.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to

join the Minister of Transportation and Highways in welcoming Ruth

Harkins, who was a resident of Revelstoke for many years. It is my

understanding that Mr. Bonar was one of the early organizers for the

IWA in the province of British Columbia. I believe they deserve a

special welcome this day.

Also in the gallery are Mr. and

Mrs. Stan Manning, also longtime residents of the city of Revelstoke

and now residents of Victoria. Accompanying them are Mr. and Mrs. Jack

Gould from the large city of Nakusp in the interior. I'd ask the House

to make them welcome.

Additionally — this is Revelstoke day

— we have in the gallery Mr. and Mrs. Murray MacQuarrie, who are on a

short visit to Victoria. I would ask the House to welcome them also.

MR. DAVIDSON:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are 16 grade 12 students

from Delta Secondary School, with their teacher Mrs. Pat Rogers. With

them are 16 guests from the province of Quebec, with their teacher

Madeleine Renaud. I would ask the House to extend a beautiful British

Columbia welcome to all these fine people.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, with us in the gallery this afternoon are Mr. Nizar Damji,

vice-president of the Aap Ki Mehfil Cultural Society, and his son

Tehraz, who is 12 years of age. With them are the vice-president of

that society, Sushma Sardana, and her son Sudhir Datta, who is six

years of age. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

A good friend and former constituent of Maple Ridge is in the gallery

today. I ask the House to welcome Mr. Maxwell Tracy, now of Victoria.

MRS. WALLACE:

I have a series of three introductions today. Meeting with our caucus

today and now in the precinct are a group of directors from the Western

Agricultural Conference, who made a very interesting presentation to

our caucus this morning.

Also in the precincts — this has

been agricultural day for our caucus — are the directors of the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture, who presented a brief to our caucus this

morning.

Third and last, also visiting in the precincts

today — this time from Cowichan-Malahat — are a group of grade 5 and 6

students from Alexander School, together with their teachers and

chaperones.

I would ask the House to welcome all three groups.

MR. STRACHAN:

Visiting with us today is a very good friend of mine and a constituent.

He is one of Prince George's notable golfers and barber-shop singers.

I'd like the House to welcome G. Wallace Moffat.

Oral Questions

B.C. SYSTEMS CORPORATION

MR. LEVI:

I have a question for the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for

the B.C. Systems Corporation. In a status report on February 27, 1981,

dealing with a proposed building in Saanich, the B.C. Systems

Corporation stated in part of that report: "As a result of our decision

not to continue the project with BCBC as consultant managers and a

subsequent change in approach to the project, the request for a

proposal document has been substantially rewritten." Can the minister

tell the House why it is the B.C. Systems Corporation has fired the

B.C. Buildings Corporation, who were to be the production managers of

that project?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member was rather

quiet spoken in the middle part of his question, but I think I heard

all of it. I don't believe it is correct to say that B.C. Buildings

Corporation was fired, but rather that the decision has been taken by

the board of directors of the B.C. Systems Corporation to proceed with

the construction of this building without utilizing BCBC. I'm sure it's

not lost on the member, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very significant

difference there.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I'm informed

that there was a very serious problem between BCBC and B.C. Systems

Corporation in the nature of the rug-ranking problem — the size of

offices for high officials versus the size of rugs for low officials

and general standards. I want to ask the minister what the policy is

then of the B.C. Systems Corporation in respect to utilizing the B.C.

Buildings Corporation, which was set up not only to accommodate

ministries but also agencies of the Crown? Do they not have a policy in

which they go through the B.C. Systems Corporation, and what expertise

do they have to do this?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is the

intention of the board at this early stage.... Again I think it is

important to indicate that this is not a matter which is to be settled

within the next two weeks, a month or six weeks. It is the intention of

the B.C. Systems Corporation with respect to the proposed new building

in the municipality of Saanich to invite proposals. Beyond that I think

it would be seeking into government policy. I emphasize to the member

that this is the very early stage of planning a new headquarters

building for the British Columbia Systems Corporation in the capital

region of British Columbia.

MR. LEVI: With respect to

what the minister said, Mr. Speaker, that they're now putting forward

proposals, they have, in fact, on March 27 circulated those proposals.

The Architectural Institute of British Columbia on March 27 circulated

the following memorandum to all of the architects in British Columbia,

and it says: "All firms are hereby notified that the British Columbia

Systems Corporation's request for proposals, dated March 25, 1981, is

not approved as an architectural competition, and no firm should

respond with a proposal unless notified further." My question to the

minister is: given the attitude of the Architectural Institute, has the

minister decided what they're going to do now, if he is, in fact, aware

of what the architects' stand is on this?

[ Page 5060 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Well, to answer the last part of the question first, Mr. Speaker, to

the hon. member, yes, I was made aware of the decision taken and

circulated on March 27 — several days ago — by the Architectural

Institute of British Columbia. I won't comment on the appropriateness

of that decision because that, frankly, is not for me to say.

Nonetheless,

in the coming days I intend to discuss that particular aspect of the

proposal to construct a new building with the chairman and those

directors of the B.C. Systems Corporation with whom I can make contact.

In asking the question, the member knows quite well that the

announcement of the decision taken by the architects in British

Columbia was just a very few days ago.

MR. LEVI: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Can the

minister tell the House if he's had any discussions with his colleague,

the Minister of Finance, as to why BCBC was fired from its position as

construction manager with respect to the new building that's going up

in Saanich? Have you had any discussions at all with your colleague?

This is a $30 million building.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr.

Speaker, I have many discussions with my colleague. On that particular

matter I would have to investigate further to understand. I'm not aware

of a decision having been made.

MR. LEVI: As the

minister responsible for the B.C. Buildings Corporation, can the

minister tell the House what is his policy and BCBC policy in respect

to doing the work required by ministers and Crown agencies if the Crown

agency turns around and says: "We don't want to use you"? Do you not

have a policy that everybody goes through the B.C. Buildings

Corporation? That's what the act says. Does that policy not operate?

That's a very serious matter. They have nobody to build the building at

the moment. BCBC is the agency that builds the buildings. What's the

policy, Mr. Minister?

GOVERNMENT VIDEO PRODUCTION STUDIO

MRS. DAILLY:

A question to the Provincial Secretary: can the minister confirm that

steps have been taken to transfer control of the government's $650,000

per year television studio on Blanshard Street to the minister's public

relations deputy, Mr. Heal?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr.

Speaker, I can confirm that in the coming year's estimates the transfer

of that responsibility and administration of it now falls within the

ministry of the Provincial Secretary, rather than, as heretofore, under

the Ministry of Health.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the

minister said it all. This is a question to that minister, the

Provincial Secretary: in view of the fact that the provincial TV centre

has always been a health promotion centre and used for the same, has

the minister discussed with Mr. Heal statements recently attributed to

him, the deputy minister, that the TV studio will produce video tape

news stories to be handed to the news media?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

First of all, since this ministry has responsibility for all government

services, I think it's quite appropriate that we coordinate and

consolidate activities of that kind within the other obligations this

ministry has having to do with public information. With regard to the

preparation of television materials, I think that's no different than

the preparation of materials through the printed media which are

necessary for providing the people of British Columbia with information

on government programs.

MR. COCKE: This is one of the most shocking days that I've seen here. We've been putting up with B.C. Government News and its bias for some time.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you're in charge, or the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is.

Does

the government's decision to set up its own electronic news service

reflect a request for this from the news media in the province? Are

they inadequate?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The only request

there has been is from the people of this province who want better and

more current information on programs and policies. I might say that all

we're talking about is the consolidation within this ministry of a

facility which has been in existence since the building in which it's

housed was established.

MR. COCKE: I would like a

two-part answer for this one. Does it reflect the government's own

concern over favourable news coverage? Also, I wonder whether there

were many requests, and what form those requests from the public took.

Was it letters? Postcards? Wires? Telephone calls? How does the

minister know that the public demands his own bias of the news?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

The member well knows that every member of this House receives requests

for more information. Every member of this House needs to disseminate

answers to people's questions. So the answer to this question is that

thousands of requests to provide government information are repeatedly

being made.

MR. LEA: My question is to the Provincial

Secretary. Can the Provincial Secretary confirm that Mr. Hugh Harris

also attended the convention at Harrison Hot Springs that Mr. Heal

attended?

MR. SPEAKER: This would appear to be beyond

the administrative responsibility of the minister. Perhaps the next

question will clarify the question.

MR. LEA: Can the

minister confirm that, flowing out of the Harrison Hot Springs meeting,

Mr. Heal is arranging to air three prime-time ministerial specials, one

of which is a film featuring the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), and that it is the

government's plan to air this first film during the Kamloops

by-election?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, I cannot confirm

that, except to say that I'm sure it would be worthwhile for that

information service to provide full information on energy programs

which are being developed by this government.

[ Page

5061 ]

MR. LEA: In that case, I take it from the minister that he's not denying that that's going to happen.

COLENUTT CASE

MR. MACDONALD:

My question is to the Attorney-General. In connection with the

complaint of Mr. J.C.R. Colenutt against a justice of the peace, L.G.

Kennedy, does the Attorney-General now know that Chief Judge Goulet has

advised Mr. Colenutt that his investigation is completed?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Perhaps I can answer the member's question and also anticipate his

supplementary. Yes, I now know that the chief judge has made a second

review of the matter. I have asked the chief judge if he would provide

me with a report on the complaint and the basis on which he has decided

to reject it.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary, has

the Attorney-General not inquired as to who ordered a psychiatric

examination of Mr. Colenutt while he was in custody and handcuffed,

prior to his appearance before a judge?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That is part of the request I've made of the chief judge, and I'm sure his report to me will disclose that.

MR. MACDONALD:

Is the Attorney-General not aware that this so-called investigation was

in private and that the investigator never spoke with Mr. Colenutt? Is

this the kind of thing he's going to continue: private investigations

where the person doesn't know what the evidence before the investigator

was? He was simply arrested in the morning and told it's all right. Are

you going to make a public inquiry into some of these matters in your

own department?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The information I will obtain from the chief judge will deal with all these matters.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

In the House yesterday I was asked a question by the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), and I request leave of the House to

answer now. I didn't want to waste time in question period to do so.

Leave granted.

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yesterday the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody asked me a question about

contracts that had been let for the construction of access roads along

the right-of-way of the proposed Anzac spur line. I'm almost

embarrassed to say to the House that the member was wrong again. He's

always been wrong, wrong every time.

Anyway, I'm pleased to advise the House and the hon. member that the granting

of such contracts are the responsibility of the great British Columbia Railway.

The British Columbia Railway has granted a main contract to a company called

Portage Mountain Enterprises Ltd., which is a British Columbia company, and

the first subcontract let by Portage Mountain Contractors was to a company known

as Coal Valley Industries Ltd. I'm advised that Coal Valley Industries Ltd.

is a British Columbia company with a registered office in the great city of

Dawson Creek, and not an Alberta company at all.

