1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th 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)

MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 6

[ Page 2255 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. L. Boone: I am pleased to introduce in the members' gallery Mr. Klaus Priebe, the newly appointed honorary consul of Luxembourg at Vancouver. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. D. Marzari: It's a pleasure to be able to introduce in the gallery today Mr. Pat Corbett, the chair of the Partners in Tourism association that served my ministry so well. He is in town today for discussions around the Partners in Tourism budget, so may the House welcome Mr. Pat Corbett in his cowboy boots.

B. Simpson: I am delighted this afternoon to introduce Diane Switzer, a very close personal friend of mine, and her two children, Matthew and Rebecca. I ask the House to join me in giving them a warm welcome.

L. Stephens: I would like the House to welcome today a group of young Voyageurs. They're a group of 11 young people from Victoriaville, Quebec, who are visiting with us today. They are on a youth cultural exchange in honour of Canada's 125th birthday. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: It's my pleasure to introduce a delegation visiting the Legislature today: a group of nine adult students from the Read Society of Victoria and their instructor, Ms. D. Johnston. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

G. Brewin: I would like the House to join me in welcoming to the gallery a group of 12 adult students from the native friendship centre here in Victoria.

B. Jones: I am sure all members whose communities are served by their local community cablevision greatly appreciate that service. The four Burnaby MLAs, including the hon. Speaker, are being visited today by a delegation of Rogers Cable, producing a program that I hope will be shown many times in our community. Joining us today are a team led by Harley Steubing, including Ron Inglis, Darryl Bird and Darrin Pooghkay. Would the House please welcome these people from Burnaby.

J. Doyle: Today it is my great pleasure to have Ellen Zimmerman from Parson in Victoria for the weekend. Ellen worked very hard to make sure that I was elected in Columbia River-Revelstoke. Also with Ellen is Zoe Friezen, who used to be a resident of Columbia River. Join me in welcoming these two people to the House.

Hon. E. Cull: This Saturday, June 13, is ALS Flower Day. ALS, otherwise known as Lou Gehrig's disease, is a progressive, irreversible disease of the nervous system. I'm pleased to introduce in the gallery today Mr. Phil Bissell and Mr. Peter Chance. Mr. Chance is the Vancouver Island chair of the ALS Flower Day committee. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

HUMAN RIGHTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. A. Hagen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Human Rights Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. A. Hagen: This bill amends the Human Rights Act by adding two new prohibited grounds for discrimination: family status and sexual orientation. This bill will also amend the Human Rights Act to include class of persons, thereby making provision for class-action complaints and remedies as well as employment equity programs as an effective means of dealing with discrimination. Amendments will also expand the definition of age to include ages from 19 to 65, remove the limit on general damages and move the provisions dealing with tenancy protection for families from the Residential Tenancy Act to the Human Rights Act.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 63 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

VISUAL IDENTITY REVIEW

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question today is to the Minister of Government Services. The opposition notes that back on February 1, there was an ad run on page C3 in the Vancouver Sun entitled "Visual Identity Review."

Interjection.

G. Wilson: It wasn't bingo, but it was close.

The visual identity review was put in place, and February 21 was the deadline for applications to review the visual identity of the government. Will the minister advise us how many applicants there were and what the status of that review is today?

Hon. L. Boone: In keeping with the tradition of being urgent, this is a very interesting question to take -- from February 1, to this point in time.

With regard to the visual identity program, that review took place to get information from the public sector on ways and means that we can make the visual identity total throughout the whole area, so that government as a whole has the same visual identity. We have many different symbols out there that are currently being used, but they are not cost-effective. I can't tell you how many proposals we had through that, but

[ Page 2256 ]

I'd be more than happy to get that information for the member, as it's such an urgent matter.

G. Wilson: When taxpayers' money is about to be committed to the repainting of ferries and buses, and what have you, we'd say that that's an urgent matter. The taxpayers like to know when their money is being spent.

With respect to the comments made by the assistant deputy minister suggesting that the little flag logo had been slathered on everything, could the minister tell us whether or not, as part of this review of the visual identity, that flag is going to be removed from government agencies, buses, ferries and so on, and whether or not the government intends to put in place another logo?

The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair does note that that is future policy. But I note that the minister has risen and may choose to comment.

Hon. L. Boone: I'm happy to talk about this, because I want to correct some information that the member opposite gave. There's no intention by this government to paint all the buses or ferries -- the transits -- or any such thing as that. We are merely asking for proposals to show a way that we can make a cohesive signage plan throughout the province. This is not to say that we are going to do this right now.

But if there comes a time when we are looking at putting in some new signage or looking at new letterheads -- something along those lines -- then we will certainly be looking at trying to implement one logo so the government will save money. It's not the intention of this government right now to spend a lot of taxpayers' dollars repainting buses or ferries or anything such as that.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Wilson: If it isn't the intention of the government to take action, if the government doesn't intend to remove or change the logo that is currently in place, which is the stylized B.C. flag, why did the government put out an ad essentially requesting companies to assist in providing what has been described here as a visual identity review so there can be a consistent logo for government?

Hon. L. Boone: I just said that this is a request for a review. We can get information so that when we do plan to introduce a logo that is the same, when we do plan to do those things, we will have a concise plan and a review. There is no intention at this point in time to do away with the B.C. flag. I've said to many people.... In fact, a lot of people have asked, "Why don't you get rid of this B.C. flag?" because they say it's a symbol of the former government. My response to them is that that flag is the British Columbia flag. It's our flag, and it is not a sign of any particular government, especially the previous government. There is no intention of doing away with the B.C. flag.

[2:15]

NATIVE TAXATION

C. Serwa: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Several years ago the federal government passed legislation that enabled native bands to tax improvements on band lands. Subsequent to that, the provincial government passed legislation facilitating that taxation. Will the minister confirm that his government is committed to continue to support native taxation?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I'll confirm that we are committed to supporting the regime that was put in place by the previous government in that regard.

C. Serwa: The minister is aware that band by-laws may be and have been drafted. At the present time, a number of bands are working to tax all non-native-owned improvements on band lands. It appears, though, that the ministry is encroaching on that taxation. We have a number of rights-of-way: B.C. Rail, CN, CP, B.C. Hydro lines. It appears that they will be getting dual taxation notices. Is that a commitment of government to native taxation or is it not?

Hon. A. Petter: There are a number of interesting and tricky issues around the question of taxation, and how taxation works on the lands referred to by the member opposite. If he has any specific concerns, I'd be happy to look into them. But to the best of my knowledge, we are working out very many of these complicated matters and will continue to do so.

C. Serwa: Will the minister confirm or deny that those Crown corporations and private companies will be getting two tax notices for the current year?

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the Minister of Finance has recently had discussions on this issue with one of the leading aboriginal leaders, Manny Jules of Kamloops. They're ongoing discussions, so I'm not in a position to either confirm or deny at this point, hon. Speaker.

HOUSING STUDY

A. Cowie: I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In Vancouver and Victoria there are many homeless people. You can see them sleeping on benches and under bridges. You can't help but see them as you walk down the streets. There are many older and poor people without adequate housing. We already have the answers to housing: just ask the municipalities and the ministry staff. How can the minister defend a $300,000 study to solve the housing problem, which we already have the answers for?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased that the member feels he has all the answers to housing problems. I certainly didn't receive those during the estimates. There are a number of solutions being put forward in housing and a number of ideas being generated. I can assure the member that there is no

[ Page 2257 ]

consensus on the solutions. This province has gone from crisis to crisis in housing. We have never had any coordinated housing policy in the province of British Columbia. We have applied money during crises, but we've never known if it has been applied properly and efficiently.

This government believes in programs and policy, and we believe in achieving consensus on the housing programs for the people in this province. We will deliver housing, but we want to develop a policy in consultation with the people of British Columbia.

A. Cowie: A supplemental to the same minister. The moneys he is spending on the study could build three houses for needy families. How can he justify keeping those three needy families out of an affordable home?

The Speaker: Does the hon. member have a final supplemental?

A. Cowie: I hope the minister has an answer.

A final supplemental to the same minister. The minister has commissioned a study for $300,000, which will take a year, to find the answers to affordable housing. How can he justify a study that wastes time and money, when both his staff and the industry already have the answers?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Unlike the member across the way, hon. Speaker, I do not assume what the public feels about housing. This government will consult about the consensus for housing in the province of British Columbia. Let me assure you, hon. Speaker, it won't take a year. I've already indicated to the commissioners that we want the consensus and recommendations for housing policy ready for the next budget year. We are going to talk to the people. There are thousands of stakeholders in this province, all with ideas. But to achieve consensus, we want to hear what the people feel the policy should reflect.

W. Hurd: I also have a question about this $300,000 pork-barrel study. Perhaps the minister can explain the backgrounds of Elaine Duvall and Jim Woodward, and what he expects those individuals to bring to this particular commission?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm very pleased to read into the record the resumé of Michael Audain....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! I would hope that the hon. minister would try to briefly summarize his answer.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Mr. Audain is the leader of a very successful development company in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Blencoe: You asked me the questions. I'll give you the answers.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the House please come to order.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Don't you want to hear the answers? Mr. Audain is the leader of a very successful development company....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Would the hon. member take his seat.

Hon. members, the question was listened to in silence, and I think the House would want to listen to the reply in silence.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Mr. Audain has had an extensive career as a housing policy consultant. He served with the Ontario Housing Corporation in Toronto, and later with the Canadian Council of Social Development in Ottawa. He served as the special adviser to the Minister of Housing in the former government, after which he established his own consulting practice. He served as commissioner of the inquiry on mobile homes undertaken in the mid-seventies. He entered the development industry, joined the Polygon group of companies and was appointed president and chief executive officer in 1982.

Polygon is one of the most successful companies building homes in the province of British Columbia, having created several thousand townhouses and apartments throughout greater Vancouver. Mr. Audain brings extensive years of experience to the housing profession.

Elaine Duvall was the executive director of Columbia Housing in Vancouver, which built 4,500 units of social housing. She is currently active with the Vancouver housing department. She has many, many years of housing experience.

Hon. Speaker, this government appoints people who can deliver and advise this government on good policy. That's what we're doing in housing.

W. Hurd: The minister neglected to mention that Elaine Duvall was a candidate for the New Democratic Party and that Jim Woodward was a policy director. Perhaps he can advise the taxpayers of the province how much these people are being paid per diem for this pork-barrel committee.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is one of the problems that we have when....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Let me tell you. British Columbians are coming forward to support this government in very key areas. Mr. Audain is not receiving one dollar of public money. Mr. Audain, who has years of experience in housing, is giving his time and effort in

[ Page 2258 ]

the next six months to the people of the province of British Columbia free of charge, so he can advise this government. Elaine Duvall is going to work for a maximum of $7,500 for her contribution to the people of the province. That $7,500 is to take up the wage loss from the city of Vancouver, which is not paying her for her services to British Columbia.

