Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 15B (31st Legislature, 5th Session)

31-5-15b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM MR. CHAIRMAN, Morris McGregor (Virden): I call the committee to order. We are on Page 44, 2.(e)(1) pass. The Member for Brandon East. MR. LEONARD EVANS (Brandon East): Mr. Chairman. I believe the Minister said that he would have this evening an explanation of the financial items that we were discussing this afternoon regarding the Canadian Food Products Development Centre. and I also referred to the Industrial Technology Centre.

I wonder if the Minister has an explanation now. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): The note re Exhibit B, Manitoba Research Council, the balance of expended funds at the beginning of the year, $323,263.86. Operation in fiscal year 1978-79, was funded by Canada and Manitoba through separate agreements. These agreements provided funds to be contributed to the Manitoba Research Council in advance by grant from both governments. The unexpended figure is primarily the amount of this operating advance then still available, plus minor amounts of interest.

The refund of 1979 grants of $312,500.00. During the fiscal year of 1979-80, funding for the MRC projects was subsumed under the Enterprise Manitoba Agreement. Federal funds under the old agreement came directly from Canada,

whereas all federal funds under Enterprise Manitoba flow through the province. It was therefore necessary to refund advance under the old agreement to permit the proper flow of funds and claims under the new agreement. This transaction is explained by the auditors note two on page 28 of the annual report. Enterprise Manitoba, a five year program spanning the period of April 1, 1978 to March 31st, 1983, includes a program of $4,500,000 to establish staff and operate Canadian Food Products Development Centre at Portage Ia Prairie.

The federal-provincial cost-shared program, $62.5 versus $37.5 for the province is being delivered by the Manitoba Research Council in the formal agreement with the Province of Manitoba. The 1979-80 annual report of the Department of Economic Development and Tourism contains the annual report of the Provincial Auditor certifying the propriety of the financial statements of Manitoba Research Council for the year end March 31st, 1980, and comparative figures for the previous fiscal year.

Exhibit B, on page 26 of the annual report reflects an entry of $312,500 as its receipt, during 1978-79 as matching funds granted from the Province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada. These funds were orginally granted to the Manitoba Research Council by earlier agreement prior to Enterprise Manitoba, by separate agreements between MRC and Canada Industry Trade and Commerce, and MRC and the province. The life of the earlier agreement overlapped the commencement date of the Enterprise Manitoba and the general intent was the same only in magnitude of difference.

It was agreed to apply the earlier funding received as part of the five year cost-sharing arrangement of Enterprise Manitoba. The accounting entry is reflected in the statement, Exhibit B . The other question asked, the operating level. While there was some delay in staffing in 1979, the operations in 1980 largely consumed the grants involved. The grants were $761,991, disbursements were $739,549, but it is anticipated that the funds requested in 1981-82 of $793,000 will be fully consumed. I would leave a copy of that with the member if he MR.

EVANS: I will study the statement also, but I gather the short answer is that there is no problem in not being utilized, the allocated funding for this centre and that what seems to be carry-over, refund, is due to technical reasons, accounting reasons, not a matter of substance of not fulfilling the program as had been planned Okay. I wonder if I could go from the Food Products Centre to the Industrial Technology Centre, and ask, because there has been some discussion about the Food Products Centre at Portage, but exactly what is the thrust now of the Industrial Technology Centre.

At one time it was health products, and I know the Minister has made statements regarding other areas of technological thrust, technological advancements. I believe electronics was also included and perhaps one or two others, but I am wondering if the Minister can now tell us essentially what is the main thrust of the Industrial Technology Centre. MR. JOHNSTON: The overall main thrust of the Industrial Technology Centres is to assist industry in the Province of Manitoba on technology.

In other words if somebody has developed a product and they have to put two pieces of steel together in a specific way and they don't have the knowledge to do it, the Technology Centre can either help them with the knowledge to be able to do it - I'm using that example because I know this one personally - and after that they can test it and help the person come up with a product or a part that is necessary to make a product. There are five labs out there. The different labs are the electronic, the microbiology, metals testing, the overhead welding machine room with overhead cranes in it, chemistry.

All of those labs are available out there and the staffing of that Technology Centre was completed with 13; there's nine professionals and four support people. It officially opened June 12th. As of July 1980, NRC Technical Information Service staff were seconded to the centre under the lTC direction. Provision of technical information to 500 companies and individuals, 75 interventions and intensive technical assistance to 40 clients; effective technical information sources were established 521

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 combining hard copy microfilm and computerized data basis. Implementation fee for service guidelines to achieve partial cost recoveral. Goal $140,000 achieved in excess of $200,000 as a signed contract. Provide metric information to 120 clients. Operated the Canadian Health Industry Development Centre as the integral part of the Industrial Technology Centre. Assistance with the establishment of the industrial appliances of Micro Electronics Centre by providing a grant of $300,000.00.

Established quality control and assurance programs for the purpose of increasing technical competence to Manitoba industry. Presented 6 technical seminars. Orange County Electronics is one of the ... there's a lot of work done with Tasty Seeds Limited on production. Faber Weatherguard, Manitoba Research Council has arranged special testing for the external louvered blind system. As a result they received a $200,000 contract. Winnipeg RH Institute, the approval of the established blood plasma fractionation facility in Winnipeg was announced. Superior Scale.

They did a lot of work with CAE Aircraft on the honeycomb panel for the Canada Air aircraft, that 215 waterbomber that CAE now has the contract to make the flaps and tail assembly for. They delivered the first of 15 sets 16 days ahead of time, last Friday, and Mr. Campbell of the Canada Air says that there will another order for 15 sets, which would take that through to probably the end of 83, beginning of 84, and there are still orders coming in for the 215 waterbomber.

The only thing I could say to the honourable members is that if you haven't had the opportunity to go out and see that industrial technology Centre you should because it's well worth seeing. I would invite anybody, anytime to make a trip out there because we are very. very proud of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: would like to ask the Minister whether it's the intention that some day this centre would be self-sustaining.

In other words, would it follow the course that some provinces have taken, such as B.C. and I believe New Brunswick, where technology groups, research councils and the like, whatever they may be called, charge tor their services, at least in part, and eventually become, if not totally, at least partially self-sustaining through receipt of monies for services rendered. MR. JOHNSON: Well we don't ever expect that it will become totally self-sustaining, but it is starting in that direction already.

The Food Products Development Centre has had an income of $70,000 in 1980-81 and the Industrial Technology Centre has had an income of $150.000.00. So there are charges being made to help sustain the operation, but certainly not up to any amounts of significance as yet and we intend to have it grow that way. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Well, I believe the Minister mentioned CAE as a recipient of the services of the Industrial Technology Centre. Would CAE pay for help rendered by the staff here? MR. JOHNSTON: I am informed I believe that CAE did, we'll give you a figure of what they paid.

But CAE we worked with them very closely, because CAE was just about out of the aircraft business. Through out department with the development officers and CAE we were able, working with Canada Air to get the opportunity for them to quote on the particular flaps and tail for the 215 waterbomber. And CAE are moving right back into the aircraft industry. MR. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Minister means moving back into the aircraft industry in Manitoba because I don't believe CAE ever left the aircraft industry. What bothered us was that in the past, you may recall, Mr.

Chairman, that the Government of Manitoba, and this goes through 2 previous administrations, worked very closely with CAE to try to get them as much work as we could through the Federal Department of Defence, in particular, and through other government departments, and of course it involved Air Canada Overhaul and all of that story.

But it seemed to me that, for whatever reason, CAE and I'm not trying to point the figure or lay the blame on any group or any company, but it seems to me that CAE withdrew, in effect, or reduced its aircraft repair service here and whatever it might have manufactured, but it maintained it in Edmonton and other places. I felt very let down by that particular company because it seemed to me that they were prepared to carry on elsewhere in Canada but only if they were to get some assistance from Air Canada I believe, would they carry on in Manitoba.

At any rate, I think it could certainly not be considered a small fledgling company and while one would like to see them and others do business here, it seems to me that it is a size of a company that :;houldn't have to depend on a relatively new and small industrial technology centre for assistance. Now I'm not decrying the assistance provided, but at the same time it makes me wonder why CAE would be a candidate for some assistance from this Industrial Technology Centre. MR. JOHNSON: Well as I said we will check it. I'm informed that they did pay something.

I'm not too sure how they did, but there's 32 new jobs in Manitoba because of this contract and there's the work they did. That's the honeycomb that's on the inside of the wing of the 215 waterbomber and the testing was done on the glue to make sure the bond was such that the inspectors would pass it so they could get into the production of the particular flap structure that they were making. MR. EVANS: Again, that's fine. We like to have more jobs but I often wonder why a company like CAE doesn't have the capacity to do it itself.

They are, as I understand, a very large company with plants in eastern Canada and, I believe, in Alberta. They are certainly not a small company needing a bit of help from the department. We normally think the help given by the department is to small or medium size companies, they don't have the research staff, tor example. These are the kind of companies you like to help, not the big corporations who, you would think, would be well equipped and well financed to do their own thing. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I said I should have the answer shortly. The intention of the Centre 522

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 is to have an income of $350,000 in 1981-82; that's the projected figure. I might add if those pieces had not have been able to be tested in Manitoba, they would have had to go east and would have held up the production. MR. EVANS: Of the companies that were helped by the Industrial Technology Centre since its inception, because it hasn't been there that long, what percentage would you classify as small, say 50 or fewer employees, and what percentage are in the large category?

I suggest 50 or more employees as a cut-off; if you want to have some other definition, fine, tell us what the definition is. MR. JOHNSTON: I can only tell you they provided technical information to 500 companies and individuals. is the information that I have. I don't have a complete breakdown of the companies. I'm sure it's available. the companies and the size of the companies, but there were a lot of small companies involved. MR. EVANS: I guess there are different categories of services.

It is one thing to provide information but of course it is another thing to actively work with the company and test materials or do whatever to provide assistance. Of the major type of assistance, do you not have an idea as to - I'm not talking about simply passing out information, but working rather closely, giving some major help, as you did with C.A.E., as it turns out - what percentage is given to small companies and what percentage is given to large companies? If the Minister doesn't have that, he can perhaps get it later. MR. JOHNSTON: We will have to get that information. MR.

EVANS: I want to use just one other example, I guess. Indus Electronics Limited is a company we talked of a few days ago. There is a statement in the paper by the vice-president of the company, Mr. Peter Johnson, who complained about a number of factors that has led to the demise of his company. It was declared insolvent earlier in December, and on December 30, 1980, the story in the paper was: '·Electronics firm forced to shut down." This was an electronics company which had prospects of tapping a very wide market, a lucrative world-wide market in medical equipment.

At any rate, it had a staff of 30 people; it was only a 16-year old company. The company had a number of problems, but among other things it said, the vice-president, Mr. Johnson, blamed a low level of technology when products were initiated and underestimation of the size of the job as reasons for the firm's failure; Says, "Developing new products is a very expensive proposition. Winnipeg and Manitoba have a great deal to learn about starting technology companies." And he added that Indus might have benefited from more government assistance.

Indus, which manufactured sophisticated electronic control and monitoring systems, opened a new $1 million plant in the west end of the city as late as last March. It is a family-owned business, a Manitoba grown business, and it had hopes of going up to 75 employees and hopefully were going to sell millions of dollars worth of electrical equipment. Among other things, they had an x-ray calibration monitoring device, which someone here in Winnipeg invented and developed, and it is used in a number of hospitals to measure x-ray dosages.