MR. LEGGATT: I never said it was.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh yes, you did, my friend — yes, you did.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, if I could have a little order in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the answer.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

The subcontracts in question are for access roads to the two camps: one

at the Skunk River employing 10 individuals and the other at Table

River employing 11 other individuals. I also want to inform the House

and the member for Coquitlam-Moody that from the best information I've

been able to obtain — it's fairly accurate as usual and has come

directly from British Columbia officials on the site as well as from

the prime contractor — all of the individuals involved are either from

Chetwynd, Dawson Creek or Prince George.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

(continued)

On vote 183: minister's office, $186,530.

MR. HALL:

Yesterday on a couple of occasions I asked the minister a question

regarding the employment and remuneration details of a young lady who

had joined her team in Toronto during a period of time which included

March 25. Although I got two fulsome replies — both of which included

details of the young lady's prowess and future potential and all of

which we heartily endorse on this side — a fairly detailed search of

the Blues indicate that we still didn't get an answer about the salary,

expenses or, indeed, in what capacity the lady was employed. Without

going into it in any great detail, my question was simply: was Ms.

Sorensen given an honorarium? I understand from one comment I found in

the Blues that her air fare was paid, which is fine. Was she given an

honorarium for a performance? Is she on contract with us, and what is

her future use to be? I wonder if we could clear up that item in terms

of yesterday's material.

I spent some time yesterday dealing

with staff, and the reason I think the House should know is that we on

this side have some difficulty dealing with staff questions, because

the format of the estimates has been changed — and I think for the

worse. There was a time when, for instance, ministers' offices

contained details about the staff that were employed in the ministers'

offices. I think that is the first place where full accountability

should be seen and recorded. I think there has been a sloppy practice

developed — probably by the previous Minister of Finance — in lumping

all staff together, including the minister of the ministry. We see, for

instance, in this vote 183 that there are just seven people with a

gross salary of $141,531. At one time that was broken down so that we

had some kind of compatibility between what happened, first of all,

from one year to another and what was happening be-

[ Page 5062 ]

tween

ministerial offices. We in opposition had some idea of what was going

on and how we could judge performance and detect, measure and compare

movement. That's not been the case for some years now since this new

government has taken over. I think it's a mistake, and one which I

would ask that the new Minister of Finance look up and quite simply add

as an addendum to that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the Minister of Tourism.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

With respect to the hon. member for Surrey, I want to do my best to

answer questions under the votes that relate to my administration, but

I think you'll agree that he's talking about an area that is not within

my jurisdiction. That's the Minister of Finance, and I can't speak for

him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Surrey continues on the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Tourism.

MR. HALL:

One can hardly discuss the administrative responsibilities of the

minister without knowing what kind of staff she's got. The only way one

can find out what kind of staff she's got is to be told. If we're not

told, we have to find out. We have to discuss and debate why we're not

told, and how difficult it is to find out. For instance, on March 20,

nearly three weeks ago, I asked if the government would be kind enough

to tell us who is involved in every one of the ministerial votes.

Question 21 on the order paper, for instance, could have been answered

by any competent administration and competent minister — 20 of them

presumably over there — within a few days. I look at the cost of

computer services, which come under the general administrative capacity

of this ministry in her department. She could have answered that

question or have helped the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

answer it.

How are we to judge administrative responsibility

without getting any of the details of staff? I illustrated yesterday

how difficult it is to keep up with minister's staff. I think we could

do the same thing for other ministers too. I think that just putting a

total number of seven and a gross figure of $141,530 is simply not good

enough.

The answer to her question earlier today during

question period would also prompt me to ask, in view of the newfound

delight of the government in film-making, whether or not, in terms of

the minister's administrative responsibility under this vote, she is

contemplating letting loose all of her activities as a film-maker to

the public relations deputy and the Provincial Secretary, seeing that

very important part of her portfolio handed over to another government

department. Apparently that's a government service. In the eyes of the

answerer of the question at a quarter past two today, there seems to be

a collection and a gathering together of those kinds of services. There

are very expensive studio facilities; people are being hired. I'm

wondering whether the only other branch of government which has had

anything to do with that over the years, which is found under the

Ministry of Tourism, is involved in that at all.

Going on, I

have a number of questions. The Tourism Industry Association of British

Columbia has been writing to the minister. I ask the minister if she

would now like to tell us if she's made any response at all to that

industry in terms of their problems with the tourism program this

summer in light of the imposition of the room tax and the fact that the

imposition of that room tax is going to mean a great deal of hardship

for tour operators who are selling British Columbia to tourists. The

tour operators themselves will have to absorb the difference between

the advertised and contracted price and the new price. While the

minister's first answers during budget debate were that she couldn't

telegraph her punches or allow the tax items to come out before the

budget — I prefixed my question to her by saying that I understood that

— I do notice that the accommodation guide of the ministry was kept

back from printing until well after the budget was out. There must have

been some general knowledge about it. I'm wondering whether or not the

minister could answer the question as to whether she's now developed

some assistance, some programs, some response and some ease for the

people who have come to her regarding in that question.

The

second question I have is that a number of studies — I mentioned these

yesterday — have been funded by TIDSA, but have still not been

released. I wonder if there's been some delay in printing or whether

there's something that should trouble us or we should know about on

this side as to why they've not been released. It seems to me that

industry should have the benefit of those studies so they can get on in

determining and helping to determine some long-range tourism strategy

for the province. The regional long-term tourism strategy isn't

available to people who are vitally concerned in the industry, and I'm

sure they would enjoy being engaged in debate upon that — particularly

some of the regions the minister mentioned in her opening remarks.

Another

question would be about the curtailment of the reservation system on

B.C. Rail and if she's had any complaints about that and if there's

anything she might be able to do to help the tourist industry overcome

the problems which have developed from that, let alone the reduced

scheduling, which must have disappointed those who were indeed trying

to support her in her efforts to get good tourism promotion going in

the regions served by B.C. Rail. I notice too that the associations

I've mentioned had been writing to the Premier and the Minister of

Finance about the same matter. Perhaps the minister could report back

to the House during this committee on that.

I have a couple

of other questions. The Tourism Industry Association of British

Columbia has developed a policy paper. On this side of the House we've

had a number of pleasant meetings with this association. I wonder

whether the minister has officially met with the association. I just

don't know. That's an interrogation. The Tourism Industry Association

of British Columbia is a fairly new association. I have here its

articles of incorporation. A five-point program was set up last year. I

understand a policy statement was issued by that association recently.

I wonder whether the minister has met with them.

Going back

to the room-tax question, I suppose in some ways it is not within the

administrative capacity or responsibilities of the minister. It is

interesting to note that the tourism grants from this ministry have for

the last six years been within half a percent of exact comparability.

If you want to express those grants as a percentage of the revenue of

the budget, I wonder whether the minister has any answers regarding the

proportion of revenue from the room tax which she has to put forward in

the form of grants. Has there been any change in her attitude and her

responsibilities with respect to the travel industry grants out of

room-tax revenue?

[ Page 5063 ]

have a couple of other things before I yield my place to other

speakers. On November 25, 1980 — a short while ago — there was an

announcement from the ministry that it would spend $12 million on

package tours in 1981. I wonder whether the minister could tell us more

about that $12 million program. I've searched through the estimates and

I can't find it. I wonder whether she could tell us, out of a total

budget of $14 million, where we can find a $12 million spending program.

The

last question I have for this minister at the moment is on her

newsletter of last June — volume 4, number 1, which deals with films. I

don't know the author of the article. The minister is quoted as saying

there would be over $100 million worth of films produced in British

Columbia in 1980. Could she explain that large figure compared to the

result, which was $53 million? It bothers me when the minister does

tend to lurch into hyperbole, and we often have to face up to the fact

the following year that we can't meet the kind of figures that she set

for herself. If she says $100 million and more in newsletter headlines,

and the actual figure, according to the film producers, is $53 million,

I wonder how we can be satisfied being 100 percent wrong. That bothers

me, because nobody is more dedicated to the idea of British Columbia

having correct promotional ideas and services to attract film makers to

this province, rather than the kind of thing — having political films

made — we heard about a little earlier today.

I would ask the minister to answer those questions.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the questions of the second member for

Surrey. He has covered a very wide range of subjects. I will do my best

to answer them in as concise and broad a way as possible. If the member

agrees, I'll answer from one end to the other, but I may move around a

little bit.

On the newsletter projection, I love the words

"hyperbole" and what have you — the classic posturing of the

opposition, which is not usually used by this member and probably was

used inadvisedly at this time. Mr. Member, if I understand the

newsletter from which you're quoting, that figure you mentioned of

approximately just over $100 million was a projected figure for 1981.

We're well on our way in film promotion in British Columbia. As you

know, in 1979 we had about $36 million in completed films in British

Columbia. In 1980 we went up to approximately $60 million in film

production in British Columbia. With what we have on board now, I think

that the thought of shooting for $100 million in 1981 is optimistic,

but I believe that unless we challenge ourselves, we're not going to

reach that high.

You'll notice in the estimates we have

increased the emphasis of the ministry on our film promotion area;

we've increased the staff and its budget. I thought it might interest

the member to know that in 1980 we had a total of 15 feature projects;

four were shot partially in British Columbia. There were 12 feature

projects shot in British Columbia; one was made into a TV movie, one

television pilot and one television series. When we are giving you the

figures, we also are advising you, but not including in our figures, of

the fact that the film industry itself considers that there's a

multiplying effect of times 15 in terms of the spread or the ripple

effect of that film production money which goes through the province or

the community.

At this time we have a number of projects

underway. We have potential producers in the province today, as a

matter of fact. They're in the northern part of the province. We're

currently working with 34 separate feature film projects. Their budgets

will total over $76 million. Location scouts have been or are soon to

be conducted for six of the major studios in Los Angeles. We've been

increasing our efforts to have direct contact with the American and

other European film production centres. As you know, it's a very

complex industry; it relies a lot on personal contact and a lot on the

type of service we get. Our emphasis is there. You'll notice in the

travel warrants that our film promotion people have extensive travel

warrants. We think this is very worthwhile. You might like to know that

so far Never Cry Wolf has resumed its shooting and by design was

completed just after Christmas.

