[ Page 5059 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

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

Government video production studio. Mrs. Dailly –– 5060

Mr. Cocke –– 5060

Mr. Lea –– 5060

Colenutt case. Mr. Macdonald –– 5061

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

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

On vote 183: minister's office –– 5061

Mr. Hall

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Lea

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Barber

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Lauk

On the amendment to vote 183 –– 5082

Hon. Mrs. Jordan

Appendix –– 5083

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today is Mrs. Ruth Harkins, who was from the interior and now lives in Victoria. She is accompanied by her granddaughter, Mrs. Kate Crowcroft, and Mr. Tom Bonar. I'd like the members to make them welcome.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the Minister of Transportation and Highways in welcoming Ruth Harkins, who was a resident of Revelstoke for many years. It is my understanding that Mr. Bonar was one of the early organizers for the IWA in the province of British Columbia. I believe they deserve a special welcome this day.

Also in the gallery are Mr. and Mrs. Stan Manning, also longtime residents of the city of Revelstoke and now residents of Victoria. Accompanying them are Mr. and Mrs. Jack Gould from the large city of Nakusp in the interior. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Additionally — this is Revelstoke day — we have in the gallery Mr. and Mrs. Murray MacQuarrie, who are on a short visit to Victoria. I would ask the House to welcome them also.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are 16 grade 12 students from Delta Secondary School, with their teacher Mrs. Pat Rogers. With them are 16 guests from the province of Quebec, with their teacher Madeleine Renaud. I would ask the House to extend a beautiful British Columbia welcome to all these fine people.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, with us in the gallery this afternoon are Mr. Nizar Damji, vice-president of the Aap Ki Mehfil Cultural Society, and his son Tehraz, who is 12 years of age. With them are the vice-president of that society, Sushma Sardana, and her son Sudhir Datta, who is six years of age. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM: A good friend and former constituent of Maple Ridge is in the gallery today. I ask the House to welcome Mr. Maxwell Tracy, now of Victoria.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a series of three introductions today. Meeting with our caucus today and now in the precinct are a group of directors from the Western Agricultural Conference, who made a very interesting presentation to our caucus this morning.

Also in the precincts — this has been agricultural day for our caucus — are the directors of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, who presented a brief to our caucus this morning.

Third and last, also visiting in the precincts today — this time from Cowichan-Malahat — are a group of grade 5 and 6 students from Alexander School, together with their teachers and chaperones.

I would ask the House to welcome all three groups.

MR. STRACHAN: Visiting with us today is a very good friend of mine and a constituent. He is one of Prince George's notable golfers and barber-shop singers. I'd like the House to welcome G. Wallace Moffat.

Oral Questions

B.C. SYSTEMS CORPORATION

MR. LEVI: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the B.C. Systems Corporation. In a status report on February 27, 1981, dealing with a proposed building in Saanich, the B.C. Systems Corporation stated in part of that report: "As a result of our decision not to continue the project with BCBC as consultant managers and a subsequent change in approach to the project, the request for a proposal document has been substantially rewritten." Can the minister tell the House why it is the B.C. Systems Corporation has fired the B.C. Buildings Corporation, who were to be the production managers of that project?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member was rather quiet spoken in the middle part of his question, but I think I heard all of it. I don't believe it is correct to say that B.C. Buildings Corporation was fired, but rather that the decision has been taken by the board of directors of the B.C. Systems Corporation to proceed with the construction of this building without utilizing BCBC. I'm sure it's not lost on the member, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very significant difference there.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I'm informed that there was a very serious problem between BCBC and B.C. Systems Corporation in the nature of the rug-ranking problem — the size of offices for high officials versus the size of rugs for low officials and general standards. I want to ask the minister what the policy is then of the B.C. Systems Corporation in respect to utilizing the B.C. Buildings Corporation, which was set up not only to accommodate ministries but also agencies of the Crown? Do they not have a policy in which they go through the B.C. Systems Corporation, and what expertise do they have to do this?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is the intention of the board at this early stage.... Again I think it is important to indicate that this is not a matter which is to be settled within the next two weeks, a month or six weeks. It is the intention of the B.C. Systems Corporation with respect to the proposed new building in the municipality of Saanich to invite proposals. Beyond that I think it would be seeking into government policy. I emphasize to the member that this is the very early stage of planning a new headquarters building for the British Columbia Systems Corporation in the capital region of British Columbia.

MR. LEVI: With respect to what the minister said, Mr. Speaker, that they're now putting forward proposals, they have, in fact, on March 27 circulated those proposals. The Architectural Institute of British Columbia on March 27 circulated the following memorandum to all of the architects in British Columbia, and it says: "All firms are hereby notified that the British Columbia Systems Corporation's request for proposals, dated March 25, 1981, is not approved as an architectural competition, and no firm should respond with a proposal unless notified further." My question to the minister is: given the attitude of the Architectural Institute, has the minister decided what they're going to do now, if he is, in fact, aware of what the architects' stand is on this?

[ Page 5060 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, to answer the last part of the question first, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, yes, I was made aware of the decision taken and circulated on March 27 — several days ago — by the Architectural Institute of British Columbia. I won't comment on the appropriateness of that decision because that, frankly, is not for me to say.

Nonetheless, in the coming days I intend to discuss that particular aspect of the proposal to construct a new building with the chairman and those directors of the B.C. Systems Corporation with whom I can make contact. In asking the question, the member knows quite well that the announcement of the decision taken by the architects in British Columbia was just a very few days ago.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Can the minister tell the House if he's had any discussions with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, as to why BCBC was fired from its position as construction manager with respect to the new building that's going up in Saanich? Have you had any discussions at all with your colleague? This is a $30 million building.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I have many discussions with my colleague. On that particular matter I would have to investigate further to understand. I'm not aware of a decision having been made.

MR. LEVI: As the minister responsible for the B.C. Buildings Corporation, can the minister tell the House what is his policy and BCBC policy in respect to doing the work required by ministers and Crown agencies if the Crown agency turns around and says: "We don't want to use you"? Do you not have a policy that everybody goes through the B.C. Buildings Corporation? That's what the act says. Does that policy not operate? That's a very serious matter. They have nobody to build the building at the moment. BCBC is the agency that builds the buildings. What's the policy, Mr. Minister?

GOVERNMENT VIDEO PRODUCTION STUDIO

MRS. DAILLY: A question to the Provincial Secretary: can the minister confirm that steps have been taken to transfer control of the government's $650,000 per year television studio on Blanshard Street to the minister's public relations deputy, Mr. Heal?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that in the coming year's estimates the transfer of that responsibility and administration of it now falls within the ministry of the Provincial Secretary, rather than, as heretofore, under the Ministry of Health.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister said it all. This is a question to that minister, the Provincial Secretary: in view of the fact that the provincial TV centre has always been a health promotion centre and used for the same, has the minister discussed with Mr. Heal statements recently attributed to him, the deputy minister, that the TV studio will produce video tape news stories to be handed to the news media?