Let me say that the more this issue comes up, the good people of the province of British Columbia won't come forward to serve the people of the province of British Columbia. We will find good people, and we have, for housing.

Hon. G. Clark presented the annual report of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991.

Ministerial Statement

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WEEK

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I ask you to join with me and other provinces and territories across Canada in celebrating National Transportation Week, June 7-13. This year's theme is "Transportation and Technology."

A good transportation network is vital to our economy and to our social well-being. It is something we should not take for granted. That is why this week has been set aside to recognize all that transportation contributes to our society and all the individuals who work -- sometimes around the clock -- to keep our highways safe and effective, and our planes, trains, ferries, ports and buses running efficiently.

I have a proclamation to introduce, and I would ask that if all members join me in this celebration, we will transport you to new heights.

D. Symons: I would like to further endorse the comments of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, because we, too, on this side of the House, know the importance of transportation, both within our communities, throughout our province and throughout Canada. If we want our country to continue to have economic success, our transportation system is extremely important to that development. We would urge and encourage the government to continue to put transportation at the top of its priority list in order that this province may continue to be the leader in Canada.

C. Serwa: It's a delightful opportunity to recognize National Transportation Week, particularly in British Columbia, which has probably seen the end of the opportunity for new transportation systems in this particular province. Notwithstanding that the hon. minister is fully aware that transportation systems are the most important economic development tool that we have in British Columbia, it behooves the government to recognize this and fund that particular ministry appropriately. In fact, when we celebrate National Transportation Week, we can be very proud of our infrastructure system here in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply. In

Section A will be Government Services ministry. In

Section B will be Tourism and Culture. I might advise the House that from 6 to 10 p.m. tonight we will reconstitute and do bills, which will be discussed with opposition parties during the course of the day.

[2:30]

The Speaker: Excuse me, government House Leader. We need to call orders of the day, but before we do that I'd like to recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton.

Presenting Petitions

J. Beattie: I have a petition to present on behalf of 50 of my constituents, who pray that the House consider the establishment of an office of a rentals mediator, who would help protect renters from unjustifiable rent increases and assist in the maintenance of affordable and stable rental accommodation.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply, both sections. In

section A will be Government Services; in

section B will be Tourism and Culture.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND

MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR CULTURE

On vote 58: minister's office, $308,000 (continued).

Hon. D. Marzari: As the first item of business, I'd like to present to the House, as I promised in our previous estimate debate, an up-to-date and finalized copy of the Partners in Tourism regional budget allotments. May I please present these to the Clerk? The item of business I wanted to raise before we started today....

The Chair: Hon. minister, perhaps when we're reporting, that can be done -- when we're not in committee. That's not the procedure normally.

Hon. D. Marzari: I took on notice a question from the member from Richmond on May 8, raising the issue of availability of dialysis treatment for B.C. and non-B.C. travellers within the province. A concern was raised over the possible closure of the Travellers Dialysis Clinic and the problem this could cause for non-B.C. tourists who need treatment. The minister undertook to confer with the Minister of Health and to provide a response to the opposition member's questions during the estimates debate. I'm sensitive to the needs of those travellers who require dialysis treatment in the province, and I thank the member for bringing this matter to my attention.

The Travellers Dialysis Clinic is a private hemodialysis service located in Vancouver. It provides approximately 300 hemodialysis treatments per year. The clinic

[ Page 2259 ]

has been set up to cater to patients visiting Vancouver from elsewhere who cannot be accommodated in St. Paul's, VGH or the Royal Columbian Hospital renal dialysis unit. I've brought the matter about the possible closure of the Travellers Dialysis Clinic to the attention of the Ministry of Health to ensure that the needs of all travellers requiring dialysis are met, and I have been advised that the Ministry of Health is reviewing the matter to ensure that services will be available.

I have also brought to the attention of the Ministry of Health the fact that next year the province is hosting the organ donor transplant games, and I asked the ministry to ensure that necessary medical services are available to all visitors and tourists. I would recommend that the member of the opposition contact the Minister of Health for further information on this matter.

C. Tanner: I didn't hear what the hon. minister said about what she just tabled. Did I understand her to say that it is the list of agreements between the government and the nine tourist areas?

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, that is correct.

C. Tanner: May I congratulate the minister on finally making those agreements. Perhaps she could -- assuming that they are similar -- give us some indication, prior to our discussion of her estimates, as to what they contain.

Hon. D. Marzari: I would be pleased to read into the record the actual budgets being allocated to the nine tourism regions on this day. I'm glad that the chair of Partners in Tourism is sitting in the gallery to hear these numbers. First of all, the Tourism Association of Vancouver Island will receive for its administration contract, which is the contract that keeps the office going, keeps the executive director hired and provides support and backup services, the actual program contract -- that is, those dollars that are dedicated and partnered with private contractors for marketing....

The marketing budget for the Tourism Association for Vancouver Island -- TAVI -- is $400,600. The Tourism Association of Southwestern B.C. has an administration contract of $100,732 and a program contract -- that is, a marketing budget -- of $355,400. The Okanagan-Similkameen Tourist Association's administration contract is $89,750; its marketing budget is set at $502,500. The Kootenay Country Tourist Association has an administration contract for $80,000, and its program contract is set at $209,600. The High Country Tourism Association has a contract of $80,000 and a marketing contract of $251,200.

The Cariboo Tourist Association has an administration contract of $80,000 and a program contract of $247,200. North-By-Northwest Tourism Association has an administration contract at $90,000 and a program contract at $169,600.

I should add here that with Rendezvous '92 occurring this summer, considerable dollars -- about $1.5 million -- were invested by this government over the last year in marketing, promotion, preparation and infrastructure for the Alaska Highway celebrations. The north has been reasonable well serviced by the previous government and by this government.

The Peace River Alaska Highway Tourist Association has an administration contract at $90,000 and a program contract at $114,400. The Rocky Mountain Visitors' Association -- which is the last partner of the nine but not the least -- has an administration contract of $80,000 and a program-marketing contract of $342,400.

The total allotted to Partners in Tourism, which is in itself a reflection of government's intention to work closely with local and regional operations, resorts and people who work in tourism in the regions.... The total amount that this government is investing in the administration contracts is $790,310. The total program contract that this government is investing in our regions for '92-93 is $2,592,900. The Partners in Tourism program is an integral part of marketing for our government. It is a program that enables local tourism associations to market best, and to market what they know best, in their regions.

Coupled with the sectoral associations that have formed in this province and provide a backbone to the skiing, fishing and outdoors guiding and outfitting operations, it is another aspect to tourism and tourism marketing in this province. They are dealt with through other kinds of partnering programs.

It is within the Partners in Tourism that we find local people diversifying our economy, bringing tourism to the regions and letting people throughout B.C. and our short-haul markets to the south and across the country know what B.C. has to offer. They are very much the local and regional reflection of what we have to offer, and they are complemented, of course, by other financial programs in tourism and marketing that contract and partner with the private sector to carry our message to the long-haul markets, which are beyond the west coast and throughout the southern United States and overseas, both in Europe and around the Pacific Rim.

Partners in Tourism then becomes a natural part of an overall picture and, in my mind and in the mind of the ministry, a very essential part to achieve the right balance of marketing expertise and regional input in that exercise.

C. Tanner: Thank you, minister, for the figures. When last we met, which was some time ago, as you recall, I asked you whether or not you could give me a list of the recipients of cultural grants from last year. You said it was available from your office. We have tried repeatedly to get that from your office, and I understand that it probably now is available; it wasn't at that time. Could the minister assure me that it will be available to us?

As to this afternoon's procedure, it is my suggestion, if it's agreeable to the minister, that we deal with tourism today and culture tomorrow.

Hon. D. Marzari: That sounds very reasonable, Mr. Chair. The cultural list for the previous budget year is available, although not in completely finalized form. I wouldn't want to see it go into an annual general

[ Page 2260 ]

report, but the member will have that at the end of the afternoon.

[2:45]

C. Tanner: Obviously this list you've given us raises a number of questions, but I was also wondering whether the minister would be prepared to table those contracts that she's undertaken since she took over the ministry in October. We know of two of them, but could she table the other contracts so that we might be able to mention them again tomorrow -- preferably before the day is out?

Hon. D. Marzari: I believe the member will be able to find that detailed list of contracts in the Public Accounts when they are available. It is a question that the opposition has put on the order paper, and it will be dealt with in reasonable time.

C. Tanner: Is the minister saying "reasonable time" meaning in the time of these estimates, or is a reasonable time some time before the end of this fiscal year?

Hon. D. Marzari: I think the member will find that the Public Accounts will answer all the questions regarding contracts not only of this ministry, but of the entire government. Contracts that have been signed and have been duly and properly processed will be available, and contract information will be available.

My ministry does an average of 40 to 50 contracts a month, and they are within the confines of the government management operation policy. The way we do business in government is to bring forward contracts at times and properly process them through our financial management systems. The member will find those contracts in the Public Accounts in due time.

C. Tanner: I have in my hand a letter dated April 13 to the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Glen Clark, from Visitor Publications Enterprises of Victoria. It says:

"Dear Mr. Clark:

"I am both profoundly disappointed and shocked at the recently announced budget cuts to the Tourism Association of Vancouver Island. This reduction may well spell the end of small community tourism growth. Having been in the tourism promotion business for over 20 years, we at Visitor Publications well know the value placed on the PIT funding initiatives as the attached figures shown by the smaller communities and their mom and pop businesses."

The minister has now been good enough to table those allocations through Partners in Tourism. Could he tell us how they compare to last year's allocations to those various nine districts?

Hon. D. Marzari: I'm glad the member raised the issue of the Tourism Association of Vancouver Island. I spent last Friday in Gold River at the annual general meeting of the Vancouver Island Tourism Association, talked with them and explained -- just before they went into a workshop to discuss their mission, their raison d'�tre and their new budget -- exactly what had happened. Yes, in fact, the marketing side of the overall program, Partners in Tourism, did take a 33 percent cut overall this year.

That is something that was a natural consequence of a budget cutback which affected many ministries in this government. It is something that I have talked about to the groups, the partners and the tourism industry. It is something I would not want to see happen on a sustained basis.

It's very important that we build our marketing side to ensure that tourism is properly focused, that the marketing is properly directed and that our local partners in tourism do not suffer. However, it is also very important to note that while the marketing side of the budget -- that is, that side of the budget which the local tourism associations partner with the private sector to generate the brochures and material that they produce every year....

The actual administration side of their budget was maintained at a reasonable level so that they could continue to function, keep their office doors open and maintain salaries to their executive directors so that their executive directors could complain about the fact that they don't have enough marketing money and build toward a future point in time where we can all work together from the very local to the very international on the best possible marketing campaign for British Columbia.