The total financial support Indus received from the Provincial Government was $18,000, according to the vice-president, Mr. Johnson. He said the government was co-operative in helping the firm and recently tried to provide assistance in setting up a demonstration product of its monitoring device, but the effort came too late. Mr. Johnson said a provincial grant from the Manitoba Research Council was offered to Indus under certain conditions which the company couldn't meet. There may be more to this than meets the eye. There may be a lot more to the story.

This is one side of the story, obviously, although there is a quote from the Assistant Deputy Minister of the department. Mr. Blicq is quoted in the

article too. So there are two sides to the story although I think, according to Mr. Blicq's statement, he said that he wasn't aware of other electronics firms facing similar financial problems and so on. The point I am making is here is a grown-in Manitoba company; it evolved in Winnipeg, a local enterprise, a small enterprise, had great hopes of expanding; as late as last March they had opened a new $1 million plant. According to the story, at least, there was presumably a wide market for the type of equipment they were developing and yet we don't seem to be in a position to help this kind of a company.

I just don't know - maybe it wasn't in the field of technology, although the vice-president says that that was one of the problems, the low level of technology. Well, if we've got this Industrial Technology Centre, and we're putting more money than ever before and we are helping all kinds of companies, including C.A.E., why couldn't we have been more meaningful in assistance to this small Manitoba-grown company that had a great future in front of it? We fell flat on our nose. When it came to the crunch, we weren't able to help. Maybe it goes beyond technology; maybe there are other problems.

But according to the company, at least, he says, "developing new products is a very expensive proposition", and he says, "We would have benefited from more government assistance." He does point to this problem of technology. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I said the other day in the Estimates, Indus Industries received from the Manitoba Research Council a lot of consulting and a lot of work with them. They also worked with Dr.

Kisner, who the Manitoba Research Council supports, and at the end, we had offered what was about a $50,000 package through the Manitoba Research Council, which was not in the form of money, but to take over the salaries and take over the research people working within their industry, but that still wasn't enough to help that company. As a matter of fact, our people recommended to the board of the company that the management should be changed, and they did change that, and even that was too late.

The company had a bread and butter line that was obviously paid very little attention to and most of the time was being spent on researching and products that didn't have any sale because they hadn't been proven as yet. All of the work that we 523

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 did with them didn't seem to help that company. The offer we made at the end was not enough to help them from a financial point of view so our offer was not accepted by the board because it wasn't adequate enough in order to be able to help them through the time they had. There are many many things about Indus Electronics that are exceptionally good but the thing that was not good was that they were not selling enough of the products that were salable on the market versus to get the income.

Let's put it this way, the income was not enough from the products that were salable to support the research they were doing. MR. EVANS: So the Minister is suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that it simply was underfinanced through a period that was required to do more development of the product. In other words, it needed more financial capacity to sustain it while it developed its technology? MR. JOHNSTON: We did not offer financial capacity; we offered to take over the salaries of the people who were doing the research, but it was not accepted. MR. EVANS: I understand that; I heard the Minister the first time.

I am trying to summarize his assessment of the problem. Is it correct what the Minister is saying is that ultimately the company didn't have the financial capacity to sustain itself through the period required to develop and perfect the technology and to bring the product to a state where it could be more readily sold commercially? MR. JOHNSTON: I don't want to get too much more into the inner workings of Indus Electronics. I think the liquidation itself was proof of the financial problem the company was in. I might say, CAE is being charged.

We haven't got the amounts, and 500 companies and individuals were helped. Eighty percent of those are 50 employees or less. MR. EVANS: Another question, and I believe it is covered by this section, is assistance to K-Cycle. Last year the Minister announced a large grant to the K-Cycle people; this was a technological development type of grant. Are there further funds for K-Cycle again this year? MR. JOHNSTON: No. It wasn't under Enterprise Manitoba, it was a direct provincial grant through the department, approved by the Cabinet, to help them continue their research.

Their product is not yet in the position for a large market. It was in the form of a new building had to be built with test stands in it. It is now built. We hold the mortgage and the chattel on the building and the chattel on the equipment. The building can be used, and is there to be used, by any other people wanting to test engines in the province. MR. EVANS: What was the amount of pay out finally lo K-Cycle?

I gather then, from the Minister's statement about holding a couple of mortgage documents. that in effect you have taken some consideration for what I thought was a pure grant without strings attached, but obviously it is a grant with some strings attached. MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, we do have the paper and the building had to be built separate from the other buildings. It was $300,000.00. I believe it is shown in there. MR. EVANS: If something should happen that the project doesn't proceed and become commercially viable, etc., then the province has these two documents and presumably would get some of the $300,000 back.

MR. JOHNSTON: That is correct. We protect the province's position and we also know that a test stand for engines is a desirable thing to have in Manitoba so the province is protected. MR. EVANS: Is there any indication when the K Cycle project may get to the stage of commercial production? I know the government is not directly involved but nevertheless you must get reports. Do we have any idea when this day may come? MR. JOHNSTON: It was important, Mr. Chairman, to get the test facility in place so that the engine could be tested. That was done. I am told by Mr.

Kristiansen that they are expecting to have a pretty good income this year from the work that they have been doing, but I am not in a position to be able to say to you when they would be able to market the product in any large volume. They are still working very well. All I know is that there is a car driving around with a K-Cycle engine in it and several other pieces of equipment with a K-Cycle engine in it and they seem to be proceeding very well. MR.

EVANS: Has the company given the government any indication as to the possibility of producing the engines in Manitoba, if it should come about that it is commercially viable and the bugs are . . . I understand it is a very interesting engine; it's innovative; it's a step forward and we are glad to see it. But what indication do you have from Mr.

Kristiansen and his associates as to the possibility of manufacturing this engine in the Province of Manitoba, or will it be that we develop the K-Cycle, or it is developed by the principals, and then the production has to be farmed out to Oshawa or who knows, Detroit, or wherever, because this is the area where automobiles are produced in this country and this is where the manufacturers are. MR. JOHNSTON: Our main thrust was to keep the technology here in Manitoba. That was the reason for the grant. I would hope that if the engine develops to a point where there are orders for it it would be manufactured here.

MR. EVANS: I share the Minister's hope as well but I think it is a very remote possibility that that will ever come about. It is just not feasible to manufacture engines here. Well, it can be done from an engineering point of view, but from an economic point of view, unfortunately, I don't see it happening. We've seen examples where new companies have attempted to start up. Bricklin is the best recent example and that was a disaster but it was a very 524

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 good car. And I know this is a very good energy efficient engine. It's wonderful, what little I've known of it1 I've seen some demonstrations of it, it's very good. It's coming along, but I say the chances of it being produced in Manitoba are extremely remote and I just don't see, while I welcome the support of technology and keeping technology in the province, let's recognize that this grant will not, and this support by the department, will not ensure the production of motor vehicle engine, K-Cycle engine in the Province of Manitoba.

If it does come on stream, it will be on stream I submit in Oshawa, Windsor, Detroit, someplace, but not Manitoba. MR. JOHNSTON: The member is making a prediction. I am not prepared to say whether it's right or wrong, but the main objective was to keep the technology here in Manitoba and make it possible for the company to contract for the technical services. MR. EVANS: Have they approached the department for further funding or further grants since the $300,000 was agreed to? MR. JOHNSTON: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(

e) The Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: The company has not approached the department and I would gather then that the department is not expecting the need to assist this company further, at least in a financial way. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Kristiansen has been requesting an appointment with me. I hope to be able to see him during this week or the beginning of next, I don't know what the situation is with him at the present time. MR. EVANS: guess we'll hear about it in due course. Those are all the questions I have. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(e)(1) pass; 2.(e)(2) pass; 2.(e)(3) pass; 2.(f)(1)- the Member for Elmwood. MR.

RUSSELL DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to mainly deal with the Destination Manitoba Agreement between the Federal and Provincial Governments. Well perhaps I'll make most of my remarks at that point and then maybe I'll make them at the end of (f). MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(f)(1) pass; 2.(f)(2) pass; 2.(f)(3) pass; 2.(f)(4) - the Member from Elmwood. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to direct most of my questions and comments at Destination Manitoba which is a massive, I believe $20 million agreement between the Federal and Provincial Governments to be spent over a period of 5 years and I guess we're approaching about the mid-point of that particular agreement. I note with some interest that it was signed by the Minister of Cultural Affairs and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Jack Horner. I was just curious whether the Member for Lakeside was still friendly toward big Jack who is now retired in Alberta in his own brand or whatever his book was called. Mr.

Chairman, I think one of the questions I'd like to ask followingthe annual report, is how we're doing in terms of the in-province market, because apparently in 1978, when this program was signed and introduced, one of the things that was attempted to be countered was what was described in your own annual report as a massive travel deficit. Now I assume with the value dollar and the 20 percent advantage that Americans have that it's much easier to attract tourists into Manitoba, and maybe it's even easier to retain Manitobans, in terms of staying at home as opposed to spending their money in foreign markets.

I know that prices are sky high in other parts of the world, for example, I was told by a friend of mine that in London hotel rooms run up to $200 a day and I know that in the New York market, where two years ago an average hotel room in New York apparently was about $38.00, that it's now averaging $75.00, and for$75 in New York you can't get a very good hotel room. So I just wanted to ask if we could have a brief update on the success or otherwise of the tourist dollar in Manitoba. I assume that we're way up in 1980 over 1978. I wonder if the Minister could give us any statistics in that regard. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. JOHNSTON: In 1971, the travel deficit was $4.9 million, in '72 it was $4.3 million, in '73 it was $18 million, in 1974 it was $4 million, in '75 it was $16 million, in '76 it was $38 million, in '77 it was $61 million, in 1978 it was $57 million and we don't have the figures for ... well 1979 was $49 million. We don't have the final figures for 1980 as yet. The total in-province expenditures by people travelling, in 1980 the total expenditures in the Province of Manitoba by tourists was $425,700,000.00.

The in province Manitoba spending was $273,500, 64.3 of the overall total of expenditures on tourism in the Province of Manitoba was by Manitobans travelling in Manitoba. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, can the Minister explain then how these figures are arrived at? That's simply the amount of money that tourists spend in Manitoba and then you subtract the amount of money that Manitobans spend outside the province, is that how you arrive at those figures? MR. JOHNSTON: I know there's a very thorough procedure to get to the tourism figures.

They boil down to be, in the final analysis, estimates but we do it like many other provinces do it to try and get the estimates with the hotels, travel people, all kinds of different ways. I can probably get you a rundown of exactly how the research is done on that but those are the figures. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to follow basically the annual report dealing with some of the more significant conventions and so on. Did the province have an input into the Commonwealth Air Crew Reunion.

It struck me that was one of the most successful and interesting reunions or events ever held in this province; it's gone on for several years. Apparently it's supposed to stop every year, presumably people are getting older and dying off in the process, that has gone on for a number of years. Each year it's supposed to be the last. I would like to 525

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 know whether there are plans of holding that in the next year or two, and also what kind of financial support is being offered as an incentive to these people who come from all over the Commonwealth and all over the world to attend this convention. MR. JOHNSTON: The department worked very closely with the organizers of that convention. We had consultants available for them on how to work with a convention that size. We did mailing for them. We had a booths available. In the booths the people were there to give information on Manitoba and travelling in Manitoba.