HON. MR. WOLFE: First of all, since this ministry has responsibility for all government services, I think it's quite appropriate that we coordinate and consolidate activities of that kind within the other obligations this ministry has having to do with public information. With regard to the preparation of television materials, I think that's no different than the preparation of materials through the printed media which are necessary for providing the people of British Columbia with information on government programs.

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

Interjection.

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

Does the government's decision to set up its own electronic news service reflect a request for this from the news media in the province? Are they inadequate?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The only request there has been is from the people of this province who want better and more current information on programs and policies. I might say that all we're talking about is the consolidation within this ministry of a facility which has been in existence since the building in which it's housed was established.

MR. COCKE: I would like a two-part answer for this one. Does it reflect the government's own concern over favourable news coverage? Also, I wonder whether there were many requests, and what form those requests from the public took. Was it letters? Postcards? Wires? Telephone calls? How does the minister know that the public demands his own bias of the news?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The member well knows that every member of this House receives requests for more information. Every member of this House needs to disseminate answers to people's questions. So the answer to this question is that thousands of requests to provide government information are repeatedly being made.

MR. LEA: My question is to the Provincial Secretary. Can the Provincial Secretary confirm that Mr. Hugh Harris also attended the convention at Harrison Hot Springs that Mr. Heal attended?

MR. SPEAKER: This would appear to be beyond the administrative responsibility of the minister. Perhaps the next question will clarify the question.

MR. LEA: Can the minister confirm that, flowing out of the Harrison Hot Springs meeting, Mr. Heal is arranging to air three prime-time ministerial specials, one of which is a film featuring the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), and that it is the government's plan to air this first film during the Kamloops by-election?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, I cannot confirm that, except to say that I'm sure it would be worthwhile for that information service to provide full information on energy programs which are being developed by this government.

[ Page 5061 ]

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

COLENUTT CASE

MR. MACDONALD: My question is to the Attorney-General. In connection with the complaint of Mr. J.C.R. Colenutt against a justice of the peace, L.G. Kennedy, does the Attorney-General now know that Chief Judge Goulet has advised Mr. Colenutt that his investigation is completed?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Perhaps I can answer the member's question and also anticipate his supplementary. Yes, I now know that the chief judge has made a second review of the matter. I have asked the chief judge if he would provide me with a report on the complaint and the basis on which he has decided to reject it.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary, has the Attorney-General not inquired as to who ordered a psychiatric examination of Mr. Colenutt while he was in custody and handcuffed, prior to his appearance before a judge?

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

MR. MACDONALD: Is the Attorney-General not aware that this so-called investigation was in private and that the investigator never spoke with Mr. Colenutt? Is this the kind of thing he's going to continue: private investigations where the person doesn't know what the evidence before the investigator was? He was simply arrested in the morning and told it's all right. Are you going to make a public inquiry into some of these matters in your own department?

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In the House yesterday I was asked a question by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), and I request leave of the House to answer now. I didn't want to waste time in question period to do so.

Leave granted.

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yesterday the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody asked me a question about contracts that had been let for the construction of access roads along the right-of-way of the proposed Anzac spur line. I'm almost embarrassed to say to the House that the member was wrong again. He's always been wrong, wrong every time.

Anyway, I'm pleased to advise the House and the hon. member that the granting of such contracts are the responsibility of the great British Columbia Railway. The British Columbia Railway has granted a main contract to a company called Portage Mountain Enterprises Ltd., which is a British Columbia company, and the first subcontract let by Portage Mountain Contractors was to a company known as Coal Valley Industries Ltd. I'm advised that Coal Valley Industries Ltd. is a British Columbia company with a registered office in the great city of Dawson Creek, and not an Alberta company at all.

MR. LEGGATT: I never said it was.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The subcontracts in question are for access roads to the two camps: one at the Skunk River employing 10 individuals and the other at Table River employing 11 other individuals. I also want to inform the House and the member for Coquitlam-Moody that from the best information I've been able to obtain — it's fairly accurate as usual and has come directly from British Columbia officials on the site as well as from the prime contractor — all of the individuals involved are either from Chetwynd, Dawson Creek or Prince George.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM
(continued)

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

MR. HALL: Yesterday on a couple of occasions I asked the minister a question regarding the employment and remuneration details of a young lady who had joined her team in Toronto during a period of time which included March 25. Although I got two fulsome replies — both of which included details of the young lady's prowess and future potential and all of which we heartily endorse on this side — a fairly detailed search of the Blues indicate that we still didn't get an answer about the salary, expenses or, indeed, in what capacity the lady was employed. Without going into it in any great detail, my question was simply: was Ms. Sorensen given an honorarium? I understand from one comment I found in the Blues that her air fare was paid, which is fine. Was she given an honorarium for a performance? Is she on contract with us, and what is her future use to be? I wonder if we could clear up that item in terms of yesterday's material.

I spent some time yesterday dealing with staff, and the reason I think the House should know is that we on this side have some difficulty dealing with staff questions, because the format of the estimates has been changed — and I think for the worse. There was a time when, for instance, ministers' offices contained details about the staff that were employed in the ministers' offices. I think that is the first place where full accountability should be seen and recorded. I think there has been a sloppy practice developed — probably by the previous Minister of Finance — in lumping all staff together, including the minister of the ministry. We see, for instance, in this vote 183 that there are just seven people with a gross salary of $141,531. At one time that was broken down so that we had some kind of compatibility between what happened, first of all, from one year to another and what was happening be-

[ Page 5062 ]

tween ministerial offices. We in opposition had some idea of what was going on and how we could judge performance and detect, measure and compare movement. That's not been the case for some years now since this new government has taken over. I think it's a mistake, and one which I would ask that the new Minister of Finance look up and quite simply add as an addendum to that....

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

HON. MRS. JORDAN: With respect to the hon. member for Surrey, I want to do my best to answer questions under the votes that relate to my administration, but I think you'll agree that he's talking about an area that is not within my jurisdiction. That's the Minister of Finance, and I can't speak for him.

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

MR. HALL: One can hardly discuss the administrative responsibilities of the minister without knowing what kind of staff she's got. The only way one can find out what kind of staff she's got is to be told. If we're not told, we have to find out. We have to discuss and debate why we're not told, and how difficult it is to find out. For instance, on March 20, nearly three weeks ago, I asked if the government would be kind enough to tell us who is involved in every one of the ministerial votes. Question 21 on the order paper, for instance, could have been answered by any competent administration and competent minister — 20 of them presumably over there — within a few days. I look at the cost of computer services, which come under the general administrative capacity of this ministry in her department. She could have answered that question or have helped the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) answer it.

How are we to judge administrative responsibility without getting any of the details of staff? I illustrated yesterday how difficult it is to keep up with minister's staff. I think we could do the same thing for other ministers too. I think that just putting a total number of seven and a gross figure of $141,530 is simply not good enough.