We're very proud of the

service that our staff has built up in that area. It's under our

assistant deputy minister, as you know. They have a system whereby,

within a matter of hours, they can answer a question that might come at

3 o'clock in the morning or any other time of the day. They have a

library where they can provide nearly all the services and examples of

the services and locations all around the province, and have it on that

producer's desk, particularly if it's in California, within a matter of

hours. To date, we have one of the fastest services in the world. We've

made every effort to contact — and I have a letter going out shortly —

all the municipalities and regional districts in British Columbia to

encourage them to inventory their own areas for potential assets in

terms of movie and film production. We want to expand our inventory so

that almost nothing can be asked for that we don't have at least two or

three examples of. As you know, the climate and the five differing

natural but unique geographic regions in our province offer us a wide

variety of film production opportunities, whether it's desert,

rainlands, big sky country in the Peace River, beautiful lakes in the

Kootenays or the fruit belt in the Okanagan. Our effort is to diversify

the benefits of these dollars as much as we can. We find the

communities are very receptive to the industry, and we're working as

hard as we can to promote ourselves as a film production centre.

the member may recall, there was a great flurry of film production in

Canada a few years ago, started by the federal government and giving

very generous tax write-offs as an incentive. So there was a

multiplicity of films produced almost everywhere for tax incentives,

and this was a good thing in that it helped establish Canada as a

film-production centre. But that's now settling down. You have to

recognize that it's a very tenuous industry; it's very sensitive to any

problems in any jurisdiction and it's highly competitive. But we

believe that British Columbia, which has moved into second place, can

compete very handsomely. Ontario is the leading film production centre

and they had many years of established opportunity, but we're offering

good competition. We intend to proceed with that and I'm sure we'll

have the members' full support.

Now, as you know, there is

the other

section of the production area within our ministry, which is

marketing, and it's under Mr. Norman Keziere. This is an area that I

think you referred to in one of your other questions. I'd like to

advise you that there — and it was under your own administration for

some time — the productions are continuing. We have a number of films

out, as you know, in a multiplicity of languages: Dutch, German and

French — we're not yet into Spanish, but we're looking at it, although

there is some question as to whether the market in the Spanish-speaking

[ Page 5064 ]

countries

would justify that sort of expense. We've just completed a new film

which we showed in Japan, and that is, of course, in the Japanese

language. It is already running throughout Asia, but particularly in

Japan, and has been well received.

As you know, last year

over a million people saw British Columbia promotional films in other

countries. They're shown everywhere, from living rooms to small

community halls in England or in Germany or meetings in Japan. They're

used for promotion within the industry itself. Whether they're tour

operators or travel agents, we've used them in the promotion of British

Columbia. The Minister of Finance took "Valley of a Thousand Peaks" to

New York with him when he was addressing the financial community of the

eastern United States, and it was extremely well received. I'm sure the

member would be the first to commend that

section of our ministry for

the excellent job they do.

We now have a film under

production which will relate to freshwater fishing in British Columbia.

You might also like to know that we've shifted the emphasis of the

ministry onto the conservation aspect of harvesting all our

recreational resources in the wildlife area. That film is having the

benefit of the local fishing-camp operators of British Columbia viewing

it and making their input as well as being vetted by the fish and

wildlife branch of the Ministry of Environment, to see that we don't

transgress proper conservation promotion and policies; and also to

encourage my fishing-camp operators to expand their services to people,

so that when they come it's not a matter of just going out and fishing

forever and trying to yard in a lot of fish, which is fun for a few but

really not that many. We want to encourage the sale of the experience

that goes with the barbecue, the hiking and the general atmosphere, and

this is having good reception in the United States and in Germany,

which are two major fishing market areas.

No, Mr. Member, I

have no thought, and I don't think Mr. Heal has any thought, of his

taking over this

section of our ministry. We're very proud of it. As

you'll see, it has a good budget this year, and they're very

enthusiastic about their role in the development of tourism in British

Columbia.

TIABC. I appreciate their five-point program very

much. I believe, if the member is quoting from the document that I

assume it to be, he'll find in there that many of the suggestions in

that particular document have related very much to the statements made

by the ministry as to what we have undertaken and intend to undertake.

We appreciate the support that they're giving to the changes that we

are making in the ministry's approach in cooperating with the industry

for the development of tourism in British Columbia.

The

matter of membership in TIABC. As you know, we are supporting TIABC

through assisting the regions to pay their membership — this is through

our regional cost-sharing grants. We feel this gives TIABC a great deal

more strength than it would have otherwise, because this allows every

region in the province to take

part in their activities and it assists

them in the cost-sharing of that. I personally would encourage the

industry to organize in any way that it would like to. I feel that it

would be very helpful for them in many ways. Certainly we give them as

much support as we can; I'm committed to attending their first annual

meeting, which will be coming up very shortly. We tried to have

ministry representation at all their meetings. I want to be very clear,

in addressing any organization that has formed or contemplates

formation in the tourism industry, that it is their right and their

opportunity. We'll give them every support we can. But this ministry

has an open-door policy. We are very conscious of the fact that we want

operators in the industry around the province in every region to have

the same opportunity to speak to their ministry staff and the minister,

and to bring their problems to the ministry where they should properly

be addressed.

[Mr. Passarell in the chair.]

for the TIDSA regional studies, these are ongoing, as the member knows.

We had the overall study released in the form of the 3-M presentation

"Tell the World," which was extremely well received and had a lot of

benefit. I believe it challenged the industry, as we should, in a very

positive way. The response has been excellent.

Regional

studies come under TIDSA, which is generally under the administration

of our colleague the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), but we do have members on that

committee. I would advise the member that I am advised the studies on a

regional basis are not yet to the management committee level, but we

have asked that their draft be presented to us as soon as possible.

The $12 million for package tours — I'd like to come back to that.

B.C.

Rail. Again, as the member knows, this doesn't come under my

administration. But I would just touch on the fact — because he's quite

right — that B.C. Rail was designed as a freight railway, a service

railway. It had an overlay of passenger service, which was designed for

our own citizens at that time. I must say, with great charity, it has

been somewhat sporadic in its ability to provide those needs, probably

because of a lack of population. But the member is aware that that

service is to be continued. Now, of course, tourism in British Columbia

is coming very much into its own. We receive excellent cooperation from

the minister who sits on the board in assisting us in being able to

work in the future. I'm sure he will speak from his side in promoting

that service, so that hopefully it can be more economically viable,

that hopefully it can serve the needs of the tourist in terms of

service and excitement and experience, and also will service much more

fully those communities which could benefit greatly from tourism and

which are situated adjacent to or very near the railway. It offers an

excellent opportunity for package tours, which are becoming

increasingly popular because of energy costs and because the preference

in travel is changing, as it does from time to time. People like to

come and they like to fly and drive and use rail. We can, I believe, in

time develop a much stronger tourist impact in the off season as well

as in the summer or the shoulder months, the spring and fall, by the

use of that railway. It's magnificent country and it very much offers

what people like to come to British Columbia for.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'm trying to answer all the member's questions. He put them before us very nicely. I think I owe him that.

Question

21 on the order paper. I know the member didn't mean to infer any

unkindness or lack of confidence in the professional civil servants

within our ministry. He asked for a great deal of detailed information.

As he knows, the budget

[ Page

5065 ]

has only just come down. They are endeavouring to answer his questions as soon as possible.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Gerry

Sorensen. Miss Sorensen was interested in joining us for the sports

show on tourism in Ontario. As I mentioned yesterday, she wanted to go

and we paid her air fare and she was a great credit to our ministry and

to British Columbia. She gave freely of her time, and she stole the

show in Toronto — and for that we're most grateful. What her future is,

Mr. Member, I think is a matter of Miss Sorensen's personal affairs,

and I'm sure you wouldn't want to transgress there.

In terms

of the room tax, I appreciate the hotel tax. It isn't directly under my

administration, but it is very much a part of our thinking. I'm sure

the member realizes that nobody likes to impose a tax and nobody likes

to pay a tax. But there are certain necessities of life that must be

supplied to our citizens in terms of services, whether it's grants to

municipalities, assistance for parklands, the building of highways or

the development of schools and hospitals. This is a requirement, and

the government has done everything it can to streamline our spending to

ensure.... I mentioned this to the member yesterday. From our

ministry's point of view we don't want to get into the numbers game of

how much money goes into tourism compared with other provinces. What

we're looking for is return for the dollar — maximum use of our

taxpayers' money — and we feel we're accomplishing this very well.

The

concerns of the industry have been mentioned. I realize the member met

with TIABC. They did meet with us after. Perhaps I'll leave it at that.

understand that one of the comments made is that the industry wasn't

warned, and the opposition is on the hustings saying the minister

should have told them. I'm sure the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) isn't

doing this, but every member of this House knows that taxes are message

bills, and a message bill is one that comes from the

Lieutenant-Governor and is not subject to discussion. If the content of

that bill is known by anyone else but the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) and his closest advisers, then both the Minister of Finance and

those who might be members or ministers who know that information they

shouldn't are subject to instant dismissal from this Legislature. So

while I recognize it's not always easy for the private sector to

understand that, it is a law of the land, and it's certainly a law that

this government does everything possible to uphold.

MR. COCKE: Oh, nonsense, Pat.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: If anyone had been listening in the

opposition benches.... Certainly many in the industry were listening,

because I spoke at the British Columbia Hotels Association convention,

the British Columbia Motels, Resorts and Trailer Parks Association

convention, a number of public dinners and nearly every regional annual

meeting on the constitution and the problems that could result from the

pattern Mr. Trudeau was designing and the steps he was taking. One of

the matters was that it would present greatly increased costs that

would affect every man, woman and child in this province, and would

most likely affect every business in this province. At the same time I

was addressing the industry on the fact that we were very much coming

of age. We did have our own ministry. We had been declared a basic

resource. As such, we don't give away our trees and other natural

resources, whether it's fish, coal or anything else, and we should not

give away our tourist resources.

Many

in the industry recognize that I was not privy to any special

information, but I did have my eyes open, and there had been comments

and speculation in the media that there might likely be some greater

demands on our citizens in spite of the efforts of the government to

maintain good value for the tax dollar. I would have to consider that

that was as close an alert as anyone could reasonably expect, and I

believe most in the industry accept that. Since discussing this matter

with Finance and the Minister of Finance I recognized, as I believe

most of the industry do, that there were any number of options that

could be taken if our industry was to make an increased contribution.

relation to your question, I might add, Mr. Member, that the return, if

I recall correctly, from the hotel tax to the Crown at the 6 percent

rate was around $15 million a year, and with the new rates this will

now increase to about $22 million per year. The member says: "Have we

earmarked any special grants for the industry out of that?" I'm sure he

appreciates that you don't raise taxes to rob Peter to pay Paul. Those

tax revenues go into general revenue to provide schools and hospitals,

and to pay municipalities, teachers' salaries, pensions and all the

things this government, at the provincial level, is expected to

contribute to. We also make substantial program assistance to the

industry itself, and the purpose of that money.... It does go into

general revenue so that at the end of the year it can be disbursed

where it is needed throughout the province.

We feel that we

are doing a great deal for tourism in British Columbia. As you know,

Mr. Member, just one thing we have within our ministry is great

services, in terms of production, marketing and educational programs

such as the hospitality program. We're working on a management training

program; we work together with education and labour to develop programs

in our colleges; we are working with the industry and hopefully one day

in our universities. Those are all contributions that cost money, but

greatly assist the industry. I believe they'd be the first to recognize

that this has been worked out through the years between themselves and

government, and has been added to.