We were very extensively involved but not in the form of any grant. MR. DOERN: I think I recall the answer to this, I'm not certain, but did the Liberal Party of Canada apply for or receive a grant, a hospitality grant? MR. JOHNSTON: I'm told not through our department, I don't know. MR. DOERN: Was any assistance offered to the Liberal party? MR. JOHNSTON: The same assistance would be offered to the Liberal Party Convention as offered to any convention, but I don't think they used any. MR.

DOERN: So you don't know if there is any substance to the rumour that they were afraid that the Premier might come there and address the convention. Another question, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister claims in his report on page 15, that Travel Manitoba hosted and assisted 12 prominent North American and two overseas travel writers in gathering specific story information and then it seems to suggest that program will result in a half million dollars worth of editorial exposure. Surely that is an exaggeration or a misprint. MR.

JOHNSTON: If we had to pay for the space it would have cost us that much where those articles were produced. MR. DOERN: But surely for 14 writers you didn't expect each writer to produce the equivalent of $35.000 worth of editorial exposure. MR. JOHNSTON: To get the same exposure you would have to pay that much. That's the estimates from the Department. MR. DOERN: Then I assume that each of these wnters was going to produce, 20, 30 or 40 full pages w1th photographs and all sorts of laudatory comments about the wonders of Manitoba. Surely you don't expect that type of coverage. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 2.(f)(4) the Member for Elmwood. MR. DOERN: Can the Minister indicate how much it cost to host those 14 writers in the province, how many thousands of dollars we spent on that? MR. JOHNSTON: We can get that figure for you. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, one of the more interesting 1tems here is, I think. whether or not this department works closely with the Department of Cultural Affairs.

Do the departments work together in an attempt to, say, promote the cultural side of Manitoba life and, in particular, what attempts have you made to promote summer festivals of music, dance, theatre, etc., so that we will not only have this type of a program, let's say in the summer, because we have them in the winter, but have you attempted to work together to introduce new summer programs that could then be advertised, that could then attract people to Manitoba? MR. JOHNSTON: We work very closely with the Department of Cultural Affairs.

We worked with the Department of Cultural Affairs to send a group down that will get the Wally Byam Convention in Brandon in 1982. We also have worked with the festivals, the Department of Cultural Affairs works with the festivals. I am not sure of all their financial assistance but our financial assistance comes about by supporting the advertising of those particular festivals. We have available for them under the Destination Program, No. 4, which is called Attractions and Events, advertising grants to help advertise the particular festivals.

In 1980-81 the Interlake Festival, Winnipeg Folk Festival, Miami Mule Days; Gardenton Ukrainian Festival, Manitoba Threshermen's Reunion, Thompson Nickel Days, Churchill Chamber of Commerce, Manitoba Great Western Harness Circuit, Canadian National Ukrainian Festival, Icelandic Festival, Folklorama, Morden Corn and Apple Festival, Pumpkin Creek Fair, Canadian Turtle Derby, Steinbach Pioneer Days, Canadian Firefighters Rodeo, Kinsmen Winter Carnival, Festival du Voyageur, Manitoba Marathon.

These requests come to us and they're examined by the board, the group set up to analyse them on the basis that the advertising is that they would draw more people and also that the advertising money wouldn't be wasted. We wouldn't put much more advertising money into a festival that didn't have the capacity to hold more people. That usually isn't the case, most of them can handle many more tourists. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Elmwood. MR. DOERN: The planning under Destination Manitoba has been allocated at $1 million and that strikes me as excessive. I mean, why do we need a million dollars worth of studies?

This might be good in a sense of encouraging consultants and advertising agencies to make money, but it strikes me as an incredible amount of money to be spent in that manner and possibly just frittered away. How can the Minister justify that amount and what is he spending all that money on? MR. JOHNSTON: It isn't quite completed yet but there's a major independent tourism study to provide the guidance to the capital development of programs under the agreement.

We've had the preliminary first phase report on it - we are expecting the final very shortly - funded to the Lake Manitoba-Lake Winnipegosis Regulation Waterways Development Board to prepare tourism recreation development concepts; provide funds for the provincial participation in the Canadian Travel Survey and preparation for computer program, an analysis of 526

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 survey results. We also funded the review of the horseracing industry in Manitoba in this study, in this particular item. We're projecting to spend $417,000 on the studies in 1980-81, and in 1981-82, $275,000, and the reason for the decrease is because the major study is nearly finished. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Minister could indicate who has been receiving these hundreds of thousands of dollars. Can he indicate what firms and what amounts and what business these firms are in? I'd be very curious as to who is doing them. MR.

JOHNSTON: The major study is headed up by a consortium headed by Wardrop and Associates in Winnipeg. The Lake Manitoba-Lake Winnipegosis Recreational Study is being done by, I believe, Hilderman. Witty and Feir and that is being done by the Lake Manitoba-Lake Winnipegosis Recreation Waterways Development Board. The horseracing was Pennell Forester. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, the Ontario Government has spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on Minaki Lodge and is planning to do so again.

I don't know how many millions they've already put in - I think the last figure I heard, the latest figure was 8 million. They are obviously going to try to keep that lodge viable. Obviously it's going to be run at a tremendous deficit and obviously the capital will never be repaid. It will undoubtedly draw business from Manitobans. It's close to the border; it's an attractive resort and there are a number of places in Manitoba that I think possibly should be built up, first of all, as a direct counter perhaps to Minaki but also there are other places which appear to be languishing.

I wonder if the Minister could comment on some of these. The ones I'm interested in in particular are Falcon Lake, Grand Beach and Clear Lake among others - (Interjection)- and the boat. I think that's another interesting one, the Lord Selkirk, to be exact. Falcon Lake. let's take as an example, I believe a few weeks ago the Falcon Motel burned down or at least part of it burned down. I was just wondering if the Minister can give us a capsule as to what is happening in that area because the government has a pretty substantial input.

Are there some planned improvements in regard to the Falcon Lake area or West Hawk Lake and in particular this newly destroyed motel; first of all, in themselves and, secondly, perhaps as a balance to Minaki Lodge which might pick up the slack if we let it go? MR. JOHNSTON: I understand there was a group of people purchased the El'nor Hotel in Falcon Lake. It had been closed for awhile. They've purchased it. I'm not aware of the extent of the damage of the fire but it is their intention to operate that hotel hopefully year round. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, it wasn't the El'nor that burned. MR.

JOHNSTON: Well, the El'nor was just bought. As I said, I'm not aware of the extent of the damage of the hotel. The El'nor Hotel as I said was bought by a group of people who intend to fix it up, do some renovations and operate it year round. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, my question was whether there was any input by the province, or any planned input in any of those facilities to improve them. MR. JOHNSTON: We don't own the facilities. We supply a beautiful area, a golf course, lakes, fishing, everything to attract the tourist. It comes under the Provincial Parks and we would possibly look towards the study.

If it recommends that there should be a destination point established there, we would take a look at it and we would take a look at putting in the infrastructure, etc. to making it a better tourist attraction, but only on the basis of working with the Parks and Resources Department. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister saying that none of this $20 million will go to capital improvements or joint ventures with private operators? MR. JOHNSTON: No, I'm not saying that.

The program is set up in this way: the studies and planning on a five-year basis is the 1 million; the Winnipeg Destination area is 3.5 million; the rural destination area is 6 million; the attraction and events is 1.5 million; the tourism industry organization is 1 million; the rural and tourism industry incentives is 7 million and unfortunately until we get the study completed as to the destination points and where the money should be spent in the rural tourism industry incentives and the rural and destination areas, we have not moved on that program to this date until we get the final feasibility studies.

The rural tourism industry incentives is one that would allow us to work with an operator to help him upgrade, but it mainly would be working with campgrounds, etc. MR. DOERN: Doesn't the Provincial Government own the shopping complex at Falcon Lake? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes we do, but it's not owned by the Department of Tourism. MR. DOERN: A small question, the Legislative Building which probably receives more visitors than just about any other spot in Manitoba has a tourist office for most of the year, at least I think about eight months of the year, it's closed at noon hour. I ask the Minister why that policy?

It strikes me as ridiculous if people are pouring into the province, they come to the main tourist outlet in the City of Winnipeg, and they get here between 12:00 and 1:00 and the one person who operates it takes her lunch, which is fine, but presumably we could hire somebody to spell tha! person off so that you don't have the office closed at an important hour. MR. JOHNSTON: As of two weeks ago we started staffing it all day and the staff for Travel Information Services does have an appropriation in it for the next year for an increase in the information.

It'll be two term positions; one position is to provide assistance in staffing Provincial Tourist Information Office, student employees return to school in September. So the two positions really will be about four or five people working on part-time in the Information 527

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 Offices, and the Information Office in the building will be open more than it is. MR. DOERN: The Minister is telling me that the policy of "closed at lunchtime" is now officially terminated. MR. JOHNSTON: I'm informed it has been terminated as of two weeks ago. MR. DOERN: And is the -(Interjection)- no, I fought for it last year. Mr. Chairman, is that office open on the weekends? MR. JOHNSTON: Not at the present time. MR. DOERN: Are there any plans to open it on the weekends, presumably tourists also come in on weekends. 1 suppose some only come on weekends. MR.

JOHNSTON: The largest number of tourists that come here on the weekend start usually around the middle of March, beginning of April and we hope to have some staff available then. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask a couple of questions on promotional films. The province made six television vignettes of 30-second and 60-second duration entitled Manitoba Magic and 1 ask the Minister whether these were considered a success and whether he was pleased with the quality of them? MR.

JOHNSTON: I'm pleased with the quality of them and the success can only be in the increase in tourists in the Manitoba and Manitobans travelling in Manitoba. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, then I have to ask the Minister how he can reconcile this expenditure. They produced a series of six ads, some 30 seconds, some 60 seconds for free-time broadcasting at a cost of $2,000 for the production.

Presumably this was done in-house, or it was done in some manner so that when you take the average cost of these commercials, they were what - $350.00 a piece, and the Minister says he was satisfied with them and he got $6.000 worth of free air time. Now on the other hand he just spent $35,000 to produce five minutes of advertising. $7,000 on an average cost compared to 350 for an average cost - 20 times the amount and I simply say to the Minister I just cannot understand how he can produce what he considers to be successful ads in one instance at $350.00 and then he throws 20 times that amount on another series.

How can he possibly justify that discrepancy? MR. JOHNSTON: Well I'm informed that the film or the slides that were used came from our library. They only ha·1e a music background; they don't have any voice over; there's really no comparison in the two types of production. MR. DOERN: But in one case the Minister spends $2.000 on production; he gets $6,000 free time. In the other case he spends $35,000 on production and then spends $27.000 to air those same films. It just strikes me that the ratios are all out of whack and for 20 t1mes the amount of money he's getting four times the exposure. MR.

JOHNSTON: The exposure with the tourism film that you see, the ad agencies and the media decided they wanted to use those as fill-ins, so we supplied them as fill-ins for them. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, again I just want to clarify this point. Who produced those advertisements? MR. JOHNSTON: Which advertisements? MR. DOERN: The six vignettes that were produced. Were those done in the department or is that done by an ad agency? MR. JOHNSTON: They were produced by departmental staff with the assistance, I am told, of a person by the name of Wayne Finucan. MR.