The answer to her question earlier today during question period would also prompt me to ask, in view of the newfound delight of the government in film-making, whether or not, in terms of the minister's administrative responsibility under this vote, she is contemplating letting loose all of her activities as a film-maker to the public relations deputy and the Provincial Secretary, seeing that very important part of her portfolio handed over to another government department. Apparently that's a government service. In the eyes of the answerer of the question at a quarter past two today, there seems to be a collection and a gathering together of those kinds of services. There are very expensive studio facilities; people are being hired. I'm wondering whether the only other branch of government which has had anything to do with that over the years, which is found under the Ministry of Tourism, is involved in that at all.

Going on, I have a number of questions. The Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia has been writing to the minister. I ask the minister if she would now like to tell us if she's made any response at all to that industry in terms of their problems with the tourism program this summer in light of the imposition of the room tax and the fact that the imposition of that room tax is going to mean a great deal of hardship for tour operators who are selling British Columbia to tourists. The tour operators themselves will have to absorb the difference between the advertised and contracted price and the new price. While the minister's first answers during budget debate were that she couldn't telegraph her punches or allow the tax items to come out before the budget — I prefixed my question to her by saying that I understood that — I do notice that the accommodation guide of the ministry was kept back from printing until well after the budget was out. There must have been some general knowledge about it. I'm wondering whether or not the minister could answer the question as to whether she's now developed some assistance, some programs, some response and some ease for the people who have come to her regarding in that question.

The second question I have is that a number of studies — I mentioned these yesterday — have been funded by TIDSA, but have still not been released. I wonder if there's been some delay in printing or whether there's something that should trouble us or we should know about on this side as to why they've not been released. It seems to me that industry should have the benefit of those studies so they can get on in determining and helping to determine some long-range tourism strategy for the province. The regional long-term tourism strategy isn't available to people who are vitally concerned in the industry, and I'm sure they would enjoy being engaged in debate upon that — particularly some of the regions the minister mentioned in her opening remarks.

Another question would be about the curtailment of the reservation system on B.C. Rail and if she's had any complaints about that and if there's anything she might be able to do to help the tourist industry overcome the problems which have developed from that, let alone the reduced scheduling, which must have disappointed those who were indeed trying to support her in her efforts to get good tourism promotion going in the regions served by B.C. Rail. I notice too that the associations I've mentioned had been writing to the Premier and the Minister of Finance about the same matter. Perhaps the minister could report back to the House during this committee on that.

I have a couple of other questions. The Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia has developed a policy paper. On this side of the House we've had a number of pleasant meetings with this association. I wonder whether the minister has officially met with the association. I just don't know. That's an interrogation. The Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia is a fairly new association. I have here its articles of incorporation. A five-point program was set up last year. I understand a policy statement was issued by that association recently. I wonder whether the minister has met with them.

Going back to the room-tax question, I suppose in some ways it is not within the administrative capacity or responsibilities of the minister. It is interesting to note that the tourism grants from this ministry have for the last six years been within half a percent of exact comparability. If you want to express those grants as a percentage of the revenue of the budget, I wonder whether the minister has any answers regarding the proportion of revenue from the room tax which she has to put forward in the form of grants. Has there been any change in her attitude and her responsibilities with respect to the travel industry grants out of room-tax revenue?

[ Page 5063 ]

I have a couple of other things before I yield my place to other speakers. On November 25, 1980 — a short while ago — there was an announcement from the ministry that it would spend $12 million on package tours in 1981. I wonder whether the minister could tell us more about that $12 million program. I've searched through the estimates and I can't find it. I wonder whether she could tell us, out of a total budget of $14 million, where we can find a $12 million spending program.

The last question I have for this minister at the moment is on her newsletter of last June — volume 4, number 1, which deals with films. I don't know the author of the article. The minister is quoted as saying there would be over $100 million worth of films produced in British Columbia in 1980. Could she explain that large figure compared to the result, which was $53 million? It bothers me when the minister does tend to lurch into hyperbole, and we often have to face up to the fact the following year that we can't meet the kind of figures that she set for herself. If she says $100 million and more in newsletter headlines, and the actual figure, according to the film producers, is $53 million, I wonder how we can be satisfied being 100 percent wrong. That bothers me, because nobody is more dedicated to the idea of British Columbia having correct promotional ideas and services to attract film makers to this province, rather than the kind of thing — having political films made — we heard about a little earlier today.

I would ask the minister to answer those questions.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the questions of the second member for Surrey. He has covered a very wide range of subjects. I will do my best to answer them in as concise and broad a way as possible. If the member agrees, I'll answer from one end to the other, but I may move around a little bit.

On the newsletter projection, I love the words "hyperbole" and what have you — the classic posturing of the opposition, which is not usually used by this member and probably was used inadvisedly at this time. Mr. Member, if I understand the newsletter from which you're quoting, that figure you mentioned of approximately just over $100 million was a projected figure for 1981. We're well on our way in film promotion in British Columbia. As you know, in 1979 we had about $36 million in completed films in British Columbia. In 1980 we went up to approximately $60 million in film production in British Columbia. With what we have on board now, I think that the thought of shooting for $100 million in 1981 is optimistic, but I believe that unless we challenge ourselves, we're not going to reach that high.

You'll notice in the estimates we have increased the emphasis of the ministry on our film promotion area; we've increased the staff and its budget. I thought it might interest the member to know that in 1980 we had a total of 15 feature projects; four were shot partially in British Columbia. There were 12 feature projects shot in British Columbia; one was made into a TV movie, one television pilot and one television series. When we are giving you the figures, we also are advising you, but not including in our figures, of the fact that the film industry itself considers that there's a multiplying effect of times 15 in terms of the spread or the ripple effect of that film production money which goes through the province or the community.

At this time we have a number of projects underway. We have potential producers in the province today, as a matter of fact. They're in the northern part of the province. We're currently working with 34 separate feature film projects. Their budgets will total over $76 million. Location scouts have been or are soon to be conducted for six of the major studios in Los Angeles. We've been increasing our efforts to have direct contact with the American and other European film production centres. As you know, it's a very complex industry; it relies a lot on personal contact and a lot on the type of service we get. Our emphasis is there. You'll notice in the travel warrants that our film promotion people have extensive travel warrants. We think this is very worthwhile. You might like to know that so far Never Cry Wolf has resumed its shooting and by design was completed just after Christmas.

We're very proud of the service that our staff has built up in that area. It's under our assistant deputy minister, as you know. They have a system whereby, within a matter of hours, they can answer a question that might come at 3 o'clock in the morning or any other time of the day. They have a library where they can provide nearly all the services and examples of the services and locations all around the province, and have it on that producer's desk, particularly if it's in California, within a matter of hours. To date, we have one of the fastest services in the world. We've made every effort to contact — and I have a letter going out shortly — all the municipalities and regional districts in British Columbia to encourage them to inventory their own areas for potential assets in terms of movie and film production. We want to expand our inventory so that almost nothing can be asked for that we don't have at least two or three examples of. As you know, the climate and the five differing natural but unique geographic regions in our province offer us a wide variety of film production opportunities, whether it's desert, rainlands, big sky country in the Peace River, beautiful lakes in the Kootenays or the fruit belt in the Okanagan. Our effort is to diversify the benefits of these dollars as much as we can. We find the communities are very receptive to the industry, and we're working as hard as we can to promote ourselves as a film production centre.