We pay 60 percent of the

salaries of the regional tourist directors. We pay a percentage to the

regional areas of the province for promotion of their regions. We do

the umbrella promotion and then they get assistance for their regional

promotion to tie into the umbrella promotion. We encourage the

communities to do their own, but we also have some funding available

through the regions. I'm going to look at that formula. It might be

able to be made more effective to assist with tourist information

booths. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

is most helpful to our industry and communities in assisting them to

find good locations for information centres, often providing the

turnoff and all the basics they need, with just the provision of the

booth up to them, and then often the money to staff them through the

Ministry of Labour and other programs. Our ministry has province-wide

tourist information booths, all of which are paid for.

cost-share in regional grants. I thought it might interest the member

to know that in 1978-79 there was a total of $475,900 going into the

regional grants. It went to $482,000 plus in 1980, and in 1981 it went

up a major percentage to $685,598. This year, as you can see from the

budget, it's

[ Page 5066 ]

$719,

873. There are perimeters within which those grants must be used, but

that's designed in cooperation with the regions, and I believe is of

great service to them.

In terms of the hotel tax and its

return to the industry, I don't want to get too involved. The member

knows that this government is moving ahead like no other government in

the world in terms of developing the major tourist generators you must

have to be an international tourist centre. I cite for example

Whistler, Panorama, Kimberley, Mount Washington and Terrace's mountain

— just a few around this province. They are all around the province.

Some are regional generators and some are international generators, all

of which allow the small operator in the industry to have a market and

to have the type of attention drawn to that market that they need as

family operations, whether they're a hamburger stand or even a clothing

store, whether they're a shoe store or hotel — to develop and have the

type of economy they need. So if they offer good service and a good

product, they can make a very good living and be competitive.

There's

the Vancouver Pacific Rim Trade and Convention Centre, which will allow

us to compete on the international market with conventions which we've

never been able to attract here before and with trade programs which

we've never been able to attract here before, because we'll be able to

accommodate up to 5,000 people. The most we've ever been able to handle

is around 3,000. It doesn't take any business from any of the existing

operations. It only adds.

There's British Columbia Place. I

wouldn't want to offend the member in any way, but I must in all

fairness remind him that his party — and I'm sure he doesn't agree with

them — are around this province trying to knock these programs. You

can't say one thing out there and another thing in here. These programs

are designed with provincial impetus. While most of them will

ultimately be self-supporting, it takes the initiative of the

government, in cooperation with the industry, to develop this sort of

excitement.

There's the Victoria trade and convention centre

and Transpo '86. The future never looked brighter. It looks less bright

in many other parts of Canada than it does right here in British

Columbia, because this government is doing the very things that I'm

sure that member for Surrey would want us to do and that the industry

wants us to do. It seems to me that our industry is maturing. We're

very sensitive that it must remain competitive. We're very sensitive to

the problems, the protocol and the legislation that they face in other

countries. They're very sophisticated marketers and they understand

that. We in British Columbia are still one of the best buys in the

world, dollar-wise and certainly experience- wise.

Regarding

the accommodation directory, the member made an insinuation — and I'm

sure he didn't mean it that way — that the ministry must have had

inside information, because the new accommodation directory has the

alteration in tax. With great respect, I would suggest that he was dead

wrong. I did not know. We were in a position where we were wrongly

listing the tax at 5 percent. The day the budget came down we were

to.... I think we were at the blueline stage, and I sent a little note.

I'm sure that the media and the rest of you were watching this note go

out, which went right downstairs to my office to say: "Hold the

blueline."

I would just conclude my statements by saying

that we altered our accommodation directory after the budget came down.

That's when the instruction went out. We now carry a rider to say that

they will be subject to any unexpected tax increases.

MR. HALL:

I would like to say that perhaps a great deal of the response that we

just heard could have been dealt with in another way. I don't say

"avoided," because that would not be fair or even complimentary to the

minister, as she was imparting information to the House. It could have

been avoided or done another way if the minister had seen fit to give

us the benefit of her annual report, which we haven't had. If we had

had the annual report, we would have done away with about 20 minutes of

the minister's response, which would have allowed us more time in

estimates. Nobody wants to delay the passage of estimates, but

certainly a great deal of the anecdotal response we got from the

minister would have been dealt with in her annual report.

would recommend that course of action to any of the members seated on

the treasury benches on the other side. If they could follow the

time-honoured custom of this Legislature in going through the estimates

alphabetically, or at least pick ministers who had the ability to

present their annual reports in some reasonable shape before we got

into the discussion of their estimates, it would be a great benefit not

only to the members of the opposition but to all people interested in

the democratic process. That's not being followed, and I for one regret

it.

I want to go back to the question of the films. I read the

article very carefully — as I do all the material — from Tourism British Columbia Newsletter ,

Volume 4, number 1, June 1980: "$120 million worth of films are now

committed to be shot on location in B.C. this year, Tourism minister

Pat Jordan said recently." That is not in 1981, but in that year. I

agree there's going to be some time for some of the product to go

forward. I said that indeed $53 million of the product was produced in

1980. The minister now suggests it was $60 million, so now we're coming

a lot closer. I'm sticking to my figure of $53 million. The minister

has now dropped from her extravagant claim of $100 million down to $60

million, so we're now only $7 million apart. I'll settle for that

today. That's tremendous: we got a lot closer together than we were

when we started.

All I'm saying, Madam Minister, is that I

met with film makers who represented directors, producers and the one

composite trade union that deals with this particular industry. They

represented 30 basic decision-makers in this province, who in turn

represent about 2,000 employees in the industry. They're at the best

end of the country in British Columbia that saw, for instance, $100

million worth of product produced in Canada in 1979. That's why I

queried the figures in the first place, when you were saying that we

were over $100 million in B.C. in 1980. The film-promotion people that

you've got — and I know one of them, Justis Greene....

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

On a point of order, I believe the member is misinterpreting the

article. He keeps saying that I said $100 million in 1980. Mr.

Chairman, that's not correct, to my knowledge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, there'll be ample time during debate in committee to reflect on the debate of another hon. member.

MR. HALL:

You can't keep on counting the same film over and over again. There's

got to be some kind of dimension of time to the number of dollars of

product produced. I'm telling the minister that we're watching her very

carefully because she has this unfortunate tendency to exaggerate. I'm

[ Page

5067 ]

saying that having now met with those people I've

just enumerated for you who represent the industry in British Columbia.

She now talks about her film promotion people. As far as I can

ascertain, of all your senior staff you have two people in estimates

involved in film promotion. Perhaps you could tell me who else — other

than those two people, one of whom is Justis Greene — you're talking

about. Let me say that I know the effort that's required; I know what's

required in Los Angeles; I know what's required to get to the

decision-makers at the most opportune time. But I may tell you, Madam

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, you don't even advertise in the

daily journal that's read in Los Angeles every day by the people

involved in the industry. As opposed to Alberta and other provinces in

Canada, we don't even do that. I'm saying that in order to let that

person do a job, maybe we should get a couple of answers in that

regard. I'm not going to just vote blindly and blankly for these kinds

of inflated estimates on the basis of some of this public relations

flackery.

Lastly, in response to the 40-minute answer I got,

I was one who always thought the minister should have been in charge of

the trade and convention centre in Vancouver. After all, what could

come better, in terms of the convention centre, than to give it to the

Minister of Tourism with a staff with some expertise on the question of

conventions. I'd like the minister to tell us whether or not she could

do a better job than the present holder of that portfolio.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair would have to comment that maybe both parties in this debate

are reflecting on the vote of another minister. I'm sure the members of

the committee are aware of that.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member closed his statements or questions — I'm

not quite sure which they were — suggesting that I'd given a 40-minute

answer. I appreciate that compliment. I'm sure the member realizes that

it took 40 minutes — and I'm sure it isn't a strategy; I wouldn't dream

of suggesting that — because he asked about 14 extremely complex

questions: the hotel tax, TIABC, the newsletter, questions on the order

paper, film making, Gerry Sorensen. I would suspect that he would be

much more in order to criticize me if I hadn't answered his questions

fully. I'm only trying to help him understand, as I know he'd like to,

but he's been in a position of not showing a great deal of knowledge

about the industry, both in this House and outside — after some of his

well-publicized meetings. I just want to help him along.

mentions the film promotion. Unfortunately, the member is wrong again.

We have a very aggressive film promotion program. We have established

two new positions. We divide here, of course, because the NDP

philosophy is: if you pour more money into it and keep pouring it in

and get more bodies, it must be better. Our philosophy — as Minister of

Tourism — when it comes to tourism is: analyze the total picture,

decide which are your opportunities as a market area and how you can

most effectively serve that. That's what we've done in the

film-promotion sector. We have excellent people on staff. They are well

respected in the industry around the world. They direct us and myself

as minister, and I have great confidence in their judgment. They know

how to make 50 cents become a dollar, even in inflationary years. You

don't have to listen to my words; you just have to look at the success.

also have many people around the province who assist us. There are many

highly skilled people in the industry itself who are private

enterprisers — people who don't want government mucking around in their

lives all the time; people who have good businesses and want to be free

to go out and use their talents to increase their business. What they

ask from us is a stable political climate and a stable, strong and

growing economy. It's very rare in the world today, but British

Columbia is one of those rare places that has a growing economy — most

other areas don't. They work with us and that's the team work that

we're developing — not big government smashing down here, there and

everywhere, telling everybody what to do. We're very fortunate to have

these sorts of people. We have our regional coordinators, all of whom

assist in providing the industry out there with what they need to know,

without interfering in their lives any more than we have to. All the

municipal councils and regional districts assist us. I would resist in

any way suggesting that.... The member got a little hot under the

collar and said that I should be doing this, that and the other thing

and that he knew what it was about. I wondered why, but I won't say:

"Why didn't he do more when he was the Minister of Tourism?" But it

could leave that impression.

I can appreciate the member's

interest in the annual report. I'm pleased that he's looking forward to

it. Of course, he would remember that our year-end is March 31. It

would be very wrong — and he, perhaps quite rightly so, would be the

first to criticize us — if our report came out the next day, because

obviously we'd have it all written before the figures were in. It

sometimes takes up to three months, as the member knows, to get the

accurate statistics from Statistics Canada, as well as within the

industry. He'll be pleased to know that we've had dialogue with the

federal government, and we've asked if we can work together to speed

the process. We have that process improved now to between 30 and 40

days. As the research

section of our ministry becomes stronger, which

is a priority with me, then we'll be able to refine that. Mr. Member

and the public should know that if we had our annual report out the day

after our year-end, it couldn't possibly contain the accuracy that we

hope it will have. It's in the development and refinement stage, and I

hope to have it available for you just as soon as the staff can

responsibly get it ready.

The member met with the

film-makers. When was that? I'm sure if he did, he would recognize that

we're very pleased that the unions involved in film production in

British Columbia, our ministry and I are having good dialogue and

working closely together. The industry itself is aware of the efforts

we are making to help them bring together the full base needed to see

British Columbia be competitive.