DOERN: Well then I ask the Minister whether it wasn't possible that that second series at $37,000 could not also have been produced in-house? MR. JOHNSTON: We don't have the film in the library for one thing, and how could they be produced in-House when they went out and took interviews with people? MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, that's a simple matter. You can either bring the people in for interviews or send your Civil Service crew out. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, if I had brought people in for interviews I would have been criticized more. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Telpner, who now works for McKim worked for the provincial government not too long ago. I assume that if he is capable of producing and directing now, he might have been able to produce and direct a few months ago when he worked for the provincial government. MR. JOHNSTON: He was not in the Tourism Department to begin with. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I had one more

section I wanted to deal with because I am exhausting the short attention span of my friend, the Minister of Mines is it - no, I can't remember; the former Minister of Government Services, as I knew him best, as 1 too was a former Minister. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask about a film that was produced by the department called ... I don't know, is it Atikameg? I see there's mega at the end of that. It's the Indian name for clear water, and produced by Travel Manitoba in conjunction with the Shakespeare Tackle Company of the United Kingdom, scheduled for release in the fall of 1980.

I would like to know why did the Minister go outs1de of the province. This sounds to me like the Shakespeare Tackle Company of Great Britain came here and made a suggestion to the provincial government, and the provincial government bought it. I would like to know whether that was the case. MR. JOHNSTON: The film cost us in the area of $10,000 and that was used for the UK market and the people that produced it, used it over there. If we had produced the film completely for ourselves 1t 528

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 would have cost in the neighbourhood of $60,000.00. By them producing it, we have the rights to it in Canada. They have the rights to it over in the United Kingdom where there is a big market for fishing, et cetera. I guess we did that the same as the previous government used Mr. Cherniack from Toronto to produce some of their films. MR. DOERN: Of course. MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, in terms of this film again, why wasn't this -(Interjection)- There is no connection between the Johnston family and the Cherniack family? Mr.

Chairman. this particular production, $10,000 expenditure, why wasn't this given to a Manitoba firm? We have people in Manitoba who make commercials, who make films, who are, I'm sure, desperate for business, and I am sure could easily have produced such a film, who know the province. I have a feeling that some salesman came here from this British company and talked your department into the film, but I ask you whether they were the only people who bid on this, or were simply given the contract, or did you consider having it made in Manitoba? MR.

JOHNSTON: The British firm approached us on the basis of wanting a film to show in the United Kingdom. They produced it. It cost in the neighbourhood of $60,000 to produce it. The Province of Manitoba only paid $10,000 to have the North American rights to that film. Anybody that I know that has seen that film says it's an excellent film and I believe it's an excellent film as well. The United Kingdom market is one of the biggest markets that there is at the present time, in fact the whole European market is a very big market for us. We have not been active in it up until now.

It was a way of starting to become active in the European market, and as we also have some budget in this year's appropriation to expand our work to try and have European tourists come to the Province of Manitoba. We have been missing them. They have been going to other areas that have been doing far more advertising and far more promotion in the UK than we have. MR. DOERN: Would the Minister care to hazard a guess as to what percentage of the fishermen who come to Manitoba are from Great Britain?

I assume that most of them, that probably 95 or 98 percent of the fishermen who come from outside the country come from the United States. I don't know whether, if you go into the fishing holes of Manitoba, whether you are bumping into a bunch of Englishmen. MR. JOHNSTON: I only have the figures that in 1980, we estimate that there was approximately $10,600,000 spent, which was 2.5 of the Tourism spending from overseas. We are hoping to have an increase to $11,700 next year, an increase of 10 percent.

I believe there was a slight increase in our overseas tourism in 1980 over 1979, and I'm informed by the people that do the statistical work, at the present time the total visitors - it's right here in the report - it's about 46,000 from overseas and most of them are from the United Kingdom. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, how do we know that the Shakespeare Tackle Company, whoever they are, didn't decide that they would make a film about fishing, contacted the Provincial Government, picked up $10,000, had a lot of fun in Manitoba, shot some footage and went back? How do we know that didn't happen? MR.

JOHNSTON: All I know is that we agreed to pay $10,000 for the North American rights to that film. MR. DOERN: What does that do for us? MR. JOHNSTON: And we have a film that is worth $60,000, that we show. MR. DOERN: Okay, do you have one print? How many prints do you have of that film? MR. JOHNSTON: We have the film. We have to put money in the budget to produce more copies of it. They didn't supply us with 100 sets of the film. We have one set of it. MR. DOERN: For $10,000 you bought a copy of the film. MR. JOHNSTON: A copy of the film and the North American rights to the film. MR.

DOERN: So what good are the North American rights. You are not going to show it in the theatres. What good are the rights to that film? MR. JOHNSTON: We are the ones that were able to show it, where we direct it to be shown. MR. DOERN: Is there a segment in there featuring the natural advantages and the terrifc fishing in Manitoba? Is there a segment in the film about Manitoba and the word Manitoba appears a number of times, and the sights of Manitoba appear a number of times? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. MR. DOERN: Have you seen the film? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. MR.

DOERN: Can you indicate how many minutes long it is and how much time is devoted to Manitoba? MR. JOHNSTON: It's a twenty-four-and-a-half minute film. I was told twenty-four-and-a-half. I would have said twenty-five if I had guessed. MR. DOERN: How much time is devoted to Manitoba? MR. JOHNSTON: It's all Manitoba. MR. DOERN: Oh, it's all Manitoba. MR. JOHNSTON: It's all Manitoba. MR. DOERN: There is no other areas in there? MR. JOHNSTON: I'm informed also it's all Manitoba and its quality has been accepted by the National Film Board. 529

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 MR. DOERN: But at this moment in time the Minister has one print of that film. MR. JOHNSTON: That is correct. MR. DOERN: Unless he has a program to use it, what good is it? MR. JOHNSTON: We have a program to use the film. As I said, we have money appropriated to have other copies of it made. It can be used by the National Film Board, it can be used, well, anywhere that you can show a film and it's on the Province of Manitoba, period. MR. DOERN: But unless you promote that film and use it. it's just sitting there in a can somewhere, isn't it? MR.

JOHNSTON: We intend to promote it and use it. MR. DOERN: The other question I ask again, is it this company, do you have any evidence that they have used that film in England? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, it has been shown in England. MR. DOERN: Do you know how many times or under what circumstances? MR. JOHNSTON: No, I don't know where it has been shown. I imagine we could get that information. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I must tell the Minister that I'm somewhat sceptical of this production. MR. JOHNSTON: I'm also informed that it's being shown in Germany as well by the company that produced it. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, I have to tell you that I'm somewhat sceptical of this investment because, you know, it's like if you want to take a set of lyrics that you wrote you could send it to New York and for a few hundred dollars or a few thousand dollars they will produce music and background. They will send you a record and now all you have to do is promote the record. You're now part of the music industry but basically it's a racket.

I just hope that the Shakespeare Tackle Company is a reputable firm which didn't just come in and sell you $10,000 worth of a film which they shot and gave to you and told you it was worth $60,000, and that was the end of it. I hope that the Minister wasn't taken in by this company and that he got his money's worth because I"m not sure. it doesn't seem too likely that he got a $60.000 film for $10,000.00. It seems like he may have paid $10.000 for a film which may have been worth considerably less. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, the member is confused. It's the company that paid $60,000 to make the film.

It has the specification that it meets the National Film Board. It is up probably right now being recommended for an award. The company used it to advertise fishing, etc., in the Province of Manitoba. in the U.K .. and it's being used in Germany as well. We say where it's used in the North American continent; we own the North American continent rights. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Burrows. believe the Member for Burrows had the . . . MR. BEN HANUSCHAK: Mr.

Chairman, could the Minister indicate what are the guidelines that he follows in determining what foreign-produced films publicizing Manitoba he will subsidize? In other words, can any visiting fireman come into the Minister's office and obtain assistance from him? MR. JOHNSTON: No. MR. HANUSCHAK: Could the Minister then indicate what are the guidelines? MR. JOHNSTON: The guidelines on this particular film was a 24-and-a-half minute film on the Province of Manitoba and it was produced by that company, used in the United Kingdom, as I said, and we have the rights to where it is shown in North America.

Those are the arrangements that we did with it. If we had gone out and produced that film ourselves, it would have cost us $60,000.00. The estimated cost by anybody who have seen it is at least $60,000.00. We have the rights in Manitoba to a film that costs $60,000 featuring the Province of Manitoba that we paid $10,000 for and we have the rights for the whole of North America. MR.

HANUSCHAK: So in other words, a representative from any country could come to the Minister and offer to produce a 24-and-a-half minute film which -(Interjection)- if the Minister views it, it might seem like 25 minutes but a 24-and-a-half minute film which, if the Minister were to produce it, it would cost $60,000 but it doesn't matter what it would cost the producer to produce it, he would receive $10,000.00. So if there would be a steady parade of applicants from every country listed in any atlas of the world, the Minister will give him $10,000.00. Is that what the Minister is saying? MR.

JOHNSTON: No, I didn't say that. MR. HANUSCHAK: I understood the Minister to say that they had to produce the 24-and-a-half . minute film. MR. JOHNSTON: I didn't say they had to, I said they came in and made a presentation to us on what they intended to do and these are the arrangements we made. We have a film that we can show anywhere in North America advertising the Province of Manitoba and showing, featuring, only the Province of Manitoba. If we were to go out and produce that film ourselves and any costs that we have had on film production, is in the neighbourhood of $40,000 and up.

If were to have a film that was anywhere close to what some of the other provinces have featuring their provinces, we would be paying that kind of money. This was an opportunity for the Province of Manitoba to have a film for $10,000 that is worth $60,000 that can be shown in the North American continent only by the Province of Manitoba. MR. HANUSCHAK: Let me ask the Minister this; if there were 20 applicants from 20 different . 530

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 MR. JOHNSTON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister on a point of order. MR. JOHNSTON: If we're going to have questions on "if". I don't know how I'm able to answer them. MR. HANUSCHAK: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the Minister about the policy of the government and this is not questions before Orders of the Day and I would like to impress upon the Minister there was a difference.

You know, I think he's confusing the rule governing questions before Orders of the Day and questions on policy and I'm asking the Minister again; if he had 20 applicants at his doorstep from 20 different countries offering to produce films about promoting the Province of Manitoba, would he give each one of them $10,000.00? MR. JOHNSTON: Not necessarily. MR. HANUSCHAK: Well, so then what are the guidelines? What are the criteria? MR. JOHNSTON: The guidelines were, Mr. Chairman, that we were made a proposition by this company. We didn't actually pay out the $10,000 in cash.

It was paid at a total up to $10,000 for accommodations. We paid for part of the film on the particular arrangement we had with then. It is not necessarily "me", that anybody who walks in the door would have the same arrangement. We would take a look at it and consider it. MR. HANUSCHAK: Consider it on what basis? Suppose you were propositioned by 20 different countries? MR. JOHNSTON: On the basis of the advantages it may be to the Province of Manitoba. MR. HANUSCHAK: Mr.

Chairman, over the years it was the custom within the report, not of this department because previously the responsibility for Tourism was that of another Minister, but within the first few paragraphs there used to be a comparative breakdown of the tourist trade in Manitoba for the fiscal year that the report dealt with and which I do not see within this report. In other words, it was expressed I think both in terms of tourist days spent in Manitoba and I think tourist dollars, if I remember correctly, tourist days, that's both from the United States and I think from other continents.