C. Tanner: The minister talked about a 33 percent cut in the marketing side of those allocations, but she didn't tell us specifically what the cuts were in the nine regions. Is that information available? Could she give us those figures?

Hon. D. Marzari: I will provide the specific numbers to the member later today.

C. Tanner: The moneys that the department allocates for marketing in those areas of her budget -- the one she just alluded to in the list of the nine regions -- are not only the dollars that the department allocates but also the dollars raised within the industry to match the dollars raised by the department. So what the minister has accomplished is this: she has kept all the bureaucrats in place, she has cut the marketing arm of her department by 33 percent, and enhanced the loss of that equivalent money from the industry.

When you take away 33 percent, you're actually taking away 66 percent of the market if they're matched dollars, so to speak. It is our contention, Madam Minister, insofar as your department is concerned, that you might have served the public better had you not brought on more staff, had you perhaps frozen staff instead of bringing more in, and spent the money on marketing rather than on personnel. It's those very dollars which the publisher of the visitor magazine is complaining about; it's those very dollars that probably do some of the best work, certainly locally, within the department.

Would the minister like to comment on the fact that not only has she cut 33 percent out of her budget in the marketing area but also 33 percent out of the money that would be matched dollars from the industry?

Hon. D. Marzari: Of all those dollars that go into marketing, many in the partnership side are in fact

[ Page 2261 ]

matched. They are partner dollars. Those dollars are not simply dollars that the provincial government throws out to the regions to be spent as provincial budget. Every one of those dollars is matched in the region. The people who do the matching, who go to the airlines, or who go around to the motel or hotel associations in the regions, are the executive directors of the Partners in Tourism. If we had cut the executive directors and the rents and the Partners in Tourism, there would be nobody out there in the regions to do the matching, to develop the printing and to create the programs. That's one issue aside.

The other issue, the overall marketing budget being cut, has to do with the fact that a lot of what goes on in tourism is awareness marketing; yes, the Super, Natural pictures, the colour glossies that get distributed, the posters that everyone has seen, that maybe some of you have in your offices. That is the awareness program which takes material around the world.

A good chunk of what goes on in tourism marketing and tourism product development has to do with bringing conventions to British Columbia; it has to do with attending trade shows around North America and indeed on the Pacific Rim, and lately in Europe, to ensure that we are bringing to British Columbia the convention visitor, who very often ends as a repeat visitor on a personal vacation. We do trade shows. We do conference planning. We do development of convention planning. It's a range of services which Tourism has to offer, not just on the marketing side, but also on the product development side.

Tourism also offers, through its staff, the opportunity for developers, or resort owners who want to expand, or someone involved in ecotourism who wants to expand their business, to come to our ministry.

As product development people, we are there to assist them in the development of a business plan; to assist them in getting to the right location, to the right bank, perhaps, or to the right department or ministry in government; to help their plan grow, to ensure that their plan is consistent with zoning in the regions -- to help people, basically, do business in this province as tourism promoters; to plug them into western diversification funds, if necessary, and to federal government agencies, if necessary.

A third aspect of tourism is the business of service delivery. It is through our service delivery mechanism that we confer with the Department of Transportation and Highways to ensure that appropriate signs are put on highways. It is through service delivery mechanisms that we work with job creation projects -- as we are this summer -- delivering employment dollars to young people throughout this province to ensure that the information centres are properly staffed, that the young people -- sometimes the older people -- in our information centres are properly trained and that our tourism infrastructure is properly maintained throughout the whole province.

It's simply not a question of saying: "why are you cutting back your marketing dollars?" There's a delicate balance between marketing and strategic planning -- developing the numbers so that we know what we are doing -- product development and service delivery.

To say, "Why did we expand our staff?" I must say that the staff expansion in the Ministry of Tourism and Culture has been remarkably small, largely reflecting the creation of a minister's office, a deputy minister's office, three community planning people who will be working with communities in tourism and heritage to develop community plans and two positions in our heritage sites at Barkerville and Fort Steele. There has not been a massive addition of staff; there has not been very much of an addition of staff at all in this small, but rather feisty, ministry as we do our strategic planning.

To cut back on those essential services to communities would not be the wisest move for us to engage in at this point.

Rather the smart thing to do, the right thing to do, I believe, is to develop a strategic plan for the ministry, especially in tourism; create a business plan and then develop and build our marketing component of that plan around properly evaluated markets, properly focused images for those markets and properly focused services, so that we can ensure that when we take a message out to a market, it's hitting the right people, that we're getting tourists to come back, that we're properly evaluating the numbers that walk through our portals into British Columbia, and so that we can have some idea that our marketing is, in effect, being properly received and is truly worthwhile.

[3:00]

A. Warnke: I have a few questions, and I think they are extremely important for the people of Vancouver. One concerns the resort exposition fair that will be held in Wakayama, Japan in 1994. It is a major exposition, on par with the transportation exposition of 1986 -- which I'm sure the minister and all members are aware of -- more commonly known as Expo 86 in Vancouver. It's in that classification that the resort exposition is taking place.

This is a major event in Japan. It is located in Kyoto, near Tokyo. From the perspective of my constituents and I, we're very fortunate in the city of Richmond to be twinned with the city of Wakayama. Therefore the people of Richmond, and especially the city fathers and other interests, are looking enthusiastically towards this particular resort exposition.

I would like to ask the minister, and I think it's most appropriate here in estimates, what planning the government is going to embark on in this coming year and possibly, since it is in 1994, over the next two years in preparing for this resort exposition, especially the contribution that the British Columbia government is going to make to that exposition. After all, in Expo 86 we hosted the world. Similarly, this particular exposition will also host the world. Considering the Japanese interest, energy and entry into our own Expo 86, naturally this will be reciprocated, I hope, to that degree or preferably more.

Therefore I would appreciate it if I could get from the minister what the ministry intends to do about this exposition, what sort of resources they intend to allocate and so forth in this coming year.

Hon. D. Marzari: It has not come to my attention that there is going to be a major exposition in Japan in 1994. It's perhaps not surprising. The exposition that we

[ Page 2262 ]

had in '86 was basically elevated from a class C transportation exhibition to a class B world exposition only two years before it actually occurred. It's probable that a resort exposition is still at the class C level. I'm going to do everything I can to pull together information on this exposition.

I don't particularly want to talk about future policy during an estimates session, but I can tell the member that such an exposition might be of great interest to the ministry in terms of our potential market on the Pacific Rim, which the demographics are certainly telling us is one that we must maintain our market share in and develop our market in. I will certainly do everything I can to pull together the relevant information around this exposition. Perhaps the member might be good enough to offer me the information that he has gleaned thus far in his research.

I would very much appreciate receiving it and reciprocating by letting him know what we think we might be able to do in planning towards 1994.

A. Warnke: Actually, I'm a bit surprised, because I always recognize the awkwardness in estimates in asking the minister anything with regard to future policy. I clearly understand that this is to be avoided. On the other hand, I suppose I assumed at the outset that we had some sort of invitation because it was not too long ago that I personally met the mayor of Wakayama. I was certainly under some sort of impression that perhaps we in British Columbia are aware of this particular event.

While I recognize that a government cannot respond to future policy or hypothetical situations, perhaps it would be appropriate if I asked the minister what sorts of steps can be taken in this coming year to prepare for such an event, especially when it comes to the allocation of moneys and articulating policies.

As the minister pointed out very clearly -- and I agree with her -- Japan is a potential market, maybe even more than potential. It is a market which we must always be sensitive about and as much as possible a part of. We have to be involved in that market right now. We really cannot just wait for some sort of manifestation of what may occur in the future. We have to get involved and we have to be very sensitive about what is occurring in Japan now. I most certainly agree with the minister when she says that the demographics are such that we really have to be involved as much as possible. I think we have an excellent opportunity, considering that we do share the Pacific Rim with Japan.

I'm under the impression -- given the brochures that the city of Wakayama has distributed -- that it is a fair of some world significance. It seems to me that the world is responding. Certainly the United States is responding to this fair. I will say that the minister has requested -- perhaps from me -- any sort of information I could share. I will do that so as to help the government in this particular situation.

One question to the minister. In terms of preparing for participating in such an exposition as this, which I've been convinced will be a major event because it is to coincide with an opening of a major airport.... I'm wondering what there is in the budget. Would it be extremely difficult for the minister -- since the minister is not aware of this -- to embark on something such as this in the coming year, both in terms of planning and the financial resources that can be allocated to it?

H. De Jong: I know the Minister's very anxious to give an answer to this important question; however, I would like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

H. De Jong: Today with us in the House we have a number of visitors from the Netherlands. They're all cousins and second cousins of mine. I know that Hansard will have fun with these names, but I'll read them out anyway: Hans Hoekstra, Gerrit and Anna Berger, Leentje Scheweer and Tjesje Bosgra. They are accompanied by John and Theresa Kampman and Geraldine Thiesen from Abbotsford. I'd like the House to give them a cordial welcome.

Hon. D. Marzari: Japan is our largest overseas tourism market. We had 189,000 direct arrivals in British Columbia in 1990. In 1991 the volume might have dropped a small amount. In 1992 we have reason to expect that that volume will increase again. Japan is the fastest-growing market for British Columbia. Believe it or not, it has grown 80 percent over the last four years. British Columbia really is fortunate to be located on the Pacific Rim, which can look to this vast new market, Japan through Korea, to build its tourism industry.

Developing that niche, keeping it, promoting it and helping it grow is extremely important. The Japanese visitor, on average, brings about $150 a day into the B.C. economy, which is tenfold what we might expect to receive from, for example, a United Kingdom visitor -- another reason that it's a very important market for us.

We have accessed that market to this point, but not so much with direct marketing out of British Columbia. It is a dream of mine.... Once again we're talking about future policy; I shouldn't be raising it in estimates. But it is a dream that we have our own office in Japan to do appropriate marketing, to pull conventions, to pull fairs, to pull trade and to put British Columbia on that part of the map. At the present time we have a contract in Japan that attempts to do some marketing, trade and media work. This is not, by any means, the ultimate answer for us.

We do access the Japanese market through a partnership program with Tourism Canada. We line ourselves up with Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and Canadian Airlines International. The total cost of that program is $1.6 million for '92-93, and our share in that program is $100,000. Talk about partnering, and talk about levering our dollars. Yes, we're in the process of doing that. We're also in the process of finalizing an agreement with the federal government called WEPA, around tourism marketing, part of which will be spent on Pacific Rim marketing.

Our attempts to pull a total package together are very much there in the present, with big dreams for the future about what we can hopefully achieve there.