The hon. member mentioned

Alberta's film promotion office. Albertans are great friends of ours —

a great province and good Canadians. I would say with all modesty that,

in spite of the moneys they've spent and the bodies they have, their

success has not been as successful as ours. That could change. We're

very sensitive to the competitiveness of this industry. At the moment

they have a maximum of six features under production in Alberta, with a

value of probably little more than $25 million. They're not predicting

any productions for 1981. They are making a concentrated effort to

develop their base too. We know about that and recognize it. We'll be

seeking that member's cooperation and knowledge to assist us in

developing in British Columbia, perhaps not as grandiose a base, but a

far more effective one, because we

[ Page 5068 ]

want to be able to keep those talented people in the industry in British Columbia.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that yesterday the minister stated

during one of her presentations that "conservation is the watchdog of

the Tourism ministry." In the next few minutes we'll go over the

watchdog for the Tourism ministry.

One of the first few

items I'd like to talk about is the speech the member made on March 18,

1981, when she was addressing me regarding gas. At that time she said

that it was 32 cents-plus a litre in the Atlin constituency, which

wasn't too bad if that was factual. The price that day was

approximately 50 percent higher; it was 47 to 51 cents a litre. So just

draw that to the minister's attention, concerning the price of gasoline

up in the Atlin constituency.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

One

of the aspects of the minister's vote I'd like to talk about is travel

expenses, which have increased by 100 percent this year. I'd like to

know why this increase has come about. Another question concerning

travel expenses, Mr. Chairman, is three particular flights that Mr.

Jordan made with Mrs. Jordan on government aircraft: on March 1, 1980,

flight No. 1056 from Vancouver to Terrace and back to Vancouver; on

March 8, 1980, Kelowna to Vancouver; and March 9, 1980, Vancouver back

to Kelowna. When I'm finished, I'd like to know why the hon. minister's

husband was flying on the government aircraft on those two days and if

it had anything to do with the Tourism ministry.

Onto

another subject, Mr. Chairman, which is a brochure that I spoke about

and which led to our March 18 speech. Since that time I've contacted

some of the minister's staff. The brochure itself is distributed by the

Yellowhead 16 Travel Association and concerns Highway 37. On the back

it says: "Province of British Columbia, Minister of Tourism and Small

Business Development." It's probably an outdated brochure by the

ministry, but at this time.... I'm going to go through this and then

I'll let you see it. This is the brochure that's being handed out at

the different tourist locations on the Yellowhead to travellers coming

up Highway 37, and it contains some erroneous information that has

caused quite a concern to the residents of Dease Lake particularly.

There are about five or six items that I've marked on this, and I hope

the minister could have this brochure taken out of the tourist centres

immediately. It gives a very detrimental, negative aspect to travelling

on Highway 37 and contains much erroneous information concerning

service stations, what services are available to people, and it has

caused a detrimental effect to residents who have service stations or

maintenance shops. It lists a number of service stations that have not

been in existence for approximately five years. Could a clerk take this

to Mrs. Jordan to check? I would simply ask you to have that pulled off

as soon as possible, because it caused quite a concern up in Dease Lake.

The

next aspect, Mr. Chairman, is the staff estimates. There's the same

amount of staff in the estimates — seven last year, seven this year —

but an increase of $15,000. There has been a 20 percent increase in

salaries and travelling expense together, and I would like the

minister's reasoning behind the increase in these two particular fields.

The

minister was talking previously, Mr. Chairman, concerning film

promotion. I'm one member who would like to support that ministry on

its continuation of filming in this province. I think the province of

British Columbia has a great potential, particularly my constituency.

There have been five movies made or are in process for the next year,

which has caused very good, positive results to the communities,

particularly Atlin and Stewart. I would hope that the minister could

see fit to somehow increase the production of films made in British

Columbia, because it has a very positive aspect on the local

communities in the north. I would also hope the minister could somehow

see fit to have some tax incentive increases for the promotion of films

in this province.

One matter on a serious note, Mrs.

Minister, is regarding the quote with which I started off in the

beginning of the speech, in which tourism and conservation go hand in

hand. I would certainly hope that the minister would take her place and

make some statements for the protection of some of our environment

that's going to have some detrimental effect upon the tourist industry

in this province. On this item she's been very quiet.

could go on to the Amax issue which, Mr. Chairman, is an extremely good

tourist-orientated area, the Alice Arm inlet. It has a high potential

for resident and non-resident tourist trade in that area for fishing. I

would certainly hope, before the Chairman rules me out of order if I

start taking about mercury, arsenic and uranium, that the minister

could see fit to stand up and talk for the protection of some of our

areas such as Alice Arm.

One area that I would certainly

hope the tourist minister would take an active

part in is the Grand

Canyon of Canada. We're fortunate in this province to have the Grand

Canyon of Canada located in the Stikine Valley. It holds an immense

tourist potential, and I would certainly hope that the minister would

see fit through her ministry to attempt to downplay B.C. Hydro in any

development they want to do in that area that would have a detrimental

effect upon the tourist trade in the area. I hope the minister will

take a very strong position for the protection of the Grand Canyon,

because once it's lost, it's a tourist area that will be lost forever.

That particular area would be under 300 feet of water.

I'm

not going to get into any nit-picking with the minister concerning her

voting record on the environment. I don't think this is the time and

place to talk about that, but I would certainly hope that she would

take a very strong position, Mr. Chairman, for the protection of places

like the Stikine-Iskut valley and the Grand Canyon. Even though the

backup waters would form a lake, it's not worthwhile to have the Grand

Canyon of Canada under water for a backup lake to do some fishing.

conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I have just three short questions for the

minister. First, in what connection to your ministry was your spouse on

the government aircraft? Secondly, will the minister attempt to take an

educational course on gas prices, and maybe in return help to sponsor

some type of a postage-stamp rate for gasoline prices across this

province, which would help tourists coming into the area to have some

type of concentrated, similar price structure for gasoline, instead of

finding that gas in the north is sometimes 50 or 60 percent higher than

it is in the interior?

With that, I'll let it go and have the minister answer some of those questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before recognizing the minister, I must stress again that when in estimates on a

[ Page 5069 ]

minister

we are dealing specifically and strictly with the administrative

responsibility of that minister. The questions raised by the last

speaker regarding prices of gasoline would be canvassable under another

minister, but not under the administrative responsibility of this

particular ministry. The same would apply to some of the other points

mentioned in passing by the member for Atlin.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I very much appreciate the member's comments and his concern to develop

tourism in his area. I know of his interest, and I would just preface

my remarks by encouraging him to understand that in the industry itself

it doesn't matter how great your facilities or how terrific your

service; if it isn't a buoyant area and there isn't a buoyant attitude,

people won't come. I've tried to help members understand that in this

industry you have to have the business side — very much so. But we are

marketing fun, and people won't take a holiday where it isn't fun and

there aren't experiences. I would encourage that member to be with us

more, so he can himself become an ambassador of tourism for his area,

speak positively about what's going on in his area and encourage people

to want to come there. People won't go to an area where its spokesmen,

whether they're locally elected officials or provincial and federal

representatives, are negative. Why would they? I'd encourage him to be

as positive as he can about his area, recognizing that at this time in

our estimates he has every right to bring forth all sorts of questions.

You

yourself, Mr. Chairman, advise that one or two matters the member

addressed are not within my administration, so I won't transgress,

other than to say that in dealing with tourism we have to realize — and

that's why we're now a ministry on our own, and why we're a basic

resource — that we have a tremendous impact on our environment and our

facilities, just as others do. It's not a matter of black and white;

it's a matter of working together and multiple use.

The

other thing we must recognize is — and I'm sorry I haven't been to

Grand Canyon; I haven't been in the member's area; it's one of the few

parts of the province I haven't ever been to, and I intend to come as

soon as the session is over.... But when people go to even the most

remote areas, other than maybe the infinitesimal half of one-half

percent who really like to be backpackers and hikers and really do like

to live in the wilderness, most of them like to rough it in the

Bayshore. In other words, when people come from Germany, the Okanagan

or Japan and go into the Atlin area they want that wide-openness, they

want the experiences, but also they want power, services, hotels and

restaurants. And many of these so-called roughing-it assets should be

designed, as the member knows so well, in keeping with the Atlin

environment, because that's, in part, what they'll go for. In order to

provide services and the capital to build hotels, the economy of

British Columbia must be buoyant, and we must have the ability to

provide the power, heat, roads, lumber to build buildings and cement,

which in content just as a simple example means certain elements of

mining. So I believe what the member is asking me is to be very aware

environmentally — which I think he knows I am — but don't kill the

tourist industry in my area. That means cooperating and working

together, and that's why this ministry does now sit on a number of

committees. And we are very conscious.... I would also advise the

member that the industrial tourism consumer, I believe, has tremendous

potential, and you would want to have your share of that as well.

The price of gasoline. I thought I had the figures for other parts of the country

here. I know we have varied prices in British Columbia, and I think we all recognize

that they tend to be higher in some areas than others. This has been a long

debate within the industry. I would just like to advise the member that in British

Columbia our gas rates, even in Atlin, are still very competitive in Canada,

except for what we subsidize in the east. They are very, very competitive with

other parts of the world, where in some places you pay $4 a litre. We haven't

been having complaints from tourists even, to my knowledge, in your area, unless

somebody from the lower mainland, where they do have favourable prices, goes

up there. Maybe that's just conditioning them for what realistically has got

to happen in the world. Also, if you have a flat price all over the province

it means the government's getting into the small service station operation.

I don't think the member would want that. We want to see the small

operator free not to gouge and not to have windfall profits, but to be able

to make a very fair living. We feel the tourists should contribute to that living.

That's what I mean about not giving away our resources. If you're going

to run a service in Atlin,

where it's remote and where many of your costs are higher.... If the

experience is there, if the accommodation is there, then the visitors

will be quite happy to pay for it.We mustn't have our own citizens subsidizing a very healthy industry.

Regarding

flights by my husband and I, that will generally come up under the

Minister of Transportation and Highways. It's not policy, but I would

be quite prepared to file my family's use of the plane. My husband has

never used the plane before. During all the years I was in government

before, he wouldn't. The government adopted a policy where under

certain circumstances your spouse can fly with you. I want to say that

I'm very grateful for the times he has flown with me. It's very rare. I

believe that when we're there, people appreciate him being there. I

have to say that because I'm home so seldom I appreciate having him

there. I don't feel that there is anything that the taxpayers would

regret. I assure you we have never used a government flight either for

myself or for the few times my husband has been on the flights.... As

you know, it's very minimal, because he can't get away, being a

physician. It has always been with policy — we've never gone on fishing

trips or any luxury things. I'll file the details of those trips with

the member as soon as I can.