As the member may recall, there was a great flurry of film production in Canada a few years ago, started by the federal government and giving very generous tax write-offs as an incentive. So there was a multiplicity of films produced almost everywhere for tax incentives, and this was a good thing in that it helped establish Canada as a film-production centre. But that's now settling down. You have to recognize that it's a very tenuous industry; it's very sensitive to any problems in any jurisdiction and it's highly competitive. But we believe that British Columbia, which has moved into second place, can compete very handsomely. Ontario is the leading film production centre and they had many years of established opportunity, but we're offering good competition. We intend to proceed with that and I'm sure we'll have the members' full support.

Now, as you know, there is the other section of the production area within our ministry, which is marketing, and it's under Mr. Norman Keziere. This is an area that I think you referred to in one of your other questions. I'd like to advise you that there — and it was under your own administration for some time — the productions are continuing. We have a number of films out, as you know, in a multiplicity of languages: Dutch, German and French — we're not yet into Spanish, but we're looking at it, although there is some question as to whether the market in the Spanish-speaking

[ Page 5064 ]

countries would justify that sort of expense. We've just completed a new film which we showed in Japan, and that is, of course, in the Japanese language. It is already running throughout Asia, but particularly in Japan, and has been well received.

As you know, last year over a million people saw British Columbia promotional films in other countries. They're shown everywhere, from living rooms to small community halls in England or in Germany or meetings in Japan. They're used for promotion within the industry itself. Whether they're tour operators or travel agents, we've used them in the promotion of British Columbia. The Minister of Finance took "Valley of a Thousand Peaks" to New York with him when he was addressing the financial community of the eastern United States, and it was extremely well received. I'm sure the member would be the first to commend that section of our ministry for the excellent job they do.

We now have a film under production which will relate to freshwater fishing in British Columbia. You might also like to know that we've shifted the emphasis of the ministry onto the conservation aspect of harvesting all our recreational resources in the wildlife area. That film is having the benefit of the local fishing-camp operators of British Columbia viewing it and making their input as well as being vetted by the fish and wildlife branch of the Ministry of Environment, to see that we don't transgress proper conservation promotion and policies; and also to encourage my fishing-camp operators to expand their services to people, so that when they come it's not a matter of just going out and fishing forever and trying to yard in a lot of fish, which is fun for a few but really not that many. We want to encourage the sale of the experience that goes with the barbecue, the hiking and the general atmosphere, and this is having good reception in the United States and in Germany, which are two major fishing market areas.

No, Mr. Member, I have no thought, and I don't think Mr. Heal has any thought, of his taking over this section of our ministry. We're very proud of it. As you'll see, it has a good budget this year, and they're very enthusiastic about their role in the development of tourism in British Columbia.

TIABC. I appreciate their five-point program very much. I believe, if the member is quoting from the document that I assume it to be, he'll find in there that many of the suggestions in that particular document have related very much to the statements made by the ministry as to what we have undertaken and intend to undertake. We appreciate the support that they're giving to the changes that we are making in the ministry's approach in cooperating with the industry for the development of tourism in British Columbia.

The matter of membership in TIABC. As you know, we are supporting TIABC through assisting the regions to pay their membership — this is through our regional cost-sharing grants. We feel this gives TIABC a great deal more strength than it would have otherwise, because this allows every region in the province to take part in their activities and it assists them in the cost-sharing of that. I personally would encourage the industry to organize in any way that it would like to. I feel that it would be very helpful for them in many ways. Certainly we give them as much support as we can; I'm committed to attending their first annual meeting, which will be coming up very shortly. We tried to have ministry representation at all their meetings. I want to be very clear, in addressing any organization that has formed or contemplates formation in the tourism industry, that it is their right and their opportunity. We'll give them every support we can. But this ministry has an open-door policy. We are very conscious of the fact that we want operators in the industry around the province in every region to have the same opportunity to speak to their ministry staff and the minister, and to bring their problems to the ministry where they should properly be addressed.

[Mr. Passarell in the chair.]

As for the TIDSA regional studies, these are ongoing, as the member knows. We had the overall study released in the form of the 3-M presentation "Tell the World," which was extremely well received and had a lot of benefit. I believe it challenged the industry, as we should, in a very positive way. The response has been excellent.

Regional studies come under TIDSA, which is generally under the administration of our colleague the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), but we do have members on that committee. I would advise the member that I am advised the studies on a regional basis are not yet to the management committee level, but we have asked that their draft be presented to us as soon as possible.

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

B.C. Rail. Again, as the member knows, this doesn't come under my administration. But I would just touch on the fact — because he's quite right — that B.C. Rail was designed as a freight railway, a service railway. It had an overlay of passenger service, which was designed for our own citizens at that time. I must say, with great charity, it has been somewhat sporadic in its ability to provide those needs, probably because of a lack of population. But the member is aware that that service is to be continued. Now, of course, tourism in British Columbia is coming very much into its own. We receive excellent cooperation from the minister who sits on the board in assisting us in being able to work in the future. I'm sure he will speak from his side in promoting that service, so that hopefully it can be more economically viable, that hopefully it can serve the needs of the tourist in terms of service and excitement and experience, and also will service much more fully those communities which could benefit greatly from tourism and which are situated adjacent to or very near the railway. It offers an excellent opportunity for package tours, which are becoming increasingly popular because of energy costs and because the preference in travel is changing, as it does from time to time. People like to come and they like to fly and drive and use rail. We can, I believe, in time develop a much stronger tourist impact in the off season as well as in the summer or the shoulder months, the spring and fall, by the use of that railway. It's magnificent country and it very much offers what people like to come to British Columbia for.

Interjection.

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

Question 21 on the order paper. I know the member didn't mean to infer any unkindness or lack of confidence in the professional civil servants within our ministry. He asked for a great deal of detailed information. As he knows, the budget

[ Page 5065 ]

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

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Gerry Sorensen. Miss Sorensen was interested in joining us for the sports show on tourism in Ontario. As I mentioned yesterday, she wanted to go and we paid her air fare and she was a great credit to our ministry and to British Columbia. She gave freely of her time, and she stole the show in Toronto — and for that we're most grateful. What her future is, Mr. Member, I think is a matter of Miss Sorensen's personal affairs, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to transgress there.