[ Page 2263 ]

I believe the member is asking if there is room in our budget to manoeuvre, to develop. In any planning process, we have to first pull in the relevant information, take a look at the materials you have thus far, contact the mayor or the exposition director general, and find out what our involvement might be. Then we do an evaluation as to at what level British Columbia might want to become involved. I do not believe that we necessarily want to put a massive investment into Japan as much as we want to bring Japanese investment and tourism dollars to British Columbia.

I very much think that what we do here will have to be carefully considered as a marketing exercise to ensure that dollars are properly spent from a marketing point of view -- not just showing the flag, which is perhaps nice to do in Spain right now, but to use it as a marketing tool to ensure that what we invest comes back to us, from an area which has given us excellent business to this point and an area in which we must expand our awareness and imaging.

A. Warnke: I'm obviously pleased with some of the remarks made by the minister, especially when it comes to the question of how much room there is to manoeuvre. Clearly what's illustrated in this particular case is that the government was perhaps slightly taken off guard about the matter of such an event taking place. It is always good to have that room to manoeuvre and to have at least some funds available. I certainly respect and appreciate the minister's remarks.

When there is something like a proposal or, in this particular case, an event that has suddenly come to government's attention, I do not expect the government automatically to embrace that until all the facts come forth. I understand that.

[3:15]

However, there is also a question here about a certain kind of reciprocity. I want to bring to the attention of the minister that a lot of the success with regard to Expo 86 in Vancouver had to do with the fact that the world did respond and various nations wanted to participate. I understand where the minister is coming from in terms of us having to do some proper research and marketing. But there is also a question here of reciprocity between nations.

The Japanese wanted to become involved in Expo 86. Now that Expo 86 is out of the way, we should not be saying that all we're really interested in from here on out is Japanese investment in Canada. There has to be some reciprocity as well. This is why my earlier remarks about being sensitive to what's happening in Japan are extremely important. Once the Japanese have been involved in our exposition here, there should be some reciprocity, and we must recognize that. It goes both ways.

I think it is a tremendous opportunity to become involved in more than just showing the flag; it's an opportunity to show the Japanese people, in particular, that we're really keen and interested. The minister may choose to respond to that remark. She seems to have responded quite well.

One last question, and it has to do with the marketing contract that she mentioned. I would like her to elaborate on that. It seems to be a particular strategy that if we want to do something in Japan.... We'll take it in the context that what we want to do is a lot of marketing and allocating of contracts. I would like to ask the minister what kind of contracts she has in mind. Do these contracts become tendered?

The Chair: The member for West Vancouver-Capilano requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Dalton: I'm pleased to state today that visiting in the precincts is a grade 5 French immersion class from Braemar School in North Vancouver. They are accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Lyse Guay, and several parents who are chaperoning. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Marzari: I thank the member for his remarks. I think he has a good understanding of the nature and importance of a relationship with Pacific Rim trading partners, and particularly with reference to the necessity to build the tourism business and exchange.

The member asked about specific plans and contracts that might be altered, changed, moved about or redefined for the exercise of looking at this particular trade show two years from now. I would simply repeat that there's a partnership with four other provinces and Canadian Airlines. There's a potential agreement to be signed with the federal government around potential marketing down the road. That will happen within a few months. At this point in time I wouldn't even dare to be specific enough to think about what a planning process might involve.

May I ask one further question of the member? Is it a government-to-government trade show that we are discussing here, or is it a private trade show developed through private associations around the world? Are we talking about a class C world exposition here?

A. Warnke: It's very rare that the government asks the opposition for an answer. At any rate, for clarification purposes, this is a government initiative on their behalf.

C. Tanner: Prior to talking about Japan, we were talking in more general terms, and I'm going to get back to that in a minute.

Just as a corollary to what my friend said about the Japanese office and your reply, it would seem to me that if we're spending $100,000 in a $1.6 million contract, it is, as you say, a good return on our money. In fact, we have a personal contract selling B.C. in Tokyo, or somewhere in Japan. But it would seem to me that if the federal government, along with the other provinces, were prepared to spend a lot of money in Japan, we might be wiser to let them spend the money. It appears that if the Japanese are going to visit Canada, it's almost inevitable they're going to come to British Columbia.

We're going to benefit and get the most of both worlds -- put a little money in and get a lot out. My preference would be to let Canada handle the Japanese market

[ Page 2264 ]

primarily, and we should be looking more at our local markets.

This brings me back to the comment I made in the first place, in that the minister mentioned there are obligations within the department for conventions and for the industry -- to give them help and to deliver service. Surely, minister, your first and obvious responsibility is to expand as much as possible those people coming to B.C. The way you're going to do that is by getting the total commitment of the industry to your program. It's my understanding that while you've got those contracts out there, some of them aren't yet signed.

There seems to be some discontent in the industry about the decision you've made and the one that I'm arguing with you about, in that you should be putting more, not less, money into the marketing. While you can try to maintain the personnel, it is essential to put your money first into the marketing area. Could the minister tell me how many of the contracts she has have been signed, and which ones they are?

Hon. D. Marzari: I will get for the member which contracts have been signed officially and which haven't been, hopefully by the end of the afternoon, if my staff can get that final information. In fact, the final budget has just been decided on officially and allocated today, I believe, in this final meeting with Mr. Corbett, the chair of Partners in Tourism.

It's worthwhile to talk about the dynamic tension that must exist in any ministry that deals with different planning techniques and associations. The international marketing association we have with the federal government and with other provincial governments across the country and the federal government agreement that we are about to sign within the next few weeks, hopefully, have to do with awareness campaigning, trade shows and conferencing. That is the area of expertise those dollars represent.

To allow the federal government to carry on international marketing without British Columbia involvement would at this point in time be a tragic mistake: one, because the federal government brings levered dollars into the arrangement, which means that the British Columbia dollar goes farther; two, because if British Columbia gets left out, I fear that it will be left out in a major way.

At this point in time the Japanese tourism numbers in '91 dropped by 2 percent. That wasn't just because Japan was not aware of British Columbia; it had to do with larger issues around people's ability to travel and airlines' capacity to fly from the Pacific Rim right over Vancouver to points east of here. That slight change in technology, in effect, could have had an impact on our ability to be a gateway. Losing 2 percent in our market was sort of a wake-up call, and I regard it as such.

We have to ensure that we are more attractive, so that airplanes and airlines will choose to stop in Vancouver; and from there, tourists will choose to visit British Columbia. So we're in a very competitive market.

Ontario and Quebec have proven themselves to be extremely competitive in the Japanese market. British Columbia cannot afford to be left out of any partnering that goes on with the federal government, with western diversification or with any provincial agreements that form with private companies such as Canadian Airlines. So we have to stay in that market; we cannot lose our visibility in that international market.

It is a market that we've got to study, assess, reciprocate with and come to understand as an exchange across the water, through the Pacific, which is going to benefit us greatly over the decade to come. To lose a niche -- as you know, Mr. Member, from retail -- and to have increased competition build up around you and not to stay afloat on those waters is a major mistake. So we have to stay there, and we have to invest there. We have to plan how we invest -- true -- and that's something we're doing now.

It has to be kept in dynamic tension with the international and the short-haul markets, which our Partners in Tourism represent. They must also be kept afloat, because it's crucial, to me and to government, that they provide what visitors come for and come to.

It's my strong belief that the regions throughout British Columbia are the meat and potatoes of tourism, although the numbers wouldn't show us that. The numbers would suggest that the big cities, Vancouver and Victoria, are the centre and the focus and the hub. The numbers would say that, but I am convinced that tourists who come to B.C. for what we have to offer want to be out in the hinterland, visiting the north, the Cariboo, the Okanagan and the Kootenays. That is where the tourists of the future will want to be spending their time -- in the fresh air and the green. It's one of our major mandates in this House to ensure that that green is sustainable for our tourists to come to.

There is a tension -- and it's a tension that I certainly felt during the budgeting process -- to maintain our niche in the international market and the Pacific Rim market but also to maintain at least the health of the administrative core of our Partners program. If we don't have health at the local level, we'll never be able to market effectively at the international level. The two have to come together through an appropriate budgeting process, which we have attempted to do in a very tight budget year. As I've said before, the business of planning and strategic decision-making becomes very important in this very year and over these next months.

When we hopefully get a more fleshed-out budget -- that's a euphemism -- we'll be able to take that budget and market smarter and better. We'll market at the international level with better leverage and at the local level with better planning and better leverage. I'm hoping that over the next few months we'll be able to maintain that dynamic tension -- knowing that each partner is not being terribly supportive of the other because they are losing -- and try to carry us all forward in the next budget.

C. Tanner: The minister talks about where we're going to spend the dollars that we have to spend. I guess it is the nub of her department, really. She says that we have a piece of the Japanese market, and we should protect that piece. I don't entirely disagree, but it seems to me that there's a far greater market within B.C. and close to B.C. It might not be as attractive or as exciting, but it certainly is where the dollars are. When

[ Page 2265 ]

you think that British Columbians spent $4 billion outside their province in travel, and when you think that of the $5 billion that comes into the province, three-quarters of it comes from four or five places within four or five hours of British Columbia, it seems to me that you go to your best markets.

[3:30]

You mentioned retail. I'm quite happy to talk retail all day. With retail you have to cope with the 80 percent that your market's coming from, and the other 20 percent you give attention to; but you have to pay attention to where that 80 percent is. If the 80 percent is coming from 10 percent of your customers, you've got to pay attention to it. I'm not sure that comparison necessarily goes for your department, but it certainly goes for business in general. I suspect it goes for your department.

In my view, if Canada is advertising in Japan, they've only got about three things to advertise that are different. If they're trying to promote a market, one of them has to be B.C., one of them has to be western Alberta and one of them is probably Quebec because it's so much different than the rest of North America. What else are they going to sell? There's nothing in between, in my view, for the Japanese tourist, which begs the question why we have to go to Manitoba to find expertise to tell us how to run our business here. However, that's an aside.

What I'm suggesting to the minister is that, while it's probably money well spent now, I wouldn't see that you would expand it at all in the immediate future. You should be expanding to your local market. In that view -- and I'm talking in general about her department now -- we used to spend $20 million on tourism, of which almost a fifth was salaries and benefits and everything that goes with salaries. The major part of the money that we're spending within this department goes in one lump towards advertising and publications.

Could the minister, for the benefit of the nine tourism sectors, tell us how much of the advertising concerning publications and advertisements goes towards the B.C. area, or does it all sit in the allocations that you make to each of the tourist areas?

Hon. D. Marzari: I hope I understood the member's question correctly. The Partners in Tourism does not prepare materials for long-haul markets -- that is, around the Pacific Rim or Europe. The Partners in Tourism program is generally servicing local tourism. The member is quite right; local tourism represents 60 percent of the total volume of people moving around the province as tourists in British Columbia. Sixty percent of our tourism business is, in fact, our own people going to another place to spend a night for a convention, to visit family or whatever.