As for the Yellowhead 16

brochure, I well appreciate the member's comments. I didn't quite

recognize at first what he was talking about, but now I know. I would

just have to advise you that we were as distressed as you were, and

this has nothing to do with our ministry. Mr. Larry Provost, the

regional coordinator, and their regional association were totally

responsible for it. If I recall correctly, we suggested to them as

delicately as we could that they should alter it to keep it up to date

and fully representative of your area, and that it should be up to date

in terms of which ministry it secures it from. This was a brochure that

was made available — as you know the cover is made available — by the

government for each region. As you know, we pay a substantial portion

towards the coordinators' salaries, but they're not our employees. I

can't pick up the phone and tell a regional coordinator what to do.

Really, they are the employees of your own region. You should take this

to your regional executive and tell them that you'd like to see a

change. Again, I think they'd like you to do it on a positive basis.

[ Page 5070 ]

Regarding

movie production, you're quite right, Atlin has been very attractive as

a production area. We will do all we can, but we must promote British

Columbia and not any specific region. You can help your area have its

fair share — it's certainly has had its fair share — by helping me get

the type of information that our people need in their files so that

when these queries come forward they can get all the possible

information which would stimulate them there. I believe the communities

of Atlin and Stewart have been very welcoming to these committees. It's

been a good climate in which they can work. This is very important.

Again, I'd encourage the member to be very positive about his area.

There

are two films planned, as I understand it. We're working very hard for

Stewart this summer. In fact, I believe that they're up there today.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Three? Well, then you're ahead of us. That's very good. We're delighted.

Your

area has benefited very well, as you know, under TIDSA and other

services from our ministry. We've been very attentive as a ministry to

your area, including the newest publication of The Great North ,

which has several features on your area — Stewart and Atlin — and is

very beautiful. I would encourage you to send these out and get your

citizens and the people who are in business in your area, Mr. Chairman,

to buy copies of these — they're not expensive; they're only $1.25 —

and mail them out to your cousins and people in other parts of the

world as well as British Columbia.

I think I've answered the member's questions.

MR. PASSARELL:

I have just a couple of quick questions. First, can I have that

brochure back when you're finished? I gave the Premier a letter about

the second week I was in here, and that's been a year and a half now,

so I would appreciate having that come back.

Back onto that

brochure. You had stated that it would be difficult to get on the

telephone and call. If there's any possible way your ministry can have

this pulled off Highway 16 it would be appreciated. As I said, there

are a number of mistakes in it, and I think the business community

would totally appreciate receiving an up-to-date report for the

tourists who are passing through. So if there is any way that anybody

in your ministry can call and have this thing taken off, this brochure

is being distributed in two locations on Highway 16. If somebody in

your ministry could make a phone call to have it pulled off, maybe

something up to date could be brought in, because it is having an

adverse affect.

Lastly, the minister spoke about the issue

concerning PR. You can't send people up and talk indefinitely on good

PR when there are problems, as you say, we shouldn't be talking about —

the environmental ones now. That's the whole point of what I was

raising: the need to have good PR. You can't send people into areas

that are having some of the destruction and potential destruction. I

appreciate the minister's comments.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, that was an old brochure. There are no

supplies in our office, nor have we had anything to do with the

distribution. It's never been our brochure, but we were discussing it

and I sent a signal in my return answer to downstairs, and they are

phoning them now to let them know it's not in their best interests.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague for that applause. It

gives me a great deal of satisfaction hearing from him. It gives me

almost as much satisfaction as this debate that has been going on —

this exciting debate on tourism in this province.

I'd like

to point out one minor fact. I was listening to the minister replying

to the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) with respect to the multiplying

factor of motion pictures. The member for Surrey and I have had a

conversation since, and we've tried to figure out if there is any

industry that will produce a money-multiplier in the order of 15. Even

the moving picture industry admit that their money-multiplier is

something in the order of five. It's four to five for virtually

everything, and suddenly we hear a 15. I hope that the minister looks

at that claim along with many of the other claims that she seems to be

making around the province, and along with the claim that we did $100

million worth of film production as opposed to the $53 million that the

member for Surrey talked about.

I'd like to talk about

another kind of picture situation that's going on in our province

today. The Health ministry in this province has a studio. It's a video

and recording studio, and it produces health promotional works. It did

until it became the Socred propaganda arm. If everybody in the province

is now suddenly healthy, if everybody is fine, then maybe we could

transfer it to the Minister of Tourism to promote tourism in the

province. But if it promotes Social Credit aims in this province, that

minister should be fighting against it. If that film-making ability is

to be redirected — I was going to say misdirected, and of course it is

— then it should at least be directed to another department where it

could have some constructive use advertising our beautiful British

Columbia. Thank heavens we have a new minister, as boring as it is, but

we should not, and that minister, who has shown some evidence from time

to time of an ability to fight....

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. COCKE:

Oh, yes, she has. I hear that the reason they make so many mistakes in

their caucus is because nobody else has time to say anything. We've

seen evidence of that this afternoon.

That minister should be fighting to get that film-making material, that video studio, into her ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair has followed with some interest

the point that the member is making. But as the member is very well

aware, we may discuss only the existing administrative responsibility

of the minister. Whether it be a need for legislation or anything

requiring legislation or something that exists in another ministry, it

must be discussed in the ministry under which it presently falls.

Otherwise, by taking it to its logical conclusion, we could cover

anything related to tourism — whether it be bridges, roads, highways,

land — and that's why we don't do that. Could the member be strictly

relevant.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we remember a film

produced in this province by the then mini-ministry of tourism.

Remember Ron Worley's "The Good Life"?

MS. BROWN: How could we forget it?

[ Page 5071 ]

MR. COCKE: How can we ever forget?

I'm

not suggesting legislation. Obviously this government can take and move

a very important adjunct to health care into another ministry in ten

seconds, as they have done, in order to promote the Social Credit

cause. I'm just suggesting that we take it right out of politics and

give it to that minister. Maybe she can do something better with it

than Ron Worley did with "The Good Life."

I would like to

ask another question. Is it because of tourism that we're getting into

the Annacis crossing? Is it to bring Americans into New Westminster? Is

she responsible? Is she really the power behind this situation?

I meandering around a little bit? One of the reasons I tend to meander

a bit is that I've been listening to the minister weaving around,

talking about every ministry, and once in a while touching on the

Ministry of Tourism.

MR. LAUK: The bridge is going to be a tourist attraction because there won't be any roads leading up to it or away from it.

MR. COCKE:

Yes. We're hoping that the minister will do what thoughtful people in

the province are doing, and that is suggest to visitors that there are

other ways of getting into and out of Vancouver.

I suggest that this ministry can be given a good deal of credit for — not this particular minister — Beautiful British Columbia magazine. I think that's probably one of the best productions we have going. I would like to compare Beautiful British Columbia to B.C. Government News .

The contrast in those two government publications — one a propaganda

piece of almost Goebbels-like material, the other a first-class

magazine showing the beauties of our province and being circulated....

In places I go to outside of the province and outside of the country

where people have seen our magazine they are motivated to come here and

have a look for themselves. It's super. However, when I go to places

around the province that have just received a copy of the B.C. Government News , the first sign that I see is a sign of disgust.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, I would just remind the hon. member, who is always so precise and accurate, that the B.C. Government News doesn't come under my administration.

MR. COCKE: On the same point of order, I would like to suggest that I was comparing Beautiful British Columbia

magazine, a very beautiful piece of work, to the trash that has been

produced in the last three or four or five years in this province. It's

called B.C. Government News .

I'm sure that the minister wouldn't deign to feel that I was

transgressing against this debate in any way. I just want to give her a

great deal of credit for this first-class piece of material. I wanted

to compare it to something, and the first thing that came to my mind

was that.

Secondly, when the minister gets into the filming

business or the video business to advertise the beauties of our

province, would she please go to the Ministry of the Provincial

Secretary and ask that at least part of the time that new production

studio — not new by any means; it was health promotion — be used for

something positive, rather than something that we find quite the

contrary, something obnoxious. I can't believe the way this

government's going in terms of that sort of thing. The only good thing

we see coming out of that government in terms of publication is the Beautiful B.C.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Chairman, you'll have to forgive me for laughing, but it's always

so entertaining when that member gets up and has little more to say

other than to do what psychiatrists call "project" — sort of

attributing to others the faults that he himself has and uses so well:

inaccuracy, nit-picking, character assassination, all these things that

the member just did and really offered no constructive suggestions

about tourism in British Columbia. Frankly, I would have thought he'd

be up there complimenting the private sector in New Westminster and the

government for what they're doing for New Westminster. The

revitalization of downtown New Westminster is going to be an exciting

tourist addition in British Columbia. Many of the small operators who

work in the motels, restaurants and coffee shops of New Westminster and

that whole area of Whalley and many of the areas that the member has

not mentioned — he probably doesn't think about them — are going to

benefit very much from yet another dynamic, imaginative 1980s, 1990s

policy of this government.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'm sure that member is not an authority on the film industry. If you will check with Hansard ,

Mr. Chairman, you will find that I did not suggest that it was my

figure, nor did I suggest it applied to any other business or that that

factor was in any way involved in computing the figures that we're

using in terms of past production and monetary benefits in British

Columbia, or the projected production which they still keep getting

mixed up. Mr. Member, the factor of 15 is one that's used by the

industry itself. It's not involved in any way in our own figures. I

would have to make that very clear so the members don't get mixed up

and mislead the public. I know they wouldn't want to do that.

Again,

for the point of clarification, I'll remind him that to my knowledge

our figures in British Columbia are in keeping with the statements that

I've made. For the year of 1980 they were between $58 million and $60

million — not $100 million. The $100 million that the member keeps

inadvertently drawing to the public's attention, Mr. Chairman, in a way

that I'm sure he would be most embarrassed about if he realized what he

was doing, is a projected figure for the year of 1981. It's a figure

that I say quite candidly is an ambitious figure. But, unlike the

opposition, I'm a very progressive person. We are a very progressive

government. We believe in challenging ourselves, the members who make

up our team and the industry. We may not make $100 million but by

George, we're going to try. If the member stopped talking and listened,

he might understand that that $100 million figure for film production

in British Columbia is a projected figure for this coming year. But it

might interest the member and I really don't like playing the numbers

game........

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Well, Mr. Member, don't ask questions if you don't want answers. One

minute you tell us we don't answer any questions. The next minute we

try to answer your questions, and you want to run out of the House and

have a holiday. You have to work in this business.

[ Page 5072 ]

Beautiful British Columbia magazine. I appreciate the member's comments. I would like to advise him that it's not under my administration.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Maybe the member needs the white flag at home more than he does here. I don't know.

I'm

glad he talks about "our" magazine, because that's the flavour we've

tried to further even more than it was before. It is "our" magazine,

and people from all over the world — Ghana, China, Russia, Finland —

send letters. We have letters from all over the world talking about

this beautiful magazine, and the staff deserve a great deal of credit.

Perhaps if the members wouldn't mind not being so frivolous and come

down to earth and realize....

I'm sure that the hon. member

for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the hon. member for Surrey (Mr.