In terms of the room tax, I appreciate the hotel tax. It isn't directly under my administration, but it is very much a part of our thinking. I'm sure the member realizes that nobody likes to impose a tax and nobody likes to pay a tax. But there are certain necessities of life that must be supplied to our citizens in terms of services, whether it's grants to municipalities, assistance for parklands, the building of highways or the development of schools and hospitals. This is a requirement, and the government has done everything it can to streamline our spending to ensure.... I mentioned this to the member yesterday. From our ministry's point of view we don't want to get into the numbers game of how much money goes into tourism compared with other provinces. What we're looking for is return for the dollar — maximum use of our taxpayers' money — and we feel we're accomplishing this very well.

The concerns of the industry have been mentioned. I realize the member met with TIABC. They did meet with us after. Perhaps I'll leave it at that.

I understand that one of the comments made is that the industry wasn't warned, and the opposition is on the hustings saying the minister should have told them. I'm sure the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) isn't doing this, but every member of this House knows that taxes are message bills, and a message bill is one that comes from the Lieutenant-Governor and is not subject to discussion. If the content of that bill is known by anyone else but the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and his closest advisers, then both the Minister of Finance and those who might be members or ministers who know that information they shouldn't are subject to instant dismissal from this Legislature. So while I recognize it's not always easy for the private sector to understand that, it is a law of the land, and it's certainly a law that this government does everything possible to uphold.

MR. COCKE: Oh, nonsense, Pat.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: If anyone had been listening in the opposition benches.... Certainly many in the industry were listening, because I spoke at the British Columbia Hotels Association convention, the British Columbia Motels, Resorts and Trailer Parks Association convention, a number of public dinners and nearly every regional annual meeting on the constitution and the problems that could result from the pattern Mr. Trudeau was designing and the steps he was taking. One of the matters was that it would present greatly increased costs that would affect every man, woman and child in this province, and would most likely affect every business in this province. At the same time I was addressing the industry on the fact that we were very much coming of age. We did have our own ministry. We had been declared a basic resource. As such, we don't give away our trees and other natural resources, whether it's fish, coal or anything else, and we should not give away our tourist resources.

Many in the industry recognize that I was not privy to any special information, but I did have my eyes open, and there had been comments and speculation in the media that there might likely be some greater demands on our citizens in spite of the efforts of the government to maintain good value for the tax dollar. I would have to consider that that was as close an alert as anyone could reasonably expect, and I believe most in the industry accept that. Since discussing this matter with Finance and the Minister of Finance I recognized, as I believe most of the industry do, that there were any number of options that could be taken if our industry was to make an increased contribution.

In relation to your question, I might add, Mr. Member, that the return, if I recall correctly, from the hotel tax to the Crown at the 6 percent rate was around $15 million a year, and with the new rates this will now increase to about $22 million per year. The member says: "Have we earmarked any special grants for the industry out of that?" I'm sure he appreciates that you don't raise taxes to rob Peter to pay Paul. Those tax revenues go into general revenue to provide schools and hospitals, and to pay municipalities, teachers' salaries, pensions and all the things this government, at the provincial level, is expected to contribute to. We also make substantial program assistance to the industry itself, and the purpose of that money.... It does go into general revenue so that at the end of the year it can be disbursed where it is needed throughout the province.

We feel that we are doing a great deal for tourism in British Columbia. As you know, Mr. Member, just one thing we have within our ministry is great services, in terms of production, marketing and educational programs such as the hospitality program. We're working on a management training program; we work together with education and labour to develop programs in our colleges; we are working with the industry and hopefully one day in our universities. Those are all contributions that cost money, but greatly assist the industry. I believe they'd be the first to recognize that this has been worked out through the years between themselves and government, and has been added to.

We pay 60 percent of the salaries of the regional tourist directors. We pay a percentage to the regional areas of the province for promotion of their regions. We do the umbrella promotion and then they get assistance for their regional promotion to tie into the umbrella promotion. We encourage the communities to do their own, but we also have some funding available through the regions. I'm going to look at that formula. It might be able to be made more effective to assist with tourist information booths. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is most helpful to our industry and communities in assisting them to find good locations for information centres, often providing the turnoff and all the basics they need, with just the provision of the booth up to them, and then often the money to staff them through the Ministry of Labour and other programs. Our ministry has province-wide tourist information booths, all of which are paid for.

We cost-share in regional grants. I thought it might interest the member to know that in 1978-79 there was a total of $475,900 going into the regional grants. It went to $482,000 plus in 1980, and in 1981 it went up a major percentage to $685,598. This year, as you can see from the budget, it's

[ Page 5066 ]

$719, 873. There are perimeters within which those grants must be used, but that's designed in cooperation with the regions, and I believe is of great service to them.

In terms of the hotel tax and its return to the industry, I don't want to get too involved. The member knows that this government is moving ahead like no other government in the world in terms of developing the major tourist generators you must have to be an international tourist centre. I cite for example Whistler, Panorama, Kimberley, Mount Washington and Terrace's mountain — just a few around this province. They are all around the province. Some are regional generators and some are international generators, all of which allow the small operator in the industry to have a market and to have the type of attention drawn to that market that they need as family operations, whether they're a hamburger stand or even a clothing store, whether they're a shoe store or hotel — to develop and have the type of economy they need. So if they offer good service and a good product, they can make a very good living and be competitive.

There's the Vancouver Pacific Rim Trade and Convention Centre, which will allow us to compete on the international market with conventions which we've never been able to attract here before and with trade programs which we've never been able to attract here before, because we'll be able to accommodate up to 5,000 people. The most we've ever been able to handle is around 3,000. It doesn't take any business from any of the existing operations. It only adds.

There's British Columbia Place. I wouldn't want to offend the member in any way, but I must in all fairness remind him that his party — and I'm sure he doesn't agree with them — are around this province trying to knock these programs. You can't say one thing out there and another thing in here. These programs are designed with provincial impetus. While most of them will ultimately be self-supporting, it takes the initiative of the government, in cooperation with the industry, to develop this sort of excitement.

There's the Victoria trade and convention centre and Transpo '86. The future never looked brighter. It looks less bright in many other parts of Canada than it does right here in British Columbia, because this government is doing the very things that I'm sure that member for Surrey would want us to do and that the industry wants us to do. It seems to me that our industry is maturing. We're very sensitive that it must remain competitive. We're very sensitive to the problems, the protocol and the legislation that they face in other countries. They're very sophisticated marketers and they understand that. We in British Columbia are still one of the best buys in the world, dollar-wise and certainly experience- wise.

Regarding the accommodation directory, the member made an insinuation — and I'm sure he didn't mean it that way — that the ministry must have had inside information, because the new accommodation directory has the alteration in tax. With great respect, I would suggest that he was dead wrong. I did not know. We were in a position where we were wrongly listing the tax at 5 percent. The day the budget came down we were to.... I think we were at the blueline stage, and I sent a little note. I'm sure that the media and the rest of you were watching this note go out, which went right downstairs to my office to say: "Hold the blueline."