Can the Minister provide us with those figures and how they compare for the fiscal year - this is for the fiscal year ending March, 1980 with the previous one? MR. JOHNSTON: In 1979, the visitors to Manitoba, other Canadians, were 1,851,520; in 1980, other Canadians were 1,990,485; Americans in 1979 was 870,047; in 1980 it was 955,043, an increase of 9.8. Foreign visitors in '79 was 45,297; in 1980, 46,000, an increase of 1.6. The total for 1979 was 2,767,300; the total in 1980 was 2,991,922, an increase of 8.1.

The visitors' spending and including residents of Manitoba spending in travel in Manitoba, the Manitobans spent $246,600 million in 1979; $273,479 million in 1980, an increase of 10 percent. Other Canadians spent $61,772 million in '79; in 1980 they spent $73,683 million, a total increase of 19.2 percent. Americans in 1979 was 55,757,000; in 1980, 67,914,000, an increase of 21 percent. Foreign tourist in '79 were 9,592,000; in 1980 they were 10,607,000, an increase of 10.6 percent. The sub-total of non-residents was 127,121,079 and in 1980 it was 152,174,000; an increase of 19.7.

The grand total, the expenditures and the income in 1979 from all sources was $373,721,000; in 1980 the estimate is $425,653,000; an increase of 13.9 percent. MR. HANUSCHAK: So it would seem then, Mr. Chairman that whatever public moneys the Minister is expending on a promotion of tourism is just barely keeping up with the inflationary rate and nothing more. Because for a dollar, it may have been spent in 1979 according to the inflation rate, just to keep pace with it, one would have to spend at least $1.10 in the subsequent year.

So really we haven't made that much headway in the promotion and the development and expansion of our tourist trade. My other question is now . . . MR. JOHNSTON: That's wrong. MR. HANUSCHAK: Well, the Minister did say that the net increase was in the order of 13 percent which is just a shade more than the inflationary increase for the same period of time. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, the number of people are up, not only the dollars, but the number of people coming to the province is up and that's the main thing. MR.

HANUSCHAK: But spending fewer dollars, then, obviously, because the net increase is only 13 percent, so they're not spending any more money. In fact they're spending less because if there are more people coming and the total expenditure is only in keeping with inflation, so therefore they must be spending less on a per capita basis and the Minister can do his own arithmetic and come to the same conclusion. A few weeks ago, when Cabinet went through its musical chairs' exercise, I sort of lost track of who is responsible for the operation of Gull Harbour Lodge, if it's still owned by the people of Manitoba.

It may have been sold. If it is, is it this Minister? MR. JOHNSTON: No, it's the Minister of Finance. It comes under Venture Tours, I believe. There's a board set up by the Minister of Finance of which the Assistant Deputy is part of. I can't list all the members of the board who are responsible for the operation of that Lodge. We feature that Lodge very much in our advertising as we do the whole of Hecla Island. MR. HANUSCHAK: Fine, when we get to the Estimates of the Minister of Finance we can pursue that matter further. My other question is, Mr.

Chairman, in looking at Page 17 of the Minister's Report, Tourism Development, Planning. A major planning study was commissioned December of 1979 with the objective of preparing an industry 531

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 development strategy and plan, and I'm reading that and being mindful of what the Minister said some time between March 31 and April 2 at that famous Policy Conference in 1977 _ I refreshed the Honourable Minister's memory on that yesterday. You will recall the PC 1977 Annual Meeting March 31.

April 1 and 2 policy papers, and at that time the -(Interjection)- oh yes, because the Minister he says they were tor discussion purposes only but his boss very clearly says that's the direction in which they intend to move, polish them up here and there and smooth some of the rough edges but basically that's the general direction in which government intends to move.

The Minister, and he was party to this statement, said this: "A Progressive Conservative administraiidn will continue the development of Manitoba's provincial park system, concentrating on intensification of use rather than expansion of acreage_" As I understand that, Mr. Chairman, that it is the government's intention to move in a direction of developing facilities that would allow more people to use each square toot of each acre of parkland - a greater number people to use it than are presently using it.

So given that. is this study the study of preparing an industry development strategy and plan, is part of it does that include the greater utilization of parkland tor tourism purposes? Does it include projects such as the Jarmoc Project or others similar to it tor greater tourist utilization of parkland? Is that what the Minister has in mind in the study that he commissioned in December of 1979? I would think it would be in line with what the Minister had committed himself to in 1977 when he said that he would want to concentrate on intensification of use of parkland. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, the study that has been in progress since 1979 is one that will recommend destination points and the areas of the Province of Manitoba that should be, according to the study. looked at tor development of tourism and recreation in the Province of Manitoba_ When the study comes in we will work with the Parks and Resources Department as to what development would take place if it's in a provincial park_ MR. HANUSCHAK: Yes, will those be the areas then, Mr.

Chairman, within which the Minister will show off his socialist colours in keeping with what he said in the Throne Speech of this year as opposed to. and you will recall, Mr. Chairman. that the Minister said there's been no change in government policy over the past three years despite the fact that 1978 the government said, we must remove all forms of government intervention and intrusion from the pnvate sector and the economic operations of the province? In 1979 he said we are removing government mtrus1on.

In 1980 he said government intrusion has been largely removed_ Then this year, and the Minister. he must have been party to the writing of this series of paragraphs when he said that they do not believe the government can afford to stand back as though what happens in the economy were noi his concern and accordingly they must play an aciive role and support the activities of the pr1vate sector and then they proceed to give examples where they take on an equity interest. etc_ What the Minister had just said about the development of the tourism industry, is that another example of an area wherein the Minister intends to move in and take on an equity interest in the development of the tourism industry?

MR. JOHNSTON: No_ MR. HANUSCHAK: The Minister does not intend to assume an equity interest in the tourism industry. Well then, could the Minister then elaborate a bit just what he does mean? I'm not quite sure that I understand or that the committee really understands what his involvement will be because now if the Minister says no, then it doesn't square with what he said in the Throne Speech. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I don't regard the report of a study which recommends destination areas in the Province of Manitoba as becoming involved in the tourist industry as far as ownership is concerned.

Any development of a destination area would be in the way of roads, hydro, water, and all of the things that government does do and should do in the way of infrastructure to help produce an area that people can enjoy or people may invest in_ The use of the parks would be strictly on the basis of working with the Parks Department. MR. HANUSCHAK: Mr. Chairman, but the Minister was one of those, was party to having said that the government cannot afford to stand back as though what happens in the economy were not its concern.

Now the Minister said that his involvement will only be to the extent of providing hydro services, roads, etc., but if there's nothing at the end of the road then what's the Minister going to do? Is he then going to stand back because he said he won't stand back? The Minister said in the Throne Speech that he won't stand back. So then what is the Minister going to do?

If there's nothing to build a road to, nothing to build a hydro line to, because the private sector with whom the Minister meets quite regularly at the Manitoba Club and the Carleton Club and which likely will close shortly because everybody knows that most of the members of both of the clubs, many of them have left the province and those who are remaining are going bankrupt so they won't be having lunch there any longer_ So what if the private sector does not develop the tourist facilities in those areas? What is the Minister going to do then?

If it does not develop the tourist facilities within which the studies should indicate that there should be tourist facilities developed, what will the Minister do? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I hate to repeat myself but the study will recommend destination areas and also will recommend areas that should be developed to assist the tourism industry and the recreation of the people of the Province of Manitoba_ I would say that if facilities or infrastructure is laid down under the Infrastructure Program which is in the

Section 6, Rural Destination Areas,

Section 3 of the Destination Manitoba Agreement, that's the funds that would be used to look towards developing a destination area for more tourism_ We can't wrestle the private industry into doing it but I assure you that if it's done, that is an incentive for people to invest in the Province of Manitoba. 532

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 MR. HANUSCHAK: Mr. Chairman, we do have a stretch of road in the Whiteshell that leads nowhere at the preset time, does it, Mr. Minister? The famous Jarmoc road and it was built and I would suspect paid for because I don't think that Mr. Jarmoc just spent his own funds on it and it leads to nowhere and if the Minister had been around there he'll find it's grown over by weeds and bushes and so forth. It's unlikely that it'll ever be used. So in the Throne Speech the Minister said that he can't afford to stand back as though what happens in the economy were not his concern.

So I must repeat my question to the Minister. The study will identify areas for development and what if the private sector should let him down as it has by the Minister's own admission in the Throne Speech? It had let him down.

The Minister well remembers back when he was in Opposition, oh yes, we have to have trust and confidence in the private sector, it'll do it's thing and in '78, '79 repeated the same thing and then in 1980, suddenly the Minister and his colleagues realize that, well, the private sector just won't take on some of the risks, won't take on some of the projects which might be socially beneficial and useful but they're not profitable to the private sector and hence they don't. So again I must repeat my question to the Minister.

If your study should indicate that certain areas should be developed and if there should be a reluctance on the part of the private sector to move in there, is the Minister then going to demonstrate his socialist colours which he had shown off, that flim-flam demonstration of socialist colours, to put it in the words of Henry Fielding, the way he liked to describe Robert Walpole, that flim-flam Prime Minister of England at one time. Is the Minister going to move into those areas where the private sector will not move in, where the study may indicate that there should be tourism development?

Or what's going to happen? Is the Minister simply going to say, well, we've built the roads, we put in a hydro line, we've provided water facilities, sewage and so forth, and the private sector doesn't want to take up the offer and complete the development and do its thing, too bad folks - is that what the Minister is going to say? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, the study will give us destination points. The destination points will be examined by the government.

The destination points will also be looked at from the point of view as to the viability and what we feel the tourist traffic would be in the area that we move into. All indications are that Manitoba being what it is with probably more lakes and sand and recreation areas that we have, that would be a definite incentive for people to invest in the tourist industry in the province.

As far as the member saying to me, what are we doing to do to assist the private industry to move in, I have said our assistants would be looking at the development of the destination areas that are recommended, working very closely with the Parks and Resource Department of the province. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, there are a few questions that arose in my mind during this evening's discussion. I would like to touch on them. Firstly, I didn't know that Venture Manitoba which apparently is Gull Harbour comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance.

Has it been that way all along with this government or has Tourism played a role in connection with Gull Harbour? MR. JOHNSTON: It has always been under the Department of Finance and the Tourism Department plays a role by featuring Gull Harbour in its advertising etc., as a tourist attraction. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I can't help but ask the Minister to reflect that always is not always not entirely the Conservative regime. I wonder if he would care to modify that term "always". MR. JOHNSTON: I believe since October of 1977 it has been under the Department of Finance. MR.

CHERNIACK: Is that as part of the Manitoba Development Corporation or as part of the industrial operations of government or is that Venture Manitoba as such comes under Department of Finance and is it still Department of Finance with a new Minister? MR. JOHNSTON: It is still and it does come under the Department of Finance and there's a board appointed by the Minister of Finance to recommend the operation of Gull Harbour Lodge. MR. CHERNIACK: Is it being operated then as a program of government or is it a private enterprise operated by the Minister of Finance? MR. JOHNSTON: It's a program of government.

I don't believe there's any private industry involved in the operation of Gull Harbour. MR. CHERNIACK: I really meant, is it making a profit? Is it expected to make a profit? Is it being subsidized in some way other than by the Minister's department? MR. JOHNSTON: I am informed that it's not recovering debt servicing but it's recovering debt operating costs and I'm informed of that by my Assistant Deputy Minister who sits on the board. I don't sit on the board. He sits on the board that is appointed by the Minister of Finance. I am not completely conversant with the figures on Gull Harbour Lodge. MR.

CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, then it's helpful that we have a member of the board present. The Minister says that it is in some way supported by his department; to what extent, and how much money is involved? MR. JOHNSTON: The support from our department is, as I mentioned, that we feature it in our advertising. We also will recommend, if people who have come to the Tourism Department and asked us about a resort area stay-in, we would recommend Gull Harbour Lodge as one of the places that's available, with it's golf course and all the facilities that are on the island, et cetera. But we do not operate it.

We treat it the same as we would treat any other tourist facility in the province. 533

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 MR. CHERNIACK: That answers that question, Mr. Chairman. I would like to move on to the statistics given by the Minister. I did make note of them but I gather it indicates that there has been an increase in the number of tourists entering Manitoba and a reduction in the dollars spent. Is that a correct statement? MR. JOHNSTON: There was an increase in both people and dollars. MR. CHERNIACK: But there was apparently a reduction in the per capita expenditure then. Is that correct? MR.

JOHNSTON: The total increase in the expenditures was an increase over 1979 of 13.9 percent of dollars spent in the province. The increase in numbers of people was 8.1 percent. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, the point then is that with the inflation factor it would be assumed that there are less hard dollars or less dollars before inflation spent per capita. Is that a correct conclusion from the figures given? MR. JOHNSTON: We have an increase of 13.9 percent in dollars. If the inflation factor was running about 10, we would have an increase of 4 percent in dollars. MR. CHERNIACK: That's helpful.

That means an increase of 4 percent in dollars when you discount for inflation as compared with an increase of 8.9 percent in the numbers of people. Then I think that it is a correct conclusion which the Minister led me to, when he was dealing with one of the other questions that was being answered, that the people are spending. per capita, fewer dollars than they were in the previous year, and on that basis can the Minister explain what has transpired to make that happen? MR. JOHNSTON: I wouldn't think that they were spending an increase per capita.

These are visitors to Manitoba and your sub-total non-resident is up 19.7 percent. If you are referring to the number of people that came to Manitoba, the Americans were up by 9.8. the foreign was up by 1.6, and your foreign people spent ten plus. or 10.6 percent more in 1980 over 1979. and the American tourists spent 21.8 percent more in 1980 over 1979. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I think I am following the figures and since overall we are told that the increase in dollars. after discounting for inflation is 4 percent. and the increase in tourists is 8.9 percent overall, and taking into account the figures the Minister has about the great increase in spending by American tourists, it would suggest that there is a substantial reduction in the dollars spent by Canadian tourists. Is that correct? MR. JOHNSTON: No. just let me clear up the figures to the member. Other Canadians travelling in Manitoba was up 7.5 in numbers. in people. Americans were up 9.8. Foreign was up 1.6.

The other Canadians spent 19.2 percent more dollars than they did in 1979. The Americans spent 21.8 more dollars that they did in 1979. and the foreign spent 10.6 percent more dollars than they did in 1979. Your sub-total of non-resident travellers, which was up 8.1 percent, that's other Canadians, Americans and foreign up 8.1 percent, spent a total of 19.7 more dollars in the province. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister clarify where his figure of 13.9 percent came from? MR. JOHNSTON: That includes Manitobans' spending which was $246,600 in 1979, and $273,479 in 1980 for an increase of 10.9 percent.

It was the spending by Manitobans that was an increase of 10 percent. The out-of-province tourists were well above that. MR. CHERNIACK: That's what I was trying to get at and I appreciate the ... I hope the Minister appreciates the problem I had in getting to this bottom line which we have now. The indication then is that Manitobans spent tourist dollars in Manitoba, less than, and certainly not greater than, the inflation factor. In other words, whatever advertising that took place in this last year that influenced Manitobans to spend money in Manitoba, did nothing unless all it did was to prevent a decline.

I think that's a fair conclusion one has to come to from the figures given. There was a larger increase in dollars spent and in numbers of people from outside of Manitoba than Manitoba itself, which indicates to me the fact that Manitobans indeed are not spending as much money proportionately in Manitoba at least, than are others who come to Manitoba. I don't know whether we can really relate that to the fact that Manitobans have a reduced income compared with other tourists. I don't know whether it also means that the governments impact on its advertising programs relating to Manitobans is having any effect.

If the Minister wants to disagree with what I said I would invite him to do so at this stage. If he doesn't, I'll go on. MR. JOHNSTON: I don't disagree. I do agree that Manitobans are spending more in Manitoba. It may be just the inflationary rate but we are holding our own with Manitobans spending in Manitoba and the number of Manitobans that travel outside the province in 1980 were less than travelled outside the province in 1979.

That's an indication that they are enjoying their own province more than they have been, and our advertising has been encouraging them to spend their tourist dollars in the province or enjoying holidays within the province. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that is not the correct conclusion. The fact seems to be that Manitobans are spending less money in tourism than they have been, other than for the inflation factor that indeed I suspect that Manitobans have less money available for their vacation dollars than they had in the previous year and that the figures given by the Minister indicate that.

They are not spending more in Manitoba than they were in the previous year except for the inflation factor, and they are spending less outside of Manitoba than they did in that year. I am now quoting the Minister, which brings us to the conclusion that they are not spending as much money overall, taking the inflation factor into account. than they were in the previous 534

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 year, which to me indicates that they can't afford to do so to the extent they did before. I think that's a fair assumption and is supported by the mere fact that the government of Manitoba is spending taxpayers' dollars to talk to Manitobans about things that Manitobans know, and I believe know, every bit as well as the people who manufacture the advertisements for which the government is paying. The tackle film, just to touch on that, I think the Minister said that the $10,000 that was paid by Manitoba was not paid in cash. Did I hear him correctly and if so, how was it paid? MR.

JOHNSTON: I am informed that we paid up to $10,000 for the film, hotel expenses, et cetera, for the people who were here producing the film. That was our contribution and for that, as I said, we received the rights for the film in North America and we now have a film that we didn't have before, for $10,000 that's worth $60,000.00. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I listened to this conversation. I don't intend to get into it, but when you say it's worth $60,000, you should say it cost $60,000.00. As to what it's worth to Manitoba has yet to be developed.

The Minister said, and I don't think I am hearing him well, because now I think I heard him say that Manitoba paid $10,000 and paid hotel bills or is it that the hotel bills are in the $10,000.00? MR. JOHNSTON: The hotel bills are in the $10,000.00. MR. CHERNIACK: Well I think then, what the Minister is telling us, and I would hope that he means that the $10,000 was money that was spent, whether it was paid to the tackle company or paid to hotels was spent in Manitoba. I think that's what he is trying to tell us. MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, it was. MR. CHERNIACK: I'm glad that we got that out because it's good to know.

There was some crack made that the microphones we are using were made in Austria, not in Manitoba. At least if that film money was spent partly in Manitoba, that too is good. What are the plans for the use of that film? MR. JOHNSTON: The plans for the use of that film are to be distributed with the Canadian Travel and Tourist Association across Canada, the National Film Board, and it is also planned to make arrangements to show the film in as many places in the United States as we can. MR. CHERNIACK: Does that mean bought time, or opportunities for free use like some convention or other that could be using it?

MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, a convention could use that film. They would have to get our permission to do so but they could use that film and I think it would be a very good use for it. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that it would be a good use for it and I don't know that they really need to get permission, do they? Surely the province would want it to be shown everywhere. I can't conceive of any place where the province would not want it to be shown. I am not that excited about the ownership of the film.

I am much more interested in positive attempts, positive attempts that are being made to exhibit the film and 1 don't know now whether I would want it shown more outside of Manitoba than inside of Manitoba, but at least is there a program for the use of it or is it just being made available to others who may want to distribute it, such as the Film Board or the Canadian Tourist Association or whatever? MR. JOHNSTON: We know it is going to be available to the Film Board for use. We know it's going to be used by the Canadian Travel Association, CGOT. We know also that we will be using it extensively in Manitoba.

The suggestion of the member of conventions, I can't think of a better place to use it than a convention of a lot of people such as the air force convention that was mentioned, to advertise the Province of Manitoba while they're here and possibly take a further trip in Manitoba. The program is being developed as to how we will use it in the United States. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I'm glad the Minister agrees with me that there are good uses that could be put to the film, but as far as I understand from him, the plans have not yet been developed and therefore I would like to know how much money is in this budget for this film. MR. JOHNSTON: We will get that figure for you. It comes under the promotion area. MR. CHERNIACK: While we are getting that figure, I would like to know, the Minister has several times referred to a Cherniack film. Just what is the nature of that film he is talking about?

A distaff side of the Cabinet says it was a porno film, so may I ask her if she saw the film? Did she enjoy the film? MR. JOHNSTON: The film was called Jack's Thing. MR. CHERNIACK: Jack's Thing. And what is it about? It sounds like a porno. What is it about, Mr. Chairman? MR. JOHNSTON: I haven't completely seen the film - I must say that I have not seen the whole film. I believe there were excerpts of that film shown on television but I haven't seen the whole film. The film cost in the neighbourhood of $16,000, the information that I have. I haven't seen it. MR. CHERNIACK: When was it made, Mr. Chairman? MR.

JOHNSTON: I can get the date. Does anybody have the date? In 1973 - it's a twenty-one minute production. It cost $15,750 or $750 a minute, in 1975. The standard costs were $1,000 to $1,500 per minute. The use of our department staff account for the apparent savings. The series of television commercials were taken from the film. I am not just sure how many; when they were used or when they weren't used. It was produced - the operation access where the television shots that came from the 535

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 film was a joint campaign of this department and the Department of Supply and Services Canada. The objective was to increase participation by Manitoba companies in bidding on federal and provincial projects. And as I said in the opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any criticism of any government in Manitoba or any other province or anywhere for working to try and advance the Province of Manitoba. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, how many films were made by the department prior to this Minister's assumption of responsibilities? MR. JOHNSTON: I'm not sure.

I remember another one called Yum Days or Yum Promotion that had some television shots. and again, I don't have any criticism of it. MR. CHERNIACK: I can't help but come to the question that occurred to me the first time I heard the Minister mention the film. Is that the way he wishes to identify that film for descriptive purpose? Is there reason for that? Is that the title of it or why is he using that name? MR. JOHNSTON: That was the title, I'm informed, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHERNIACK: The title of the film is the Cherniack film? MR. JOHNSTON: No, it was Jack's Thing. MR.

CHERNIACK: Why does he refer to it as the Cherniack film? I am just intrigued by that. MR. JOHNSTON: I didn't refer to it as the Cherniack film. MR. CHERNIACK: You, did, Mr .... MR. JOHNSTON: No. I said it was produced by a person in Toronto by the name of Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Why was that, Mr. Minister? MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know why. MR. CHERNIACK: Why did you refer to it in that way? Is there any reason for that? MR. JOHNSTON: Because I would say, Mr.

Chairman, that the films that we have produced since I have been with the department were produced by Manitobans and I think that if we can produce them by Manitobans. fine. except in the case of the film that we have been discussing, we had a proposition made to us by somebody who would produce the film for us. We would have the rights for Canada, for North America. MR. CHERNIACK: The reason the Minister refers to the film as the Cherniack film, or produced by Cherniack . MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I have never referred to the film as the Cherniack film. MR.