The majority of the exercise behind Partners in Tourism does relate to the brochures and the materials that service the local market and service the short-haul market. When someone in Washington or Oregon phones the 1-800 number and receives a response, they might well receive some of our Partners in Tourism brochures in the mail.

Our Partners in Tourism material services what we call the short-haul market, or the market that is local or just south or east of our borders. Consequently the budget reflects that. The local partners do not attempt to go overseas and do not attempt to throw themselves into the larger picture in marketing, which is quite separate and distinct in the budget and which does awareness marketing. It, too, is partnered.

For example, I described to the member -- the last time we met across the estimates debate -- the program that Tourism B.C. engaged in with the Victoria tourism association, the Vancouver tourism association and with Whistler to package a visual-awareness audio radio campaign for the California market in March. That total campaign cost us, as a total partnership, about $450,000. Because all four partners engaged themselves in that campaign, all four partners can now sit back and hopefully receive the evaluations on how well that campaign actually did.

I have not seen the final numbers on that yet, and there's no way of knowing whether or not people will travel from California, whether they heard our message or whether there are other reasons to push people north this summer. In any event, it is an evaluation that I look forward to.

Marketing dollars all the way down the line are partnered with private enterprise and with other public agencies. That's not just exclusive to the Partners in Tourism program. They are expected to partner and the rest of the marketing budget is expected to partner. That's how we lever the marketing dollars that are there, and we will continue to do that. In a tight budget year we will try to partner by spreading even more effectively our dollars into even better levered relationships with the private sector. I hope that I answered the member's question.

C. Tanner: Yes, to some extent, but -- and I appreciate what the minister is saying -- my questions were slightly more specific than that, in that within the budget there is $1.6 million allocated towards advertisements in publications. My question really was: how much do those nine tourist areas benefit from that sort of advertising? While I appreciate that the minister tells me it's partnered too, is there any way of ascertaining how much the local market area, whether it be in the Kootenays, Vancouver Island or wherever of the nine areas in B.C, benefit from that as well.

Hon. D. Marzari: I'm not sure where the member is getting the $1.6 million number. Is that the Partners in Tourism addition that he's made? I believe that that is closer to $2.5 million. Is the $1.6 million coming from general...? From which column in the blue book is the member finding the $1.6 million?

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, it's 30

Hon. D. Marzari: The STOB 30 column in the Estimates has to do with office expenses and running the ministry's offices; it does not have to do with the Partners in Tourism. It is simply a question of keeping 327 staff in office space. I gather, according to my financial adviser, that some trade show expenses also come out of that particular unit of expenditure.

[ Page 2266 ]

C. Tanner: Obviously I'm reading the wrong column. Could the minister point out which column I should be looking for to see what her department spends on publications and advertising specifically?

Hon. D. Marzari: I believe the member should be looking at column 40. It is under STOB 40 for publications and advertising; and that corresponds with the numbers we've both been dealing with back and forth across the House.

C. Tanner: I beg the minister's pardon -- she's pointed out that actually she is 40, and that my question now pertains to column 40, and there we're talking about $3 million in round figures. That $3 million: how much of the money in that department which you're using for advertisements and publications could be directly attributable as beneficial to the nine tourist regions? Is it possible to find that?

Hon. D. Marzari: I've just been informed that STOB 40 basically deals with items which would be very useful for local promotion and Partners in Tourism. That covers brochures and road maps, for example, and items useful to the travelling public once they've reached the province itself.

C. Tanner: That item in her budget covers all publications and all advertising, and it's aimed at all the markets. Can the minister specifically say how much of it is aimed at the overseas market and how much is aimed at, say, the local market, that being the three northern states and the rest of Canada?

Hon. D. Marzari: I would appreciate the ability to give the detailed numbers to the member a little later, since our books are broken down according to Partners in Tourism, and then other items; so what we'll do is some fast math over here and incorporate the Partners in Tourism program into other programs so you'll have a better idea of what's spent locally, in the long haul, and internationally.

C. Tanner: What I'm trying to find out is what criteria the minister used when she made the determination to cut the budget pertaining to her nine tourist areas; how she made that marketing decision. If it was offset by an increase in advertising to areas that are going to benefit those nine tourist areas, then I can see there's some merit. But if it was made just because it was a convenient place to cut, I'm going to give the minister a hard time about it, because I think it was a bad decision.

Consequently, that's why I want to find out whether there's some compensation in some other part of the budget which would make up for the decision that she and her staff made to cut the marketing area of the nine tourist areas.

Hon. D. Marzari: Generally the cuts brought into the ministry were prorated; that is, the close-in markets, B.C. and Alberta. That's the PIT, basically, or the partners. We're looking at 33 percent.

With respect to the long-haul markets, the Canadian and American markets, we're looking at a 41 percent equivalent, but certainly not less than the Partners in Tourism. We're not talking about one area being adversely impacted. We're talking about an overall cut here. The overseas markets took a smaller cut, but I must say that we spend smaller dollars there. To stay afloat in the competitive regime that exists with other countries and provinces in the overseas market....

When I say that we cut 17 and 18 percent there, which is what we cut on the overseas market, you have to understand that we're dealing with marketing budgets of one-third of what they are locally and in the longer-haul markets in the states, for example, and the rest of Canada. Basically, you're looking at a 33 percent cut on the North American continent, and you're looking at a much smaller marketing budget on the overseas markets, but you're looking at a smaller cut as well in order to maintain our competitiveness there. You're not comparing dollars there; you're just comparing statistics.

[3:45]

C. Tanner: Having made that decision -- and I'm beginning more and more to understand it -- and not talking about the assessment being done concerning people coming on the Seattle ferry, but the overall assessment, how are you going to make the judgments as to whether or not your decision was right this time next year or from now for next year?

Hon. D. Marzari: We are going to be, and are in the process, engaged in a strategic planning study of the effectiveness of our marketing, both local, long haul and international. That study is taking a close look at the whole range of marketing we have engaged in in this province. Some programs may be there out of habit. Some other programs may be there because they were a bright whim ten years ago but are no longer relevant. Some programs might be there because there is marketing, cooperative or partnership money available for them.

Right now it's very important for us to take a good look, and that is precisely what we are doing at this very moment in time. The results of that survey will be made available for the member when they come in.

It is important, I think, for all members in this House to understand that there is a business planning process that we have to engage in for this very important industry, this number-two industry in the province. The more we understand that the infrastructure of that industry is not chainsaws and trees falling and lumber yards and mills.... The infrastructure of this industry happens to be mom-and-pop operations in the regions and good marketing. The marketing survey that we're doing now will inform the decisions next year, I hope, a great deal more than I could be informed this year in making decisions.

But the decisions that were made, I believe, were made in reasonable faith that we were going to be able to survive this year, and get through and maintain our markets as best we can, and work with improved information towards better decisions in the years to come. We all must admit that our marketing

[ Page 2267 ]

budgets over the last number of years, particularly since Expo, have not been analyzed to the depth that they should have been. If they had been analyzed properly, particularly since Expo, have not been analyzed to the depth that they should have been. If they had been analyzed properly in the last five years and if the money had been properly expended, we would not have witnessed some of the money-losing events that we did.

But because tourism, particularly, has not been given the profile that it deserves and needs if it's going to become a major economic generator for the province, good planning has not been guaranteed. I'm sure it has been there. We've done excellent marketing, and British Columbia has won many awards for that. But I daresay that some of the basic questions have not been asked in the past, particularly since '87, in order to have an integrated and sophisticated look at how we carry out our marketing -- how we market smarter and better -- and focus it into the future.

I'm pleased that we have the tools we've got for this planning exercise. We have an excellent award-winning marketing division. We have partners -- people who are angry now but who are very much behind the business of promoting their regions, who are on stream for doing things better and for doing them well and who are ready to engage in planning. We have an excellent product-delivery system and an excellent service-delivery mechanism in the ministry.

We also have a growing, interested and, I think, dynamic strategic planning division that is beginning to crack some new ice and make new arrangements and to expand the horizons of the ministry to pull in Ottawa in ways that it hasn't been pulled in before, and to push and lobby with me in a meaningful way for things like the Seattle ferry.

We've got a good mix and good ingredients, but with this marketing study we're looking for the recipe. I don't think that it's going to provide the ultimate answers, but it will give us some good indicators as to how we have used the ingredients and the mix that we've got, and down the road we'll have a good cake.

C. Tanner: The minister is making a good case, and she's starting to convince me a bit. But there's a basic flaw in her argument, in my view. Maybe it's just a difference of opinion between us -- between sitting on that side of the House and on this side. The difference is that you inherited a department that had been messed around, quite frankly, for the previous five years. The money allocations for that department were out of proportion to what they had to spend it on.

Some of the senior staff were obviously disappointed by the fact that in the previous five years they had seen, five or six -- there were so many of them; it is hard to remember how many -- deputy ministers and ministers. The minister came in and had to make a decision.

In my view, what's she's saying now should have happened then, and you've probably come to this conclusion after looking at it for six months. There was a basic fallacy in the parks department and in the minister's thinking in the first place. She should have taken the money that she allocated to expanding her office and the deputy minister's office and held the line there, and she should have put that money into marketing, because that's what it's all about. I think the minister sees where I'm coming from, and I know where she's coming from, so I've probably pursued that far enough.

Next year, please be assured that I'll be watching very closely and will be reading the words that she just used about the menu, the recipe and the ingredients, because if I'm prepared to accept them now, this time, this year, I'm going to be questioning them very closely next year. Having made the mistake, we'll forgive you, but next year you can't make the same mistake again. You've got the people in place; you've got the ingredients, as you say; you've got the minister, who is hopefully going to still be there next year, because the habit in that department has been to come and go like swinging doors.

Hopefully she'll be there. I'll be here; I'll be asking these same questions, but I'll have the words from the minister's own mouth to question her as to why these things that she says are going to happen now haven't happened.

One last question concerning the Japanese market. Does the minister anticipate that the Los Angeles market, because of the unfortunate riots that existed there, is now a market which is going to be opening up to us -- not the Los Angeles market, but those people who were going to the Los Angeles market? Is that now likely to be coming to Vancouver and British Columbia instead of going south?

Hon. D. Marzari: California has always been a very good market for British Columbia. It's 9 percent of the American market. We've always had a good response from the California market.

I don't have the breakdown on the calls, but last week our 1-800 line reached a record day: 1,400 calls. I don't have a breakdown on that, but I would suggest that a lot of that is from the States. I can't anticipate whether it would be our "breathing lessons" and our marketing activity in California that might improve the traffic north this summer or unfortunate incidents in Los Angeles. I wouldn't dare to answer that question.