I would just conclude my statements by saying that we altered our accommodation directory after the budget came down. That's when the instruction went out. We now carry a rider to say that they will be subject to any unexpected tax increases.

MR. HALL: I would like to say that perhaps a great deal of the response that we just heard could have been dealt with in another way. I don't say "avoided," because that would not be fair or even complimentary to the minister, as she was imparting information to the House. It could have been avoided or done another way if the minister had seen fit to give us the benefit of her annual report, which we haven't had. If we had had the annual report, we would have done away with about 20 minutes of the minister's response, which would have allowed us more time in estimates. Nobody wants to delay the passage of estimates, but certainly a great deal of the anecdotal response we got from the minister would have been dealt with in her annual report.

I would recommend that course of action to any of the members seated on the treasury benches on the other side. If they could follow the time-honoured custom of this Legislature in going through the estimates alphabetically, or at least pick ministers who had the ability to present their annual reports in some reasonable shape before we got into the discussion of their estimates, it would be a great benefit not only to the members of the opposition but to all people interested in the democratic process. That's not being followed, and I for one regret it.

I want to go back to the question of the films. I read the article very carefully — as I do all the material — from Tourism British Columbia Newsletter, Volume 4, number 1, June 1980: "$120 million worth of films are now committed to be shot on location in B.C. this year, Tourism minister Pat Jordan said recently." That is not in 1981, but in that year. I agree there's going to be some time for some of the product to go forward. I said that indeed $53 million of the product was produced in 1980. The minister now suggests it was $60 million, so now we're coming a lot closer. I'm sticking to my figure of $53 million. The minister has now dropped from her extravagant claim of $100 million down to $60 million, so we're now only $7 million apart. I'll settle for that today. That's tremendous: we got a lot closer together than we were when we started.

All I'm saying, Madam Minister, is that I met with film makers who represented directors, producers and the one composite trade union that deals with this particular industry. They represented 30 basic decision-makers in this province, who in turn represent about 2,000 employees in the industry. They're at the best end of the country in British Columbia that saw, for instance, $100 million worth of product produced in Canada in 1979. That's why I queried the figures in the first place, when you were saying that we were over $100 million in B.C. in 1980. The film-promotion people that you've got — and I know one of them, Justis Greene....

HON. MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, I believe the member is misinterpreting the article. He keeps saying that I said $100 million in 1980. Mr. Chairman, that's not correct, to my knowledge.

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

MR. HALL: You can't keep on counting the same film over and over again. There's got to be some kind of dimension of time to the number of dollars of product produced. I'm telling the minister that we're watching her very carefully because she has this unfortunate tendency to exaggerate. I'm

[ Page 5067 ]

saying that having now met with those people I've just enumerated for you who represent the industry in British Columbia. She now talks about her film promotion people. As far as I can ascertain, of all your senior staff you have two people in estimates involved in film promotion. Perhaps you could tell me who else — other than those two people, one of whom is Justis Greene — you're talking about. Let me say that I know the effort that's required; I know what's required in Los Angeles; I know what's required to get to the decision-makers at the most opportune time. But I may tell you, Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, you don't even advertise in the daily journal that's read in Los Angeles every day by the people involved in the industry. As opposed to Alberta and other provinces in Canada, we don't even do that. I'm saying that in order to let that person do a job, maybe we should get a couple of answers in that regard. I'm not going to just vote blindly and blankly for these kinds of inflated estimates on the basis of some of this public relations flackery.

Lastly, in response to the 40-minute answer I got, I was one who always thought the minister should have been in charge of the trade and convention centre in Vancouver. After all, what could come better, in terms of the convention centre, than to give it to the Minister of Tourism with a staff with some expertise on the question of conventions. I'd like the minister to tell us whether or not she could do a better job than the present holder of that portfolio.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would have to comment that maybe both parties in this debate are reflecting on the vote of another minister. I'm sure the members of the committee are aware of that.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member closed his statements or questions — I'm not quite sure which they were — suggesting that I'd given a 40-minute answer. I appreciate that compliment. I'm sure the member realizes that it took 40 minutes — and I'm sure it isn't a strategy; I wouldn't dream of suggesting that — because he asked about 14 extremely complex questions: the hotel tax, TIABC, the newsletter, questions on the order paper, film making, Gerry Sorensen. I would suspect that he would be much more in order to criticize me if I hadn't answered his questions fully. I'm only trying to help him understand, as I know he'd like to, but he's been in a position of not showing a great deal of knowledge about the industry, both in this House and outside — after some of his well-publicized meetings. I just want to help him along.

He mentions the film promotion. Unfortunately, the member is wrong again. We have a very aggressive film promotion program. We have established two new positions. We divide here, of course, because the NDP philosophy is: if you pour more money into it and keep pouring it in and get more bodies, it must be better. Our philosophy — as Minister of Tourism — when it comes to tourism is: analyze the total picture, decide which are your opportunities as a market area and how you can most effectively serve that. That's what we've done in the film-promotion sector. We have excellent people on staff. They are well respected in the industry around the world. They direct us and myself as minister, and I have great confidence in their judgment. They know how to make 50 cents become a dollar, even in inflationary years. You don't have to listen to my words; you just have to look at the success.

We also have many people around the province who assist us. There are many highly skilled people in the industry itself who are private enterprisers — people who don't want government mucking around in their lives all the time; people who have good businesses and want to be free to go out and use their talents to increase their business. What they ask from us is a stable political climate and a stable, strong and growing economy. It's very rare in the world today, but British Columbia is one of those rare places that has a growing economy — most other areas don't. They work with us and that's the team work that we're developing — not big government smashing down here, there and everywhere, telling everybody what to do. We're very fortunate to have these sorts of people. We have our regional coordinators, all of whom assist in providing the industry out there with what they need to know, without interfering in their lives any more than we have to. All the municipal councils and regional districts assist us. I would resist in any way suggesting that.... The member got a little hot under the collar and said that I should be doing this, that and the other thing and that he knew what it was about. I wondered why, but I won't say: "Why didn't he do more when he was the Minister of Tourism?" But it could leave that impression.

I can appreciate the member's interest in the annual report. I'm pleased that he's looking forward to it. Of course, he would remember that our year-end is March 31. It would be very wrong — and he, perhaps quite rightly so, would be the first to criticize us — if our report came out the next day, because obviously we'd have it all written before the figures were in. It sometimes takes up to three months, as the member knows, to get the accurate statistics from Statistics Canada, as well as within the industry. He'll be pleased to know that we've had dialogue with the federal government, and we've asked if we can work together to speed the process. We have that process improved now to between 30 and 40 days. As the research section of our ministry becomes stronger, which is a priority with me, then we'll be able to refine that. Mr. Member and the public should know that if we had our annual report out the day after our year-end, it couldn't possibly contain the accuracy that we hope it will have. It's in the development and refinement stage, and I hope to have it available for you just as soon as the staff can responsibly get it ready.