Hall) would be as distressed as we are to know that the father of that

magazine in the last few years, Bernie Atkins, is very ill. He served

this province with distinction and dedication and he's well known

around the province. He has been ill and we've kept the door open for

him at all times to come back when he could, but he's had surgery this

past week. He had six very serious bypasses, and my understanding is

that he's resting. I know the members join me in wishing his family

well, and we have expressed the respects and best wishes of the members

of this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the B.C. Government News is concerned, which isn't under my jurisdiction, I happen to enjoy it very much.

The

member keeps talking about film production. Again he's confused. We

have a film-promotion program, which is the one we've been talking

about and the one you get confused all the time in terms of your

figures. And then we have a production centre within the ministry,

which does all our tourism promotion films. I'd very glad to give you

the details of that. What you're talking about is not under my

ministry, but I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Member, that there has been

absolutely no change in production policy since the inception of that

area. The centre has worked for any ministry that required its service.

The statements that the members in the House made — again, I'm sure

they wouldn't do it intentionally — are totally inaccurate. There has

been no change in policy from the day it opened for business. That

government production centre operated as a government facility, not as

a health promotional program, although health utilized it a lot, which

is fine and good. I'm glad that they did — but many other ministries

have utilized it and there is absolutely no change in policy. I hope

that helps you understand that there are three centres within

government: the two that are within the Ministry of Tourism and the

other one that you keep getting confused. There is no change in policy

there; it's under the proper auspices, as it should be.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, I listened very careful to the minister and soft and

dulcet tones though she may use, the facts of the matter are.... She

can suggest that we are confused as much as she wants, but I have in my

hand a newsletter put out by the Ministry of Tourism, volume 4, number

1, June 1980 — six months into the year. The headline is: "$100 Million

and More for FILMS, FILMS, FILMS, FILMS." I read into the record: "More

than $120 million worth of films are now committed." It's not a

projection; it's just simple PR-flackery, hyperbole, exaggeration and

nonsense — the lightweight kind of stuff that we've got to expect now

in terms of the kinds of public statements that come from that

ministry. We've given her three opportunities to look at the eventual

outcome of that kind of nonsense. It's now coming home to roost. She's

trying to avoid the consequences of that kind of nonsense. She cannot

avoid the consequences of that kind of nonsense.

It goes on

to say: "The ministry's film development office is currently engaged in

making arrangements for another $40 million worth of films." That's

$120 million plus $40 million — $160 million worth in 1980. Nowhere in

this magazine, nowhere in that note are the figures for 1981. I've

reported that the industry now tells us that they did $53 million

worth. The minister admits under questioning they did $60 million; the

second time around she said they did $58 million. As I said, we're

getting closer. If we stay here long enough, she will probably agree

that they did $53 million.

MR. BARBER: Will they publish a correction?

MR. HALL:

They will never publish a correction. We'll never see another

correction in whatever volume they're up to now. That's the kind of

thing I'm talking about.

Then during the minister's

contribution, she said that there is a multiplying factor of 15. That's

what she said. The Blues say 15. I don't know whether she attributed

her knowledge of a multiplying factor of 15 to somebody else, but the

minister stuck with the figure 15. I'm suggesting to her that she's

wrong. She doesn't have to accept my word; I'm just suggesting that a

figure of 15 is wrong. The figure is five. The figure of five was given

to me on Monday by the very people that I've read into the record,

representing 2,000 employees of the film industry of British Columbia,

representing 30 decision-makers, going from film directors through film

producers and through to the one large trade union involved in the

business.

I listen carefully to what the minister says, and

I read carefully what the minister says. She can wriggle all she wants,

but those are the facts of the matter. She's again exercising that kind

of unerring judgment for exaggeration that will get her into more and

more trouble. That's why I think she should be kept at home. When we've

asked the question about her travel plans, she's avoided the answer.

We'll have more to say about that very shortly.

MR. LEA:

I'd like to ask the minister a question about the visitors' bureau

planned for the city of Prince Rupert for some time. The visitors'

bureau in Prince Rupert has been asking for some aid from the

provincial government. To my knowledge — maybe the minister has some

other information — they have never asked that the province itself go

in and set up a visitors' bureau. What they said to me was that they'd

like the province to augment the program that's there now. I believe

the minister — or possibly it was the former minister — has said that

the job that's been done by the visitors' bureau in Prince Rupert has

been magnificent not only for Prince Rupert but for British Columbia,

because so many people come into British Columbia through the port of

Prince Rupert, down the Alaska ferry system. I noticed it was in the

throne speech that the government would be looking at the visitors'

bureau in Prince Rupert. I'd like to ask the minister exactly what her

department's plans are concerning the visitors' bureau concept in

Prince Rupert.

[ Page 5073 ]

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

They're called visitor information centres, if I understand you

correctly. Through the years, as I understand the picture, there have

been formal requests, informal requests and direct requests — I think

even perhaps from yourself, if Hansard is correct — for a government information centre such as we have at Golden or at the border and other areas.

When

I first became minister I heard from them indirectly through our

assistant deputy minister, now of marketing, that this was a matter

that he felt was most important. When I was up there I met with the

people. As you know, I've been there three or four times, I believe it

is. I addressed myself to this matter. We met and we discussed how it

might best be done in everyone's interest. I discussed it with your

mayor and other elected representatives — because we want to work as a

team — as well as with the head of your chamber of commerce. It was

agreed and is now confirmed by letter from the chamber of commerce that

they would like us to work together on a cooperative venture. This is a

commitment I've made. Our ministry is actively working on it.

MR. LEA: What do you mean by cooperative?

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

We feel that we can serve the public better and all make better use of

our money by working together. I was very impressed when I saw the

common facility between the museum — the carvings that went on — and

the information centre. At the time I asked if there was any way we

could get this all together so tourists don't keep running around. They

agreed. So we are now looking hopefully at a common centre.

will put in a direct government employee. It is my hope, if I can find

the right person, to have that person year-round, not just during the

tourist season. He may not be totally occupied in that particular

aspect year-round, but he will be servicing the area in some way

year-round. The chamber will have their people there. We will have

separate areas but will be a common centre. This is where it stands at

the moment. We're negotiating. My understanding is that everything is

going well. My understanding from the mayor and from all the people

involved is that this is the right way to go. I just wonder if the

member has another idea. Our objective is to help all of us work

together and get the best use of our money. This sounds to me like a

very logical proposal.

MR. LEA: I'm not trying to

nail the minister with anything. It is confusing. I had a request from

the chamber of commerce to take a certain direction with your ministry,

which I did. Then I found out that I should have done a little bit more

checking first, because the visitors bureau itself had a different idea

than the chamber of commerce. I'm not sure at this point whether the

minister has talked to the right people. Obviously the chamber of

commerce was only taking it up on behalf of the visitors bureau. They

haven't been directly involved, although some members have — it just

happens that membership in both coincides.

What I'd like

from the minister — I think I have it, but I'd like it in precise terms

— before anything is done is that you do check with the visitors bureau

itself in Prince Rupert, with Larry Valentin and others who are

directly involved with the visitors bureau. It was my understanding the

last time I raised the matter that they're not so much interested in

having the province necessarily put in a full-time employee. What they

would like is some help so they can do it on their own. I think they

have been doing a good job. I'm pleased that the government is

interested enough that they want to put someone in; I'm just not sure

that it's the approach the visitors bureau in Prince Rupert wants. It

may be that it could be done more efficiently with less money by going

a different route. I just ask the minister, before making a final

decision on which way the government is going to go, to make a final

check with the visitors bureau in Prince Rupert.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

It's obvious that there would be some advantages in sharing, We could

spell each other off. We — and those in the tourist industry — don't

feel it would cause any confusion to the public. We have letters of

confirmation. As I say, I've talked to the mayor. If there is a local

problem, then of course this would be a matter for the local people to

decide. As far as how we staff our portion, that would be a ministry

decision in terms of what we think is appropriate. You mustn't confuse

in your mind the two roles. Mrs. Judy Culp, as you know, is your

person. She is an employee at the local level. That's a decision of

your local community.

What we are trying to do is develop an

information centre, cooperatively we hope, in everybody's best

interests — whichever way that goes — that is going to serve the

general public, the provincial tourist, within the framework of our

policy. It will be operated basically on the same basis as every other

Ministry of Tourism information centre in British Columbia — such as at

Golden, the various border crossings and Highway 401, for example. I

must say quite candidly that we would perhaps be unable to go the route

that some of the people there might want. In other words, we can't get

involved in the local support for Prince Rupert that we wouldn't be

prepared to give to every other community. You should be most cautious

in working with your people that you know the parameters within which

we can work; because you could transgress that and upset the whole of

British Columbia. As far as your commitment, if the community is not

united within itself and the mayor, the visitors bureau and the region

don't support it, then of course we wouldn 't proceed. I have no

intention of forcing anything down anyone's throat and spending

taxpayers' money, but we do want to provide the visitor going into

Prince Rupert on a province-wide basis — to Alaska or whatever — with

provincial information.

MR. LEA: What I'm trying to do is possibly save the government a

bit of money and at the same time get a service. Obviously if the highway comes

into British Columbia and there's no community available, then your ministry

has a different kind of choice to make. There isn't a community there

that's been doing.... Quite frankly, I think the city of Prince Rupert,

on its own hook, has, through the visitors' bureau, not only been promoting

Prince Rupert but also the province as a whole. I'm convinced that the people

who are involved in the visitors' bureau in Prince Rupert are capable of

promoting the province as a whole. I think there's a distinct possibility

that the best solution for Prince Rupert would be to look at funding the facility

that is there. Instead of putting a body in there from the province, fund the

centre with a little better funding formula so they can do the job that they've

been doing for years.

think the visitors' bureau in Prince Rupert can do it. Government

always gets bogged down in precedents. Oftentimes they'll say: "Gee,

this makes a lot of sense, but let's not do it; it's establishing a

precedent." I would ask that you just

[ Page 5074 ]

take

that final look at Prince Rupert, in discussion with the visitors'

bureau, before you come down with a final decision on the kind of

funding and the kind of personnel that the province is considering.

MS. SANFORD:

I would like to make a suggestion to the minister on a couple of issues

that directly affect the constituency of Comox. I don't know whether

the minister is aware that we have an outstanding youth music camp that

operates in the Comox Valley in the summertime. I hope the Minister of

Tourism is aware of it. Students are attracted to the Courtenay youth

music program from all over the province, from across Canada and from

the United States. It's really a result of the hard work of a society

that has donated many hours to making this music camp a success.

They've managed to build it up over the years into a very successful

program.

In addition, I would like to bring to the

minister's attention the very fine ski facilities.... I think she

probably does have some information about the ski facilities we have in

the Courtenay area. I would like to bring to her attention, too, that

there is a group of volunteers and non-profit societies which have

spent many years in developing that facility. They started out by going

up on weekends, cutting down trees, putting in rope tows, and spending

all their hours as a group of citizens out of Courtenay and Comox who

were interested in developing skiing in that area. As a result of that

kind of pioneering work, the ski facilities in the Courtenay area are

now one of the finest in the province.