I should comment that the member claims that mistakes were made. I've done the best I can with six hours of time in this estimate to assure the member and the opposition that the best decisions were made to balance the marketing cutbacks in a way that would help the partners survive, that would keep our head up in the international market and that would market efficiently, effectively and innovatively in the long-haul American market. We are continuing to do the best we can and are studying how we could do better.

I don't know how the member can accuse me of making the mistake of establishing my own office. For example, the member talks about expanding the staff in my own office. I think the member should be made aware, once again, that my office did not exist before November 6, 1991; the deputy's office did not exist as a separate entity before November 6, 1991; the ministry did not exist before that date. To talk about expansion might lead some unsuspecting Hansard reader some 20 years in the future to think that, in fact, there had been massive staff expansion in the Ministry of Tourism and

[ Page 2268 ]

Culture, when what happened was a modest, average minister's office and a modest, average deputy minister's office. In effect, that is the real increase in administrative support in this ministry -- no more, no less.

If there were no ministry at all, obviously you might be saying that no mistakes would have been made. I would suggest that it has been a mistake for many years not to have a ministry that respects and understands that tourism is very quickly becoming the stabilizer of the economy in this province. It's very important that we, like every other province in the country, have a ministry that respects and reflects culture and cultural diversity within our province. A mistake, then? No.

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the minister with respect to the tourism portion of her estimates that we're reviewing here today in committee. I'd like to ask the minister to outline for me how one particular tourist region fits in with her ministry's program for tourism, and that is the Whistler area. I'm very interested in it, obviously, because it's situated in my constituency.

I know that Whistler brings in a fair proportion of the tourist revenue dollars into British Columbia. I'm wondering if the minister can place that in the context of tourism in British Columbia and also describe how her ministry's budget, which we're being asked to approve here today, takes that into account hopefully through continuation of building in the future the tremendous achievement that we've seen in Whistler over the past number of years.

Hon. D. Marzari: The Whistler area is represented, I believe, by the Tourism Association of Southwestern B.C., which, like other associations, received cutbacks this year. I don't hide from that fact. The Whistler tourism association is in receipt -- and has been for two years now -- of an additional 2 percent hotel tax, which is levied by choice on the hotels in the given region. So Whistler, Vancouver, Victoria, Smithers, I believe, and Oak Bay -- perhaps two others -- are recipients of a 2 percent hotel tax, which brings to them 2 percent of the total tax dollars gathered by hotels in the region.

[4:00]

The difference between Whistler, Victoria and Vancouver is that, although Victoria and Vancouver get to spend $2.5 million and $5 million respectively when they collect their 2 percent to run their tourism agencies, Whistler receives very few dollars in marketing. It has been a concern of Mr. David Thomson, who is the CEO of the Whistler tourism association, that the dollars that are collected -- I believe $400,000 a year -- by the Whistler municipality are not necessarily spent on marketing per se, but go to provide for tourism infrastructure. I believe that's the skating rink and the conference centre at Whistler.

It is something that I have taken seriously. I've heard that voice and would very much like to see more of the 2 percent go toward marketing of the Whistler ski facility and to ensure that Whistler gets its fair share. I should add, though, that Whistler is very much involved with western diversification fund marketing activity, and I believe it does do ski and convention centre co-op programs very successfully and very well.

Whistler is partnered with a number of agencies, public and private, to ensure that the Whistler message of a quality ski experience is carried to the whole wide world. We have Whistler to thank for a very effective winter tourism trade. Consequently I want to work with Whistler; I want to make sure the ministry works closely with Whistler to beef up its ability to do co-op marketing and its ability to market with some of those 2 percent hotel tax dollars.

D. Mitchell: I welcome the minister's comments with respect to Whistler. Whistler does bring a tremendous benefit to tourism in British Columbia. There has been a tremendous investment in Whistler itself, which has helped to bring about that attraction to British Columbia. Almost $1.5 billion has been invested in Whistler over the past number of years. As a winter ski resort it runs second only to Vail, Colorado, for the number of skier visits. In the last year that records were kept, 1990-91, there were some 1.3 million skier visits to Whistler alone.

In 1992, this year, Whistler resort experienced nearly 418,000 destination-vacation skier visits. Whistler is growing. As an attraction, it brings a tremendous benefit to British Columbia.

While I agree with the minister's objective of increasing the tourism trade in British Columbia so that it encompasses the whole province, my concern is that we don't kill the goose that laid that the golden egg, so to speak, and forget Whistler. Of the $5 billion spent in British Columbia by tourists last year, Whistler resort accounted for some 10 percent of that, or over $500 million. It is a significant portion of the tourist trade. We want to encourage skiers and others who come to Whistler to also take advantage of visiting some of the other portions of British Columbia.

Using Whistler as a way of leveraging the tourist experience, visitors who come to our province can enjoy the benefits of visiting other parts of British Columbia as well.

That's why I was asking the minister if she could outline where Whistler fits into the plan for tourism in the future that hopefully her ministry is developing. It is forming an increasingly important part of our economy. We know that. We know that the tourism trade is increasing. It's a difficult trade, because it creates vulnerabilities in local economies as well. Can the minister demonstrate any enthusiasm to the committee today about Whistler and its place in tourism in British Columbia in the future? Can she talk about that briefly? I'd like to know that there is a vision for the people of Whistler.

Hon. D. Marzari: I should say that it was members of this party and its government of '72-75 that had the vision to create Whistler and bring it from a small community interested in skiing to an international resort that lives off the avails of tourism and skiing at this point. The vision was expressed at that point by helping Whistler to create itself and develop itself as a municipality. The vision was expressed by assisting Whistler to create the golf course and the conference centre, which has become one of the most successful

[ Page 2269 ]

small conference centres in this province, and one which I'm pleased to have spent some time at over the last six months. It's a beautifully human-scale conference centre, which is perfectly adapted for environmental conferences on a small scale for real human interaction, much unlike our other larger facilities.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Whistler was a vision. It was a vision in '72-75, and it continues to evolve into something much more than just a tourist location. It is still, believe it or not, a small community which has aspirations and goals. It builds day care centres and schools, and it takes care of its people and its community. The advantage of Whistler is that it is now an international tourist destination resort.

Dealing with growth and balancing that with a sense of community is something that I admire Whistler for. It has managed to do that balancing act. It has survived its own vision. It has become successful but still managed to survive. It is to the credit of the people who live at Whistler and who are in local municipal government that that is the case. It is also to the credit of the two large ski resort areas, the Whistler corporation and the Blackcomb corporation, that they managed to keep the village and the surrounding community reasonably compatible and well serviced.

Is there a continuing vision for Whistler? I wouldn't say that there's a vision on the scale that there was in 1972-75 when the municipality was created from a couple of people and a big dream. But right now the important thing for Whistler is that we stabilize it, maintain its excellence and standards and increase the winter tourism flow to the resort that it is. It is important to me to ensure that Whistler manages to market itself, manages to expand appropriately when it needs to, manages to bring the required number of people in to justify the expansions it has already done, and hopefully the snow will hold up for Whistler for the next decade to come.

I don't see anything stopping Whistler from continuing on its climb as an international tourist destination. It's a jigsaw puzzle, is it not? It's not simply a question of marketing Whistler; it's a question of getting airlines to land their planes in Vancouver so that people can get off those planes with their ski equipment to go to Whistler. It's a question of attracting the European market to regard travelling in something other than the summertime to the west coast for skiing.

It's a jigsaw puzzle of marketing, of product development, of balancing the demographics of who is arriving and who is coming with what they're spending and how we market it, and create the cycle that develops growth in a region that is sustainable and does not conflict with local desires and aspirations and very local visions for what people in Whistler want. I dare say that Whistler wants to be small and collegial, but at the same time it's becoming very big very fast.

What we have to do in working with Whistler is to help stabilize and ensure that the ski industry is properly marketed and that Whistler can manage to maintain and enjoy its own success.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased with the minister's comments, because I think that she has had a chance in the past few months to acquaint herself with some of the challenges faced by Whistler in the context of tourism in British Columbia. I would point out, however, that Whistler is attempting to become much more than simply a winter destination resort. It's attempting to become a year-round resort, focusing on the drive-in trade throughout this portion of North America. It's becoming very successful and becoming a year-round resort.

In fact, while the minister indicates that Whistler can do very well on its own, the truth is that it will require continued and active support on the part of the government.

The minister indicates that Whistler is a small community. I think it is important, as she has pointed out, to recognize that it is not only a destination resort for tourists, but it is a community as well -- a growing community. In fact, the most recent census reveals that it's the fastest growing community in British Columbia. So it is a community that has needs of a growing, active community which is based upon tourism as its lifeblood. Trying to avoid the cyclical nature of tourism, especially winter skiing tourism, it's attempting to become a year-round resort.

The minister has made some interesting comments in some of her visits to Whistler, which have been picked up by some of the local media in Whistler. She was quoted, for instance, on the fact that the marketing program, although the marketing budget has been cut by her ministry, and her goal as minister was to strive for a sense of wholeness and a sense of completeness. "We've had the sense of riding on the crest of a wave for a while. The interesting thing is that it's been so successful." That's a quote from the minister from the Whistler Question, April 30, 1992.

My question to the minister is that surely it's not simply interesting that we've been so successful. It's by virtue of the concerted efforts of a group of entrepreneurial-minded British Columbians who have helped build a vision for tourism for British Columbia, in particular in the Whistler context. It's not simply by accident that the government has helped play a role. I think the minister points out quite correctly that, in fact, it was the first New Democratic Party government back in the early seventies that helped chart the vision for what Whistler would become.

Over the past number of years it was a government of a different persuasion that helped assist in the building and development of what has become a world-class tourism centre. Hopefully it's up to another government that this minister is a part of to help Whistler lead British Columbia's tourism into the next stage.

I'd like to see some evidence that there is a comprehensive plan, because the minister is also quoted in the Whistler press on the same date pledging: "A comprehensive plan for the tourism industry is being prepared by her ministry." Again, I'd like to have some evidence of such a plan and whether the minister could indicate to us what stage this plan is at. Is it possible to share some elements of that plan with the committee today? Also, one other question while I'm on this. The minister also indicated on this trip to Whistler

[ Page 2270 ]

at the end of April that her ministry is working on developing a piece of tourism legislation that will help sustain the development of the industry. I wonder if the minister could, for the benefit of the committee, give us an update on where she is at with her comprehensive tourism plan and the legislation that she is going to be developing. Hopefully there will be some public consultation on that.

Hon. D. Marzari: There will be consultation and more consultation. This ministry starts from the premise that legislation and business plans cannot be developed without consultation. That's part of the natural business of government. I hope, when all is said and done, that people will be able to say that they had been properly and completely consulted on how the business plan emerged and evolved.