The member met with the film-makers. When was that? I'm sure if he did, he would recognize that we're very pleased that the unions involved in film production in British Columbia, our ministry and I are having good dialogue and working closely together. The industry itself is aware of the efforts we are making to help them bring together the full base needed to see British Columbia be competitive.

The hon. member mentioned Alberta's film promotion office. Albertans are great friends of ours — a great province and good Canadians. I would say with all modesty that, in spite of the moneys they've spent and the bodies they have, their success has not been as successful as ours. That could change. We're very sensitive to the competitiveness of this industry. At the moment they have a maximum of six features under production in Alberta, with a value of probably little more than $25 million. They're not predicting any productions for 1981. They are making a concentrated effort to develop their base too. We know about that and recognize it. We'll be seeking that member's cooperation and knowledge to assist us in developing in British Columbia, perhaps not as grandiose a base, but a far more effective one, because we

[ Page 5068 ]

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

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that yesterday the minister stated during one of her presentations that "conservation is the watchdog of the Tourism ministry." In the next few minutes we'll go over the watchdog for the Tourism ministry.

One of the first few items I'd like to talk about is the speech the member made on March 18, 1981, when she was addressing me regarding gas. At that time she said that it was 32 cents-plus a litre in the Atlin constituency, which wasn't too bad if that was factual. The price that day was approximately 50 percent higher; it was 47 to 51 cents a litre. So just draw that to the minister's attention, concerning the price of gasoline up in the Atlin constituency.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

One of the aspects of the minister's vote I'd like to talk about is travel expenses, which have increased by 100 percent this year. I'd like to know why this increase has come about. Another question concerning travel expenses, Mr. Chairman, is three particular flights that Mr. Jordan made with Mrs. Jordan on government aircraft: on March 1, 1980, flight No. 1056 from Vancouver to Terrace and back to Vancouver; on March 8, 1980, Kelowna to Vancouver; and March 9, 1980, Vancouver back to Kelowna. When I'm finished, I'd like to know why the hon. minister's husband was flying on the government aircraft on those two days and if it had anything to do with the Tourism ministry.

Onto another subject, Mr. Chairman, which is a brochure that I spoke about and which led to our March 18 speech. Since that time I've contacted some of the minister's staff. The brochure itself is distributed by the Yellowhead 16 Travel Association and concerns Highway 37. On the back it says: "Province of British Columbia, Minister of Tourism and Small Business Development." It's probably an outdated brochure by the ministry, but at this time.... I'm going to go through this and then I'll let you see it. This is the brochure that's being handed out at the different tourist locations on the Yellowhead to travellers coming up Highway 37, and it contains some erroneous information that has caused quite a concern to the residents of Dease Lake particularly. There are about five or six items that I've marked on this, and I hope the minister could have this brochure taken out of the tourist centres immediately. It gives a very detrimental, negative aspect to travelling on Highway 37 and contains much erroneous information concerning service stations, what services are available to people, and it has caused a detrimental effect to residents who have service stations or maintenance shops. It lists a number of service stations that have not been in existence for approximately five years. Could a clerk take this to Mrs. Jordan to check? I would simply ask you to have that pulled off as soon as possible, because it caused quite a concern up in Dease Lake.

The next aspect, Mr. Chairman, is the staff estimates. There's the same amount of staff in the estimates — seven last year, seven this year — but an increase of $15,000. There has been a 20 percent increase in salaries and travelling expense together, and I would like the minister's reasoning behind the increase in these two particular fields.

The minister was talking previously, Mr. Chairman, concerning film promotion. I'm one member who would like to support that ministry on its continuation of filming in this province. I think the province of British Columbia has a great potential, particularly my constituency. There have been five movies made or are in process for the next year, which has caused very good, positive results to the communities, particularly Atlin and Stewart. I would hope that the minister could see fit to somehow increase the production of films made in British Columbia, because it has a very positive aspect on the local communities in the north. I would also hope the minister could somehow see fit to have some tax incentive increases for the promotion of films in this province.

One matter on a serious note, Mrs. Minister, is regarding the quote with which I started off in the beginning of the speech, in which tourism and conservation go hand in hand. I would certainly hope that the minister would take her place and make some statements for the protection of some of our environment that's going to have some detrimental effect upon the tourist industry in this province. On this item she's been very quiet.

We could go on to the Amax issue which, Mr. Chairman, is an extremely good tourist-orientated area, the Alice Arm inlet. It has a high potential for resident and non-resident tourist trade in that area for fishing. I would certainly hope, before the Chairman rules me out of order if I start taking about mercury, arsenic and uranium, that the minister could see fit to stand up and talk for the protection of some of our areas such as Alice Arm.

One area that I would certainly hope the tourist minister would take an active part in is the Grand Canyon of Canada. We're fortunate in this province to have the Grand Canyon of Canada located in the Stikine Valley. It holds an immense tourist potential, and I would certainly hope that the minister would see fit through her ministry to attempt to downplay B.C. Hydro in any development they want to do in that area that would have a detrimental effect upon the tourist trade in the area. I hope the minister will take a very strong position for the protection of the Grand Canyon, because once it's lost, it's a tourist area that will be lost forever. That particular area would be under 300 feet of water.

I'm not going to get into any nit-picking with the minister concerning her voting record on the environment. I don't think this is the time and place to talk about that, but I would certainly hope that she would take a very strong position, Mr. Chairman, for the protection of places like the Stikine-Iskut valley and the Grand Canyon. Even though the backup waters would form a lake, it's not worthwhile to have the Grand Canyon of Canada under water for a backup lake to do some fishing.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I have just three short questions for the minister. First, in what connection to your ministry was your spouse on the government aircraft? Secondly, will the minister attempt to take an educational course on gas prices, and maybe in return help to sponsor some type of a postage-stamp rate for gasoline prices across this province, which would help tourists coming into the area to have some type of concentrated, similar price structure for gasoline, instead of finding that gas in the north is sometimes 50 or 60 percent higher than it is in the interior?

With that, I'll let it go and have the minister answer some of those questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before recognizing the minister, I must stress again that when in estimates on a

[ Page 5069 ]

minister we are dealing specifically and strictly with the administrative responsibility of that minister. The questions raised by the last speaker regarding prices of gasoline would be canvassable under another minister, but not under the administrative responsibility of this particular ministry. The same would apply to some of the other points mentioned in passing by the member for Atlin.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I very much appreciate the member's comments and his concern to develop tourism in his area. I know of his interest, and I would just preface my remarks by encouraging him to understand that in the industry itself it doesn't matter how great your facilities or how terrific your service; if it isn't a buoyant area and there isn't a buoyant attitude, people won't come. I've tried to help members understand that in this industry you have to have the business side — very much so. But we are marketing fun, and people won't take a holiday where it isn't fun and there aren't experiences. I would encourage that member to be with us more, so he can himself become an ambassador of tourism for his area, speak positively about what's going on in his area and encourage people to want to come there. People won't go to an area where its spokesmen, whether they're locally elected officials or provincial and federal representatives, are negative. Why would they? I'd encourage him to be as positive as he can about his area, recognizing that at this time in our estimates he has every right to bring forth all sorts of questions.