CHERNIACK: The reason the Minister refers to the film as being produced by Cherniack is that it's a foreign film. Is that correct? MR. JOHNSTON: No, it's not a foreign film. It was produced in Manitoba. MR. CHERNIACK: It's not produced in Manitoba, so it's foreign to Manitoba, is that correct? MR. JOHNSTON: No, it was produced in Manitoba, I understand. MR. CHERNIACK: It was? Well then what's your problem, what's the Minister's problem? MR. JOHNSTON: I don't have a problem. Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I don't have a problem, it's the member that has a problem. I haven't been critical at all of the film.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can tell you, the Chairman is having trouble. If it is the Chairman's right to introduce each speaker, if someone behind us, because it's going to be just a lot of words and it will take a mindreader downstairs to find out, or a voice detective to know who was speaking. Many times the members are starting to speak with their head turned away from the Chairman and I don't have a dream ... to recognize the person. And maybe also to my Honourable Minister that I don't get signal either and I am going by guess and by God and I'm not guessing so well sometimes.

I think a little co operation or time enough, if it's the Chairman's position to recognize each individual. If we want a little auctioneer ring, fine, I'll go home and you can carry on. I think that would be great but for the purpose that I am here, I believe, to recognize each speaker individually. The Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I must say I have real sympathy with you, but that's part of the job you undertook and we'll try to help you.

I just want to comment to the Minister that I am intrigued by the way he found it advisable in his way to refer to that film, and I certainly marvel at the way he describes that film and not others as to who produced them. Setting that aside, he spoke about the vignettes that the Member for Elmwood referred to, and he said that they were made because the TV station asked for it. Is that correct? MR. JOHNSTON: The TV station informed us that they have, and always do inform us and ask us if we have anything that they can use when they have a free ad - swamped - or what do they call them? PSA's is their title.

They informed us that if we had something that they would put them on in those PSA time slots where they didn't have advertising when we supplied them and they have put them on for nothing. MR. CHERNIACK: I would have to comment that's the most negative form of selling that I can imagine this Minister could be involved in. I should think that he should be knocking at the doors of all of these media outlets and saying please, we have great stuff that you could be using.

Instead of that, the picture I get from him, literally, is that a picture was asked for and he produced it, which seems to me to be contrary to the excited atmosphere that I think was created when the decision was made to pay some 536

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 $60,000-odd for what I think was a propaganda film talking about loving Manitoba. I have to comment that it's quite a different attitude that seems to be displayed by this Minister. . . In view of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that the Mm1ster apparently did not promote the use of these vignettes, but rather complied with a request, may I ask whether there is any way in which the Minister is measuring the value to the province of the use of these vignettes? MR. JOHNSTON: Let's just start at the beginning.

The first occasion when the media approached us saying that they would have these time slots, we produced them. We are now actively working with them to use them as much as possible. As a matter of fact, we would consider producing more, and we have been promoting with the media to use them more since the first occasion when we used them. The value to the province - I can only say is that our tourism figures are up. The vignettes have been shown as far as BC and into Ontario. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I know it's very difficult to measure the value of advertising, but I ask the Minister if he has any way in which to measure the value of the vignettes. His answer was, the measure is that there is more money being spent in tourism. Does that mean that the vignettes are the cause for that? MR. JOHNSTON: Not entirely, we have other promotional work that we do in the Tourism Department to promote tourism in the province. The vignette advertising on tourism is not the only one by any stretch of the imagination. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, how does a Minister then discriminate in his mind between better or poorer forms of advertising for which he pays if he has only one overall standard and that is whether the tourist dollars are up or down? MR. JOHNSTON: We analyze very closely the reasons why tourists come to the province. We know that the biggest tourist attraction from outside the province are the states just to the south of us. We know that they come for - the main reason is shopping. We know that they come for the fishing. We know what they come to Manitoba for by the surveys that we do. We then design our advertising around that.

The vignettes are part of it. The promotions that we have down at sportsman shows where we have our booths. We have had occasion to have promotion days in shopping centres in the malls to the south of .ows. They are all part of the tourism advertising program, the same as we have tourism advertising in magazines, etcetera, across the country. It's all part of a large promotion which is designed on the basis of the research that we do as to where the tourists come from. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, the Minister's statement confirms to me what I thought and that is that the best way you decide how to spend dollars is to find out why people would come here and then cater to that desire, but it also confirms to me that there is no way that this Minister has of measuring one form of advertising against another. He doesn't do polls or studies on what type of advertising brought people here, but it's really a guesswork, I should think, at least I am left with that impression from what he said.

May I ask him if we in the Opposition we're able to persuade his Treasury Board to give him double of a budget, another million dollars, what kind of increased tourism dollars would we have as a result? MR. JOHNSTON: I can't answer that. I could only answer that this way, that in 1970, we had 300,000 people travelling within the Province of Manitoba. In 1973 it got up to 350,000. The number of dollars spent in 1970 was in the area of $600,000 and went on up in 1974 to approximately a little under $800,000.00. So in 1974 when the figure was high, the tourists were high.

From 1974 down to 1978 the expenditure on dollars stopped during that time and the amount of money went down during that time and in 1974 when the money stopped the number of people went down. When we started to do a promotion campaign, spending more money on promotion, which moved up as the graph shows, the number of tourists moved up accordingly. The graph definitely follows the expenditures versus the number of people, and I think you'll find that that same graph is available in most provinces.

In most areas of North America that we know of promotion has to be done in order to have a tourist industry within your province. MR. CHERNIACK: I have to comment that this is the most simplistic analysis I think I've ever heard and is probably an ad man's dream, if he can sell his customer on that basis I think he's really got a sucker by that tackle that Mr. Shakespeare is producing. Because, Mr.

Chairman, if you don't take into account unemployment; if you don't take into account exchange of all things, exchange rates between US and Canadian dollars and European currency and Canadian; if you don't take into account the cost of travel say for Americans to other continents as being a factor in measuring the tourist dollars that come into Manitoba, and if you relate it only to the number of dollars spent, which is what the Minister - well he didn't try he told us he did relate it. Well then, Mr.

Chairman, I think that the government is being absolutely foolish and this Minister is doing a pretty poor job not to double his Budget and therefore double the amount of dollars that come flowing into the province by way of tourism. I'm just shocked that he would try to sell, I think he's selling a bill of goods which I don't think we're buying - 1 don't know who else would buy that, that kind of graph relationship.

But truly if he believes it then I don't see how he can not get a much bigger budget for his needs, because he can show easily that tourism, which is one of the best industrial incentive dollars that can come into a province, a generator in great numbers, would be a tremendous investment. Talk about investing in immediate returns, he relates it year by year, he doesn't even spread it out over a year or two or three when the impact of advertising would take effect. I just have to say that if he is right in this simplistic approach, then why isn't he asking for much more money? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, the member can call the approach whatever he likes, the graph is not 537

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 fudged figures. the graph is actual figures, they don't come from any ad agency, they come from our department. which comes from Statistics Canada and the federal travel group. The budget for the department is up by $600,000 over last year which is approximately 10 percent. We felt that our program that we're presenting this year is what we could handle this year. We didn't get everything we asked for, but it is up. MR. CHERNIACK: I just want the Minister to know I'm not challenging the figures which he produced. I'm challenging the simplistic approach to the

interpretation of the figures, which I think is a, I can't say kindergarten approach but it's pretty, pretty primary -(Interjection)- Mickey Mouse approach - that's a good term. It seems to me I've heard that phrase used by others. A 10 percent increase is a very small amount, incidentally I don't quite see it as 10 percent. In any event, that's minor, I may not be seeing the correct figures, it looks to be less than that.

In any event, he says that he asked for more and couldn't get it and he's the man who's trying to sell Manitoba to others when he can't sell his own department's endeavours to his own colleagues, and on the basis of that yardstick it is I think an indication that he hasn't been paying enough attention to the industry, which is one of the really good industries that the province could have to take care of all the secondary income families who really need to be involved in earning money in the service industry. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(f)(4)(

a) pass; 2.(f)(4)(

b) pass.

Be it resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $18,980,400 for Economic Development and Tourism pass. MR. EVANS: What figures are you reading? MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 49, $18,980,400.00. MR. EVANS: Oh up here I see, Resolution 49. MR. CHAIRMAN: Pass. MR. HANUSCHAK: Honourable members, if the Minister would want we could deal with the main item. which is his salary, tomorrow. MR. JOHNSTON: Well I'm quite willing to deal with it tonight. Mr. Chairman, if the members want to carry on. MR. CHAIRMAN: If it's the wish of the Committee then we return to the Minister's Salary. The Member for St.

Johns. MR. CHI:RNIACK: I wonder if I could ask you, Mr. Chairman. or rather ask the Committee through you how long it is expected that this last item will take. Mr. Galbraith said he's willing to stay on. I'm wondering how long he's willing to stay on then. That might be helpful in knowing how we're going to deal. Mr. Galbraith said it's up to me, I suppose he means it's up to us. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we indicate that there are quite a few items we would want to review under Salary, whether that would mean to him that there's not much point continuing at this hour.

In other words, I believe there would be a fair amount of time that we would want to spend on the Salary. Under those circumstances would it not be sensible to adjourn now? I raise the question. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman's at the mercy of the Committee and the Minister I guess. MR. JOHNSTON: If there's going to be a lot of long, detailed discussion on the Salary it's no consequence to me whether it's tonight or tomorrow morning. I thought it would be good to finish up the Estimates. If the honourable members don't want to it's entirely up to them. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Brandon East. MR.

EVANS: The Member for Elmwood was under the understanding that when we finistied this side then we would adjourn and then he was going to be prepared to talk on the Minister's Salary tomorrow. We were rather expeditious on this last item. We could be going on for another hour on the last item but we didn't. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, as I said it doesn't matter to me. I only looked at the clock, it's only 10:30; if we were going to go a long time we can adjourn, if we were going to be able to finish it up in a reasonable time we could carry on.

If the members are indicating that they want to take a long time, we can adjourn. MR. CHERNIACK: I move Committee rise, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rise. SUPPLY - AGRICULTURE MR. CHAIRMAN, Albert Driedger (Emerson): I call the committee to order. For consideration of the committee, Resolution No. 10, Item (f)

(3) Agricultural Societies pass; (g)( 1) Communications Branch pass. The Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the Communications Branch there have been some changes made in terms of the department's media presentations. I understand that even, if I am not mistaken, the department won some awards for its media presentations within the last year in the participation of staff. I wonder if the Minister can indicate what has happened within the department in terms of its presentations and media programs. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. JAMES E.

DOWNEY (Arthur): Maybe the member could be more specific in what he is referring to, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister is not aware of any progress within the department, then I really have no further comments. It was under the understanding that the department itself, I understand, was quite involved in expanding its whole media presence within government in terms of the Department of Agriculture and had some 538

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 recognition from some of the media industry. That's what I am led to believe. I'm not certain, Mr. Chairman, I thought the Minister would be more aware of what is happening and tell us - (Interjection) MR. DOWNEY: I don't know of any specific awards that the member is talking about. If there is more visibility from the Communications Branch, I guess it would be because of the efforts that are put in from that particular branch of the department.

They are responsible for providing information to the farm community both through the media of electonic media, some of the work that I can refer of course or Weeds '81 Program which we have discussed in some of the other debates. As well the Rapeseed '80 Course was provided last year and delivered by the Communications Branch and a lot of hard work has gone into it with the staff in that department. Again, I am satisfied that they are carrying out their duties in a responsible manner and if the Member for St. George wants to give a special recognition to them, I"m sure they would be quite prepared to accept it.

MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the Estimates in terms of the increases, this area has gone up fairly substantially in terms of the increase. Could the Minister indicate what changes there are within the media spending and what is the thrust of the program for the coming year? MR. DOWNEY: Basically, Mr.

Chairman, it's a matter of an increase to look after some of the multi media short courses that are being provided throughout the department or delivered by that division of the department; an update, an increase in the publications that are provided within the department for crop recommendations and that type of updating of publications; and an increase in the amount of money that's available for TV and radio information to be provided for the farm community. Those are the basic areas that there is some increase. MR. URUSKI: Could the Minister be more specific as to what we are talking about?

For example, could he give us the costs of the Rapeseed '80 study that was implemented? I know there was a fee of some $10 per participant. What was the cost of the program in terms of preparing it, mailing it out and the entire cost, Mr. Chairman? I'd like the Minister to give me a breakdown of what percentage of the Budget or what amount of the Budget goes for radio, television, what kind of productions. What is the area in terms of production? He probably has some idea of the programming that will go on. I'd like some indication from him. MR. DOWNEY: On the Rapeseed '80 Course that was provided last year, Mr.

Chairman, there was a cost to the department of some $77,800 but there was a revenue recovery of some 24.6. So the actual cost to the department was the difference in that amount. The Weeds '80-'81 Program that's being proposed, there is a program that's costing $48,000 and an estimated recovery of some $45,000, so it's coming into a position where it would pretty well carry itself. As far as the other work that is being done, there is some work being done with Country Comment and there is money going into Radio of some $4,000 in that area, as well as Consumer Update in the same expenses.

Ongoing news and press work that is being done, there is some $19,000 being spent there. Farm Scene and Television Time, some $30,000 and then there is some film production on special events, some $5,000.00. So that is basically the main breakdown, Mr. Chairman, within the Communications Branch. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How many staff would be involved in the Communications Branch? MR. DOWNEY: Sixteen, Mr. Chairman, just over 16 staff man years. No, there are two vacant positions in that complement, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: (g)(1) pass; (g)(2) pass; (

g) pass; (hX1) pass; (hX2) pass; (

h) pass. The Member for St. George on (hX2). MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman. could the Minister give us the breakdown of the Canada-Manitoba NORTHLANDS Agreement in terms of what do those funds - although they are all recoverable from Northern Affairs - could the Minister indicate what they are for? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, basically the two main programs in the Northern Agriculture, one of them is Northern Horticulture or Northern Gardening which is a fairly important program in the northern parts of the province plus a northern 4-H and Youth Program which I think is also an important program to provide for the people in Northern Manitoba as it's demonstrated its success throughout a lot of the agricultural communities that the same kind of work and results I'm sure can be obtained or achieved working in the northern communities as well. MR. CHAIRMAN: (hX2) pass. The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, could the Minister give us an indication of the extent of involvement in Northern Manitoba in the 4-H movement? Is it primarily in the agriculturally related areas in and around The Pas and the like or what areas are involved in the 4-H Program? MR. DOWNEY: Basically the 4-H in Northern Manitoba, there are principally four communities, Thompson, Gillam, The Pas and Flin Flon. There are also four more remote communities that have the program offered, Grand Rapids, Leaf Rapids, Pukatawagan. and Shamattawa, Mr. Chairman, are the communities.

The numbers of members in both urban and remote communities in 1978-79 were 300 and there's been an increase in the 1979-80 to 310 so there is some indication that they in fact are taking advantage of it and the small increase. MR. CHAIRMAN: (hX2) pass. The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In terms of personnel involved in both those programs could the Minister indicate the numbers; is that three or four staff man years or what's involved in there? 539

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the staff complement remains the same, it's just over five staff man years in both programs, to cover both programs. Yes, just over five staff man years for the two programs. MR. CHAIRMAN: (h)(2) pass; (h)(3) pass; (

h) pass. Resolution 10. Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $8,762,000 for Agriculture. Agriculture Production Division, $8.762,000 pass. The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Yes, Mr. Chairman. You will recall earlier this afternoon in the discussion dealing with the Hay Program, your colleague, the Member for Radisson indicated that he would not want debate carried on in that particular

section and he wanted me to raise the point dealing with the canary seed for hay at the end of the resolution, Mr. Chairman, and that's the reason that I am raising this matter at this time. I wanted to find out from the Minister at the time the extent that the Minister would be prepared to review the program. He kept hinting back that if there was a hardship then he would be prepared to hardship caused by the program.

I want to ask the Minister whether there were any other types of grasses of an annual nature that were excluded from the program in terms of being - (Interjection)- cannabis, the Minister of Finance is hinting at. Mr. Chairman, any other feeds that would have been excluded by the department from the program. Can the Minister indicate whether there has been any other exclusions besides this one? MR. DOWNEY: The first part of the question, Mr. Chairman. to what extent am I prepared to review the particular case that he refers to.

I'm not prepared to commit tonight that we're going to make a change in what is . . . with that specific individual at this particular time. However I'm prepared to have staff assure me that there isn't any hardship, No. 1, and No. 2, if it falls within the same kind of a feed category as other crops that were allowed, then consideration will be given to it but I'm not going to say tonight that I will change my decision on it but I will give it a full and honest review. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 10 pass. The Member for St. George, on what item, please? MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, we're still on that same item that I left back. MR. CHAIRMAN: Which item was that? MR. URUSKI: No. 10. Mr. Chairman, dealing with the hay situation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Which item would that be, the Member for St. George. please? MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman. the item that was dealt with was dealt with under (

d) Soils and Crops. The item was left over for the Minister to provide certain information and it was not done so. We had passed the item the previous night and we started debate on it today even though the item had been passed. Your colleague. Mr. Chairman. indicated that rather than proceed with the discussion that we should really leave it till the end of the entire section. That is the reason why I have done so, Mr. Chairman, and that's why I'm asking further questions of the Minister of Agriculture. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rock Lake on a point of order. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON: Mr.

Chairman, on a point of order. Would that item that the Member for St. George is talking about not come under Drought Relief Program? Is that what he's talking about, is a canary seed to qualify for the Greenfeed Program? I heard him mention the Greenfeed Program. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the Member for Rock Lake doesn't have a point of order. The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We probably can finish it off . . .

I asked the Minister whether the Minister will be prepared to notify myself, and further to the letter that we have received from his Assistant Deputy with respect to the decision rendered at this point in time. Can I get that undertaking from the Minister? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, first of all, there was a commitment to the honourable member that we would have an opportunity to debate it at the closing of this resolution and he is correct. I have provided him with the numbers that I have.

Any further information that is available comparing the crops that were made available for the Greenfeed Program or that qualified, I'm prepared to provide that information to him. It's just a matter of a technical report on the value of feed crops and if there is anything further, I would like him to identify those types of information that he requires. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I ask the Minister then, Mr. Chairman, whether or not there have been other grasses commonly utilized in production, annual grass seeds in Manitoba, that were excluded from qualifying for the Greenfeed Program? MR.

DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, all the perennials, the alfalfas, they were excluded from the program. It was an annual seeded crops that basically qualified; flax, sunflowers, did not qualify for the Greenfeed Program. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 10. MR. DOWNEY: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. DOWNEY: I should clarify myself. Sunflowers were included for silage purposes but not for hay. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Then basically all the annual crops that would normally be grown, with the exception of this seed, would have been generally qualifying with the exception of flax where we know the flax seed is not edible in terms of cattle feed but all other coarse grains and grass seeds, the perennial grass seeds, we know that none of them were included in the program, that was 540

Tuesday, 10 February, 1981 natural, so this one would be the exception rather than the rule then. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 10 pass; Resolution 11, Item 5, Regional Agricultural Extension, 5(aX1) pass. The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the Agricultural Department, there is some 30 percent increase in salaries through the program. I think he indicated he indicated that he was hiring a number of extra Ag Reps or what is the extent of the change, Mr. Chairman? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, the basic reason for the increase is an introduction or the inclusion in the Estimates are for an additional number of Assistant Ag Reps to be placed throughout rural Manitoba. However the number of staff positions remain the same for the coming year, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: (a)(1) pass. The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the increase is some approximately a quarter-of-a-million dollars, approximately a 25 percent increase in terms of salaries. Is that to take into account the annual increments that may be expected, Mr. Chairman, and no change in staff? MR.

DOWNEY: That's correct, Mr. Chairman, generally a salary increase is a general increment increases that they get on an annual basis. MR. URUSKI: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Are there any new offices being established within the Province of Manitoba with respect to Agricultural Representatives being located? Are there any changes in local offices and the like? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there have been some Assistant Ag Reps placed throughout Manitoba as well as the additional increase in one Ag Rep office, the Ag Rep office is in Dugald where they haven't had an Agriculture Representative on a permanent basis.

They now have one in Dugald, Assistant Ag Rep offices in Swan River, Portage, Minnedosa, Ethelbert, and Deloraine, Manitoba, the areas that will be now getting Assistant Ag Rep positions in those towns. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, those would have been already established offices where assistants are now being put in. Are there any other transfers of staff or new offices being opened up other than Dugald? I think he mentioned Dugald as being a new office. MR. DOWNEY: The two new offices with assistant ag reps, Mr. Chairman, are Deloraine and Ethelbert. MR.

URUSKI: As I understand it, those would be new offices with assistant ag reps there and they would be working with adjoining ag reps. I thank the Minister, Mr. Chairman, for that information. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Roblin. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to congratulate the Honourable Minister of Agriculture for having placed an assistant ag rep in Ethelbert, a position that is long overdue.

Those people have been waiting for many many years for that position and I'm pleased to know that it's a bee specialist that's going in there, so the people of Ethelbert and the surrounding areas of Grandview and Gilbert Plains are indeed most pleased for a service that's been waiting for many many years. MR. CHAIRMAN: (a)(1) pass; (a)(2) pass; (

a) pass; 5.(bX1) pass. The Member for St. George. I'm sorry; The Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. JUNE WESTBURY: Thank you, I'm not surprised that you didn't expect to see me standing. Mr. Chair, through you to the Minister, I understand from my advisors that recently two regional agronomists assigned to the job of assessing implications of subdivision applications on agricultural interests have resigned and have not been replaced.

Does the Budget make provision for the Minister to make a contribution to land use planning by municipalities in their planning districts by hiring competent individuals to fill these positions and will the Minister in fact be having these positions filled as soon as possible? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, it will be our intent to proceed to fill the positions that are vacated by the agronomists. I'm aware of one retirement, a recent retirement, but there will be a filling of those positions as quickly as the bulleting process takes place and hiring can take place.

There will be input into the changes in land use that may occur and they will be supportive of helping RMs or municipalities make those decisions that are important to them. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(bX1) pass. The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the regional production specialists, Mr. Chairman, is there any change in staffing in that area? MR. DOWNEY: No, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(b). The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, can the Minister give us the breakout of staff on a regional basis that he has?

What type of specialists are there and where are they situated? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Regional production specialists in the northwest region, we have 11; in the southwest region, there are 12; the central region, 14.26 staff man years; in the eastern region, 10; and in the interlake region, just about 10- and-a-half, 10.42 staff man years. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The staff that are within that, would that include the agronomists that my colleague, the Member for Fort Rouge, has been speaking about or are they in the district office administration end of the specialists? MR.

DOWNEY: They, Mr. Chairman, are in the regiona

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-5-15b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 5th hansardpdf 15b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e293802f5a934eb54acb9c52484519da1845548e

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).