The minister also

mentioned that representatives of her ministry sit on a number of

cabinet committees, because there is overlapping of Tourism into

various other ministries. I would like to make a couple of

recommendations to her, as a result of her having some participation in

committees. I would assume that they would include committees that deal

with recreation facilities, recreation grants and perhaps Provincial

Secretary committees related to transportation — those kinds of things.

am very concerned at this moment with respect to the two programs I

mentioned earlier. One is the Courtenay youth music camp, and the other

is the ski facility at Forbidden Plateau, operated by this non-profit

society. They have made application for assistance from the government.

The youth employment program, for instance, provided for one fifth of

the operating costs. In other words, through that youth employment

program they were able to obtain one fifth of the operating costs of

the entire Courtenay youth music camp.

When the minister's

representatives, or the minister herself, attend these committees, I

wonder if in the interest of tourism they could impress upon the

committee the need for the kind of funding that has been provided in

the past in order to ensure that pioneering non-profit societies of

this type can continue to develop and build tourism within our

constituency.

This year the youth employment program has

been cut back so drastically that this Courtenay youth music camp.... I

know you're going to try to call me to order, Mr. Chairman, but I'm

talking about the committees that that minister says she sits on that

have to do with tourism and cross all of the other various ministries.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the Chair recognizes your sincerity. It has occurred to me

that you might be discussing a vote that has not been brought before us

yet.

With that said, I'm sure the member can continue on the administrative actions of the Minister of Tourism.

MS. SANFORD:

In her administrative capacity, I would also like the minister to show

some concern on these committees with respect to groups that work so

hard to provide tourism facilities within the province. This group that

I referred to earlier, that related to ski development — which is a

fine tourist amenity for the Courtenay area — has also been turned down

for a recreation grant from this government. That non-profit society,

which has been pioneering all these years, is now facing a deficit and

owes money to small businesses all over the Courtenay area — close to

$200,000. They spend all of their time developing those tourist

facilities and trying to improve the facilities that are there, and

then they get this kind of slap in the face as people interested in the

development of tourism. They were turned down. They were not given any

recognition by the government for developing the ski lodge and

providing the kinds of facilities that tourists expect these days when

they come into the area. They did get some money through TIDSA, the

federal-provincial travel industry development subsidiary agreement,

which provided for some projects on the ski hill, such as putting in

sewer facilities and bringing in hydro. But it was the community

recreation facilities grant that they looked to in order to improve

their ski lodge. They have been turned down and are now facing this

kind of deficit. The Minister of Tourism must exercise her influence on

the committees to ensure that the efforts of people like those

pioneers, who have worked so hard, are indeed recognized.

she has any influence on any transportation committee, unless there is

a bypass built very soon on the Island Highway — an inland bypass route

— the tourists are not going to come to our area anymore.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I can see the hon. member is very interested in tourism, and I'd like

to spend some time with her — I know she's been busy — to maybe help

her better understand how to develop a tourist industry which will be

viable not only today or tomorrow, but many years down the line. I

think then you can help your constituents as much as you'd like to.

The

matter of the placements.... And I must regretfully say that a number

of matters that the member touched upon are, of course, not within my

capacity to answer, because we're on my votes, not on other ministries'

votes.

In relation to the music school, I would tell you

that I am aware of it. I haven't been there when it's been operating. I

think they do an excellent job, and I wish them every success. You

might be pleased to know, Madam Member, that in the 1975 summer issue

of Beautiful British Columbia

— I was not the minister then, of course — they did a major article,

which went to many parts of the world, on summer music from Courtenay,

and you might wish to get back copies of that to send out. The subjects

you touched upon were a little bit mixed up, but the summer school

itself, when it is operating, is of course listed in our events

magazine. It becomes part of your regional promotion, which we help

fund, and then it becomes part of our provincial promotion. Our job is

to encourage, as much as we can, knowledge of what goes on in our

province, so that people know what there is to attend.

can help many groups. I've met with cultural and recreational groups

with a whole new attitude that's coming to help them understand that we

are not a funding ministry in

[ Page 5075 ]

that

sense. What we do is work together, and we will provide them with

customers through our programming, and they in turn provide the service

and naturally charge for it. Many of these operations can become

self-supporting. I wish the school every success and think that we have

significantly enhanced their opportunity to have more guests come to

see them.

As far as the committee position of the ministry

is concerned, we do sit on a number of committees. I'm involved, as

minister, in the area of economic development, and I sit on the

economic development subcommittee of cabinet. I don't sit on the social

committee of cabinet. Many of the matters the member raised would

relate to those committees, although there's a great cross-section

within cabinet. We have representation of our ministry on B.C. Rail,

and they work with the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), Transpo

and B.C. Place, so there's a good deal of input of ministerial staff

there. Of course our deputy minister also sits on the deputy ministers'

committee for economic development, so, again, there's a good deal of

interrelated thinking. We can help them, and they certainly help us.

won't go into it in terms of assistance because it does relate to the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development's (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) side of TIDSA. I understand — and I'm sure she'll want to

bring it up — that both Forbidden Plateau and Mount Washington have had

substantial assistance through the TIDSA program, along with the fact

that we have developed a major emphasis on Vancouver Island. Mount

Washington is almost an international generator which brings the

people, and then the regional people and local people tie the ideas

into that market area. The member might be able to help some of the

groups she talked about understand how they can tie in; how they can

use their own initiative, abilities and product; how they can learn

more about what their market area is and what the needs of that market

area are so they can develop service for that market area. This is very

helpful to them.

MR. BARBER: The official opposition

has made two principal charges against this minister during these

estimates. The first is that the morale in her ministry is the lowest

of that of any ministry in the government, and it's the direct result

of poor leadership — specifically in the last two years — inept

organization and bungled opportunities. We've observed as well, within

the grounds of this principal charge of disorganization, that persons

of vast experience and acute perception who have a genuine and

disciplined commitment to the public side of the tourist industry of

British Columbia have quit, have been let go, have seen themselves

going through the ministry like one goes through the revolving door at

the Hotel Vancouver. The reason for that, in the last two years, is

disorganization.

I'd like to read into the record a series

of confidential memos which I have received over a period of some years

that indicate what's gone wrong with organization in the Ministry of

Tourism. I'd like to start, if I may, by reading from a memo dated

January 15, 1975 — the chairman will know that's when we were in

government — signed by David Livingstone, who was then the executive

director of the Department of Travel Industry. Here's the first, but

not the last, in a series of new organizational charts, new

organizational directives and increasingly desperate attempts to shore

up a grossly disorganized ministry. The first one isn't too bad; it's

reasonable enough. It simply says:

"Subject:

reorganization. As we grow through the process of reorganization it is

important that all staff members are fully informed of the purpose and

the effect of reorganization. At the same time each of the branch

directors should invite the staff to come forward with any ideas or

problems they can identify from their perception of the present

organization."

Skip a couple of paragraphs, and it goes on to handle the

description of need for reorganization, Remember this is January 1975.

Here comes the first:

" 1. To keep pace with a rapidly changing tourism business.

"2. To provide greater cohesion within the department.

"3. To establish the specific responsibilities of each member of the department.

"4. To determine the most appropriate classification and level with each position.

"5.

To alter titles in the interests of making the organization more

understandable to other tourism officers and the travel industry

generally.

"6. To develop an organization that encourages employees to follow a career path."

the surface, all of this is legitimate; all of that is clearly a

neutral and non-partisan approach in this case initiated by Mr.

Livingstone from within the public service to do a better job. Fair

enough, we don't object. However, we then see another memo. This is

from Mr. Colby. Ominously it indicates that one Cathy Gillis, a

postgraduate student of the University of Victoria, will be making a

"study" of this department. This is dated October 27, 1975. As the

minister knows, this, again, is during the New Democrat administration.

Once more one has to say, well, if they're reorganizing once during the

period of the life of a government, fair enough, and, indeed, we give

Social Credit the same option. If you want to organize once within a

particular government period, within the lifetime of one parliament,

fair enough. We don't criticize Mr. Livingstone or Mr. Colby, and we

wouldn't criticize Mrs. McCarthy if she did it once only when she was

the minister. However, unfortunately, it hasn't been once only under

Social Credit as it was under the NDP. The next memo is dated October

4, 1977, and this one is titled — guess what, Mr. Chairman —

"Reorganization." Here goes:

"Tourism British

Columbia recently embarked on a planned reorganization of our

operation. We have identified the need for a more aggressive and

responsive organization in order to effectively protect and increase

the revenue contribution which tourism makes to the economy of the

province. Our operation will be organized into three operating

divisions: marketing — sales; industry development — service; special

services which provide support services to the other two divisions."

Even that's fair enough, Mr. Chairman. It's the first Socred reorganization.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

But

hold on. That was October 1977. In August 1978 there's another one. A

year later they are at it again. This one is called, "Organization of

Travel Industry," dated August 8, 1978, signed by R. . Saunders, senior

analyst. Here he goes again. He's telling us that they're conducting a

review of the organization of travel industry.

[ Page 5076 ]

In order to conduct this review the following is requested: a

functional outline of all sections; an update of objectives for each of

the four divisions, including strategy; a functional outline of primary

positions in each of the sections; detailed organization charts; job

descriptions for

section heads."

Mr. Chairman, believe it or

not, it was followed up by another memo of April 10, 1979, from David

Hall, research manager. This one is entitled "Travel Industry

Organization." "Enclosed please find a project authorization and

proposed terms of reference for the tentatively planned travel industry

organization review. I realize you have not approved this project, but

I am supplying the background for information." This was from David

Hall to Ben Leboe, who was then the deputy minister. You may remember,

Mr. Chairman, he didn't last terribly long.

But here's

another one. They're at it again, July 27, 1979, from Brian Warburton,

director of administration. He tells us that he's compiling another

organizational structural chart for the branch. They're at it one more

time, because he asks: "Please identify the goals and objectives of

your branch and how you plan to achieve these goals." They did that

earlier on April 10, 1979, on August 8, 1978, and on October 4, 1977.

Apparently three times wasn't good enough. They had to do it a fourth

time. Here they are, at it again. Mr. Warburton says:

I would suggest that the divisions within your branch will also be

identified as having goals and objectives. Please prepare an

organization chart of your branch as it presently exists, by utilizing

the information contained in the organizational format of

section 19 of

the attached TBS 100. Bob Sherring will be able to supply you with the

position numbers and classifications of the personnel in your branch.

However, you should prepare your own organization chart."

Why

is this, Mr. Chairman? Because they were at it again, and the chaos had

reached such a level that the previous reorganizations and studies and

charts and diagrams of April 10, 1979, August 8, 1978, and October 4,

1977, apparently were not adequate to keep up with the growing chaos of

the department.

But was July 27