In my first remarks as quoted from the Whistler newspaper I was not necessarily referring to the expertise, caring and intelligence of the Whistler promoters and developers and ski-resort visionaries. I was referring, in fact, to riding on the crest of a wave in this whole industry. The business of tourism in this province has been taken for granted. It has been the goose; it has laid golden eggs. We have not given it proper credibility. Neither have we given it the planning expertise, the strategizing or networking that needs to go on inside the industry.

This province has attempted, in a number of half-hearted ways in the last five years, but really has not found a niche for tourism, which, in my opinion, is going to stabilize this economy and help it grow and give our kids something to be proud of somewhere down the road. It was the tourism industry itself and the former government's relation to it that concerned me. It was time to stop riding the crest of a wave and get down to business and take the business of tourism seriously.

[4:15]

The member asked about the foundation stones for how we get off that wave and how we get down to business. Two of those foundation stones are most definitely in the business plan for the Tourism ministry itself. That business plan is now in draft form and reflects some of the visions and aspirations for what the ministry itself would like to do. It has involved everyone throughout the ministry. It has involved the industry. The industry right now, through the provincial tourism advisory council, is reviewing the draft business plan for tourism.

It is involving the Partners in Tourism association, as we invite them to get involved with the draft business plan as well. I assure the member that as we involve the cornerstones of the industry's planning, we will involve the community as we go. The business plan should be out of draft form and into some final form within the next month or so. It is very important for the consultation process, of course, to see itself through.

Basically it is a very quiet visionary document, in that it spells out the job description for the minister -- no grand numbers and assumptions, but simply the down-to-earth business of how to sustain our environment as we plan; how to produce a better product and help in the development of a better product; how to improve the quality of our services and upgrade our training; and how to market better. Those are the questions that it asks. It puts the whole thing in the context of how we plan, how we develop strategies, and what our processes should be for the years to come.

The second cornerstone, or the second foundation stone, is the legislation that we are discussing in the ministry now, which is in its formative stages of development. It's important, I believe, for a ministry to have a mission statement and to have a piece of legislation to help guide it as it evolves. The legislation that exists from some time ago for the Ministry of Tourism is a one-page piece that says something to the effect of: "This ministry will promote tourism."

It's a great little document if you're stopping at the business of marketing, but it does not serve to talk about the necessary help that's needed to promote infrastructure and service development, quality delivery, upgrading of training, investigation of marketing, research and strategy. It doesn't begin to promote what we need to do in terms of protecting our regions and ensuring that they are included. It doesn't begin to talk about the resource itself, what is out there.

The act as it presently stands does not talk to the Inside Passage and the necessity for the business of tourism to protect the views on the Inside Passage off Sechelt over to the Island and the necessity of a pocket-cruise industry and a large cruise ship industry. It can't be denied that our cruise ship industry is growing and is a very important industry for the west coast tourism trade.

It's important that somewhere in regulation or legislation we be able to say that there are certain viewscapes that should not be violated without serious consideration of tourism value; there are certain regions that attract tourists for hiking or hunting which should not be violated without a discussion of tourism values; there are certain areas that should be zoned perhaps for tourism or resort use so that developers can be facilitated in the completion of their dreams of a group of cabins, perhaps on a river, that might be incorporated inside a piece of legislation.

When I talk about legislation here, I'm talking about the credibility that I believe must be given to an industry which is the second biggest now, and is coming up fast. It is the transitional industry in this province. It is replacing or balancing out the volatility of the resource industries, and it needs its piece of legislation. It needs to preserve its resource. It has a social, economic and cultural resource to protect. It is my hope that over the next while, perhaps next year, we may have an exposure bill that will outline and try to crystallize the vision for the preservation of the resource and the importance of the tourist industry.

D. Mitchell: Thanks to the minister for those comments. We look forward to seeing this comprehensive plan that she refers to. While she doesn't describe it as an exciting document and perhaps is trying to urge members of this committee to wait for the movie, I look forward to actually reading the document and taking a look at the vision it might outline for the future of tourism in British Columbia. In fact, tourism is becoming one of the mainstays of our economy, so perhaps it is appropriate to have legislation of a more

comprehen-

[ Page 2271 ]

sive nature with respect to her ministry. One would hope that legislation would not overregulate an industry that has been successful by virtue of the lack of restrictions on the entrepreneurial spirit in British Columbia that has allowed us to build Whistler and has allowed us to build small and medium-sized tourist attractions in this province as well. One would hope that, through this process of consultation which the minister has described, we won't have heavy-handed legislation that will overregulate, stifle and perhaps even kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

We certainly would not want that, and we look forward to having some input into that legislative process before any bill comes to the House.

As for the Tourism budget that was presented to this committee for approval, it is unfortunate in some respects that some portions of the budget have been cut. We recognize full well what the minister has said in terms of priorities. Governing is all about choosing, and some difficult choices obviously had to be made during this budget year in terms of the tough fiscal environment that the government was facing.

It's unfortunate that the Partners in Tourism program was dealt with in the way it was, because when we talk about tourism we are talking not only about Whistler and large operators who have been very successful there, but about small operators and medium-sized operators, who in the past have benefited tremendously by the Partners in Tourism program. One would hope that program isn't simply going to be axed for all time, or that it's not heading the way of the dinosaurs.

That program was good because it combined the best elements of the business experience of British Columbians involved in the industry with government in matching programs so there could be a true partnership between government and the private sector. I think that's the way we have to go.

I'd like to ask a question to the minister about the travel information centres throughout the province, because these are centres that help regions that require assistance for visitors to our province. The travel information centres are well known to all British Columbians in their local communities. The ministry funds summer staff through the travel information centres.

We heard some comments earlier this spring from the minister and from her colleague the Minister of Advanced Education about actually boosting summer employment for students, but I'm having a hard time finding out where employment has actually been boosted. I can tell you that in my own constituency in Squamish, for example -- another area that relies quite a bit on tourism -- the travel information centre operated by the Chamber of Commerce has had to cut summer staff by two positions because the funding has been cut.

I wonder if the minister could inform the committee if her ministry is planning to cut funding for travel information centres in the province.

Hon. D. Marzari: I will certainly take a look at the travel information centre at Whistler.

D. Mitchell: Squamish.

Hon. D. Marzari: At Squamish. In fact, I was at Squamish last Sunday and met two young women working in the travel information centre who are brand-new employees. My guess is that the budget has probably not been cut there, but maintained. I will certainly check that and try to find out why there would be two new employees there if, in fact, they suffered a cut. I have a feeling that Squamish was left at par, as all the travel information centres that I know of were. In fact, the travel information centre program....

I believe there are 145 information centres in the province, all of which are basically run by diligent volunteers, who very often do a job above and beyond the call of duty. I saw at their annual general meeting how they talk about fund-raising at their local level to try to keep their doors open. Obviously, travel information is the one thing that people have come to expect in British Columbia as they tour around -- to know that we've got clean, bright, interesting facilities, and that we have informed and trained staff servicing those facilities.

It is not my impression that there has been a cut there. I will certainly check as soon as I'm out of the House to see whether or not certain travel information centres received cuts. I don't think so.

W. Hurd: I request leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hurd: I'd like to introduce 42 grade 7 students and adults from the White Rock Elementary School, a French immersion school in my riding, and their teacher, Mr. Rousseau, and chaperon, Mrs. Russell. Would the House make the delegation from the White Rock Elementary School welcome.

D. Mitchell: I will follow up on the line of questioning with the minister on the Squamish travel information centre that we referred to. The minister is quite right: they have just hired some new students. But the problem is that they've been cut by two positions -- from six down to four this year. That's a challenge, because the travel information centres, as I understand it, really do a lot of work that the ministry benefits from. For instance, I understand that the statistics collected by the travel information centres are used by the ministry for its general statistics base. All the administration is done by the people who service the centres. They actually do some very valuable work.

My question to the minister was more along the lines of: does the ministry plan to cut support and downsize these travel information centres which have been so valuable in providing employment for students during the summer? If we're going to take a look at an area like Squamish -- because we were referring to Whistler earlier on -- it is a different kind of community, where tourism is rather new. A new industry is being born. I would point out to the minister that tourism visitors were up 12 percent in the last year in Squamish, and 21 percent in bus tours. Of course, we also have the Royal Hudson and other attractions there, so the tourism

[ Page 2272 ]

industry is really being born in Squamish. At the same time the travel information centre, which is supported by her ministry, is reducing the number of students that can be hired. That would seem to be a retrograde step.

I wonder if the minister understands the criteria for running a travel information centre -- the quite elaborate training that's necessary and the hours of work. Yet the funding is going down. I'd ask the minister: what's going on here? Is there a future for travel information centres? If there's going to be downsizing, then let's fund the centres that have the highest volume of traffic. Could the minister just elaborate a little further on this? There's some confusion as to the future of travel information centres in our province.

[4:30]

Hon. D. Marzari: Well, there's no confusion, because the people in the travel information centres certainly know that they are appreciated tremendously by the government and have been supported by the Tourism and Advanced Education, Training and Technology ministries this year with the same global budget as they had last year: that is, $1.62 million in wage-subsidy funding. Our ministry also provides training, counselling, inspection and informational assistance to keep this program alive and well. So there's no confusion.

There might be some confusion around the fact that the Squamish centre received a cut in funding. I assure the member that I will find out what happened there and how they lost paid staff people. It's my information that our budget this year remained stable throughout the province, so we should not be looking at cutbacks in that service. It's certainly not the area to cut. It's one of those human pieces of infrastructure that keeps the whole system going, just as the administrative budgets of the partners keep the infrastructure going. I will check it out for the member.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate that commitment by the minister. There was some uncertainty about the future of these. I think there's a need for very clear communication between the ministry and the people who, in a very successful way, run these travel information centres throughout the province. Hopefully there would be a commitment to maintain them as well, because I think they perform a valuable function for visitors, as well as for residents of British Columbia who are visiting different parts of the province during their holidays.

I wonder if I could change the topic very briefly and ask the minister a question with respect to her staff -- in particular, her deputy minister. Just for the benefit of members of the committee, could the minister inform us of the qualifications for the position of her new deputy minister?

Hon. D. Marzari: Madam Chair, I believe this question was thoroughly canvassed in our previous estimates debates over a month ago or so. I remember rising at least three of four times, and if the member checks Hansard , I'm sure I have more than thoroughly canvassed my particular feelings and responses to that question. I would ask the member to review Hansard and see that the question has been addressed.

D. Mitchell: I recognize that the question was certainly asked, and that there was some debate about it. I'm not really sure that we ever finished the line of questioning. But I will defer that and go on to another topic.

I'd like to ask the minister if she could provide to the committee a list of all the consultants and contracts that have been engaged by her ministry since she became minister. I recognize there might be some potential conflict here with a written question on the order paper that asks essentially the same question covering the period from November 5, when she became minister, all the way through to the eve of the legislative session. If that poses a problem for the minister, then I would simply ask for the period of March 17 to the present.

Could the minister provide a list of all the consultants and/or contractors who have been engaged by her ministry in activities relating to promoting tourism or any other tourism-related activities in our province?

Hon. D. Marzari: I believe I answered that question on a number of occasions as well. More to the point, I addressed it just about two hours ago on this day. My answer was that those lists will be made available in due time.

C. Tanner: I have a couple of questions, just to wrap up where I was before somebody else interceded. Ann Pollock is a consultant for the ministry. She said in the January edition of Equity magazine -- and I think this is pertinent -- that the role of the Ministry of Tourism should be to develop new markets, not farm the existing ones; that is the job of the private sector. Does the minister concur with Ann Pollock's opinion?

Hon. D. Marzari: As I answered before -- in a much longer answer than I intend to give now -- it's important for the ministry to stabilize all aspects of its function in the marketing field. Mining new markets -- to use resource terminology -- is as important as maintaining and stabilizing existing markets. Since 60 percent of our tourism is now local people travelling to local places to enjoy local festivals, or families or conventions, it's very important that we stabilize and maintain what we've got as well as look overseas and abroad and into the United States to expand new markets.

In the best of all worlds we would be able to manage both with adequate resources. This is a tight budget year. In a tight budget year we are continuing to both maintain the base and develop relationships and partnership programs with the federal government and the private sector to expand the markets. While doing that, we must also juggle the third ball, which is to improve the product and upgrade the service. So there is a job to be done in Tourism.

I'm rather happy that we're able to have this debate across the House. I just don't think that the strategic planning that must go on in Tourism has happened in a number of years. The fact that Ms. Pollock is writing

[ Page 2273 ]

about it and her words are being picked up by the opposition is very important. It encourages and carries on the debate that must be had over the next couple of years as we go through this period of economic transition and discover that tourism is one of those industries that will help balance and diversify local economies. If the member is trying to encourage me to fall into a black hole of saying that we will only expand and mine new markets at the risk of kneecapping and undercutting the base we have, not promoting new development and not upgrading service quality and training facilities, then I will not fall into that trap.

I would suggest that rather than waiting until tomorrow to move to the cultural component of the ministry, I would be more than happy to receive questions today from the opposition and the third party on the cultural aspects of this province and on cultural funding in general. I would also be more than happy to answer some questions or deal with the issue of cultural tourism, because that is also a piece of the pie, so to speak, in terms of what we have to offer in this province as we develop our tourism industry.

C. Tanner: The words that I quoted were not mine. They were your consultant's, not my consultant's.

For years now every provincial government in this country has said that the federal government has had the habit of funding initial projects, then walking away from them and leaving them in the lap of the provincial government to pick up the pieces and carry them on an ongoing basis. If I understand Ann Pollock's advice to the ministry in Equity magazine in January, she is saying that that is the obligation of the ministry. I would hope that the minister is disagreeing with her consultant in this case, because it's certainly not my philosophy.

The minister's quite right that the bread and butter of this industry has got to be right around near home. Those other things are -- if you like -- the jam on the bread and butter. We need the others, but we most certainly need to continue to, as she says, "farm the existing ones."

I'm not trying to kneecap the minister at all. I'm merely quoting the words of her own consultant to her. I read the minister as saying that she disagrees with her consultant, too. So much for the consultant.

On May 25 -- and I've changed the subject now -- the minister was facetiously welcomed back to the House and asked where she'd been. The minister said that she had been to Ottawa, "from where I hope I successfully brought home some federal dollars for tourism and culture." She was loudly applauded by those members on that side of the House.

In a newspaper

article on June 6 in the Vancouver Sun, there's a quotation:

"'The B.C. government has refused to cooperate with Ottawa in getting B.C. a piece of a $129 million federal tourism promotion program,' Tourism and Small Business Minister Tom Hockin charged Friday in the House of Commons." There's four or five other points in here, but rather than go through them.... If the minister could tell us if those agreements are signed, then I needn't read the rest of it; if they aren't, then I've got lots to say.

Hon. D. Marzari: In the past the provincial government has had a relationship with the federal government around the development of product and marketing. This relationship, I believe, terminated for the five-year plan in March of 1992. It has been our concern. In fact, in March of '92 I met with the federal Minister of Tourism here in Victoria, and we discussed the continuation of the WEPA agreement. That's a $5 million agreement which is spread over five years.

Staff in the Tourism ministry have been working closely with federal staff to pull together the necessary agreements and to ensure that the necessary moneys are put up at both sides of the agreement. It's been a difficult budget year for us, so we've had to adjust some of our existing dollars to try to make them qualify as new dollars under the federal stipulation.

Three weeks ago I was in Ottawa with staff on both cultural and tourism matters and managed to meet with four ministers or their staffs to speak to a number of issues pertaining to the Seattle-Victoria ferry link, to tourism in general and more specifically to the WEPA agreement. It was decided at those meetings that we would proceed to the final dotting of the i's and the crossing of the t's to develop that agreement. On Friday morning the minister, Mr.

Hockin, was addressed in the House during question period and asked what he was doing for tourism and, in the kind of response which is often given in question period, he suggested that the questioner look to his own province and discover that, in fact, British Columbia did not yet have an agreement; hence the rather volatile newspaper story about B.C. dragging their heels. In fact, I talked to the federal minister this morning, in a friendly way, and we are going to try to tie this one up as quickly as possible.

He and I shall be discussing the issue further tomorrow to see whether or not the money that we put forward for the agreement is going to be considered unencumbered enough for the federal government to be able to share in it.

I'm very hopeful, and feeling very positive about WEPA, a $5 million product development and marketing agreement to be signed by the middle of next month. Is something signed today? No. Is the process underway? Yes. Is the process underway with goodwill and reasonable discussion? Yes. Has our staff been working hard towards this with the federal minister? Absolutely. Is the money easy to come by? No. Are discussions ongoing, and are we going to come to a solution -- tomorrow, I hope? Yes.

[4:45]

C. Tanner: I'll wait until tomorrow and hope to have this fruitful discussion.

The minister suggested that perhaps we could get to the cultural side of her portfolio today. Unfortunately, Madam Minister, I have another 10 or 12 pages of questions here on tourism. I will try to get through most of them today, but frankly, unless there is some immediate pressing reason why her staff can't continue today and leave the culture until tomorrow, I'd prefer to continue this, tidy it up and then come tomorrow. As I turn the pages over, Madam Minister, I find that I'm up to page 9. I'm doing rather well here.

[ Page 2274 ]

The minister made reference two or three times today to the fact that B.C. tourism is not only the second-largest industry but certainly the comer as a generator of revenue to this province. I want to, once more, emphasize what my reaction would have been if I'd been in the minister's place six or seven months ago. It certainly answers a number of these questions at one shot. I agree with the minister: tourism is the coming industry in this province, and environmental concerns are important to that tourism industry.

We are seeing a decline in those industries such as forestry and mining, and we will see an increase in tourism. Keeping that in mind, surely the minister and the government and the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board reaction should be: let's invest as many dollars as we possibly can in expanding that industry. We spent $20 million last year. My first thought was, well, let's spend $40 million this year, not save $4 million and knock it down to $16 million. It's paying dividends for the province.

It's paying dividends for the taxpayer in that it's, hopefully, generating the money which will enable the government to spend money on social programs and education and health. But we've got to generate the cash in the first place.

I must emphasize again that, in my view, the government made a basic error when they decided to cut the budget. If at the same time as they increased the Tourism budget they'd increased the Culture budget, it seems to me that the benefits from that too would have come back home. It would have been a daring way for the minister and the government to start their tenure in office. It would have said to the tourism industry of this province: "We believe in you. We're going to help you.

We're going to help make you successful, because if you are successful, we're successful." I put to the minister that the attitude the ministry took towards the industry has created such hard feelings that it's going to take more than a year to recover. The government, the public and this ministry are going to suffer from some of the hard feelings that have been created, by the minister's own admission, in some of those various areas that are out there right now trying to hustle a dollar, a good part of which will benefit all the province.

In the second half of the first year of her ministry would the minister be prepared to go back to Treasury Board, go back to the Minister of Finance and say: "Look, we might have made a mistake here. I think we should revisit it. We're having trouble finding $5 million for the federal government program. Mr. Finance Minister, maybe we should be looking for $20 million.

Tell me why you can't give me $10 million of it now so that I can get out there and put that to work so that next fall the tourism industry in this province will be up and vibrant and raring to go, waiting to get those tourist dollars that could come into the province"? Would the minister, finally -- I know I'm flogging this one to death -- tell me again why she can't do that? Why can't she go back to Treasury Board and say: "Treasury Board, we've made a basic error here. We've got money we've got to put to work to build the tourism industry in this province"

Hon. D. Marzari: Once again, I believe we've canvassed this. We are flogging this one to death. The flogging happens to revolve around a potential deficit that could reach $3 billion in this year's operating budget. To be considered and to be fiscally responsible, it was absolutely essential for government to cut, and cuts were made. As I've said before, statutory services were protected. Agreements with federal government around health and education were protected. The Attorney General's ministry, for obvious reasons, was protected. Consequently we have a situation where cuts had to be made.

A government deficit of $3 billion was faced. Government managed to bring the deficit down to manageable proportions. We have done that successfully.

Why will I not go back to Treasury Board to ask for additional funds for tourism marketing? I am going back to Treasury Board to ask for specific funds related to items in my ministry, which are important and cannot be funded under existing allotments. But I believe in living within a budget and in doing the best you can with what you've got, because that's ultimately how we're all going to be measured. I believe that the planning and strategy path that we are on right now is going to serve us well for future budget years. I do not apologize for this budget.

I want to see it grow, obviously, as I want to see the industry grow. But what's crucial right now is to understand that we have to live with the cloth that's cut. If we don't, the province will be in trouble, and the budget will be in trouble.

There are reasons for investing dollars in students in post-secondary education and in the K-12 levels of education. There is always a rationale for increasing the Health budget and the Highways budget. In my mind, all these things are linked. I do not believe in economic development plans; I believe in socioeconomic development plans. People's expectations and aspirations at the social level, the cultural level and the economic level are interlinked, and our budget reflects that.

It's important for me to do planning this year. It's important for me to pull in federal dollars and use our co-op relationships wisely, and to better lever the marketing dollars that we've got. We have to look at a system of perhaps zero-base budgeting, where we can strip everything down to its component parts and put a machine back together that will ultimately run better. I do believe that will happen.

I am not a minister who is going to run to Treasury Board and disrupt a budget in a year when I think that careful and cautious planning is the order of the day and when I see us years down the road evolving in such a way that we can expect that careful planning and better-focused marketing will result in increased dollars coming into the field and into the ministry.

C. Tanner: I guess we've had our philosophical disagreement, and we'd better leave