You yourself, Mr. Chairman, advise that one or two matters the member addressed are not within my administration, so I won't transgress, other than to say that in dealing with tourism we have to realize — and that's why we're now a ministry on our own, and why we're a basic resource — that we have a tremendous impact on our environment and our facilities, just as others do. It's not a matter of black and white; it's a matter of working together and multiple use.

The other thing we must recognize is — and I'm sorry I haven't been to Grand Canyon; I haven't been in the member's area; it's one of the few parts of the province I haven't ever been to, and I intend to come as soon as the session is over.... But when people go to even the most remote areas, other than maybe the infinitesimal half of one-half percent who really like to be backpackers and hikers and really do like to live in the wilderness, most of them like to rough it in the Bayshore. In other words, when people come from Germany, the Okanagan or Japan and go into the Atlin area they want that wide-openness, they want the experiences, but also they want power, services, hotels and restaurants. And many of these so-called roughing-it assets should be designed, as the member knows so well, in keeping with the Atlin environment, because that's, in part, what they'll go for. In order to provide services and the capital to build hotels, the economy of British Columbia must be buoyant, and we must have the ability to provide the power, heat, roads, lumber to build buildings and cement, which in content just as a simple example means certain elements of mining. So I believe what the member is asking me is to be very aware environmentally — which I think he knows I am — but don't kill the tourist industry in my area. That means cooperating and working together, and that's why this ministry does now sit on a number of committees. And we are very conscious.... I would also advise the member that the industrial tourism consumer, I believe, has tremendous potential, and you would want to have your share of that as well.

The price of gasoline. I thought I had the figures for other parts of the country here. I know we have varied prices in British Columbia, and I think we all recognize that they tend to be higher in some areas than others. This has been a long debate within the industry. I would just like to advise the member that in British Columbia our gas rates, even in Atlin, are still very competitive in Canada, except for what we subsidize in the east. They are very, very competitive with other parts of the world, where in some places you pay $4 a litre. We haven't been having complaints from tourists even, to my knowledge, in your area, unless somebody from the lower mainland, where they do have favourable prices, goes up there. Maybe that's just conditioning them for what realistically has got to happen in the world. Also, if you have a flat price all over the province it means the government's getting into the small service station operation. I don't think the member would want that. We want to see the small operator free not to gouge and not to have windfall profits, but to be able to make a very fair living. We feel the tourists should contribute to that living. That's what I mean about not giving away our resources. If you're going to run a service in Atlin, where it's remote and where many of your costs are higher.... If the experience is there, if the accommodation is there, then the visitors will be quite happy to pay for it.We mustn't have our own citizens subsidizing a very healthy industry.

Regarding flights by my husband and I, that will generally come up under the Minister of Transportation and Highways. It's not policy, but I would be quite prepared to file my family's use of the plane. My husband has never used the plane before. During all the years I was in government before, he wouldn't. The government adopted a policy where under certain circumstances your spouse can fly with you. I want to say that I'm very grateful for the times he has flown with me. It's very rare. I believe that when we're there, people appreciate him being there. I have to say that because I'm home so seldom I appreciate having him there. I don't feel that there is anything that the taxpayers would regret. I assure you we have never used a government flight either for myself or for the few times my husband has been on the flights.... As you know, it's very minimal, because he can't get away, being a physician. It has always been with policy — we've never gone on fishing trips or any luxury things. I'll file the details of those trips with the member as soon as I can.

As for the Yellowhead 16 brochure, I well appreciate the member's comments. I didn't quite recognize at first what he was talking about, but now I know. I would just have to advise you that we were as distressed as you were, and this has nothing to do with our ministry. Mr. Larry Provost, the regional coordinator, and their regional association were totally responsible for it. If I recall correctly, we suggested to them as delicately as we could that they should alter it to keep it up to date and fully representative of your area, and that it should be up to date in terms of which ministry it secures it from. This was a brochure that was made available — as you know the cover is made available — by the government for each region. As you know, we pay a substantial portion towards the coordinators' salaries, but they're not our employees. I can't pick up the phone and tell a regional coordinator what to do. Really, they are the employees of your own region. You should take this to your regional executive and tell them that you'd like to see a change. Again, I think they'd like you to do it on a positive basis.

[ Page 5070 ]

Regarding movie production, you're quite right, Atlin has been very attractive as a production area. We will do all we can, but we must promote British Columbia and not any specific region. You can help your area have its fair share — it's certainly has had its fair share — by helping me get the type of information that our people need in their files so that when these queries come forward they can get all the possible information which would stimulate them there. I believe the communities of Atlin and Stewart have been very welcoming to these committees. It's been a good climate in which they can work. This is very important. Again, I'd encourage the member to be very positive about his area.

There are two films planned, as I understand it. We're working very hard for Stewart this summer. In fact, I believe that they're up there today.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Three? Well, then you're ahead of us. That's very good. We're delighted.

Your area has benefited very well, as you know, under TIDSA and other services from our ministry. We've been very attentive as a ministry to your area, including the newest publication of The Great North, which has several features on your area — Stewart and Atlin — and is very beautiful. I would encourage you to send these out and get your citizens and the people who are in business in your area, Mr. Chairman, to buy copies of these — they're not expensive; they're only $1.25 — and mail them out to your cousins and people in other parts of the world as well as British Columbia.

I think I've answered the member's questions.

MR. PASSARELL: I have just a couple of quick questions. First, can I have that brochure back when you're finished? I gave the Premier a letter about the second week I was in here, and that's been a year and a half now, so I would appreciate having that come back.

Back onto that brochure. You had stated that it would be difficult to get on the telephone and call. If there's any possible way your ministry can have this pulled off Highway 16 it would be appreciated. As I said, there are a number of mistakes in it, and I think the business community would totally appreciate receiving an up-to-date report for the tourists who are passing through. So if there is any way that anybody in your ministry can call and have this thing taken off, this brochure is being distributed in two locations on Highway 16. If somebody in your ministry could make a phone call to have it pulled off, maybe something up to date could be brought in, because it is having an adverse affect.

Lastly, the minister spoke about the issue concerning PR. You can't send people up and talk indefinitely on good PR when there are problems, as you say, we shouldn't be talking about — the environmental ones now. That's the whole point of what I was raising: the need to have good PR. You can't send people into areas that are having some of the destruction and potential destruction. I appreciate the minister's comments.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, that was an old brochure. There are no supplies in our office, nor have we had anything to do with the distribution. It's never been our brochure, but we were discussing it and I sent a signal in my return answer to downstairs, and they are phoning them now to let them know it's not in their best interests.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague for that applause. It gives me a great deal of satisfaction hearing from him. It gives me almost as much satisfaction as this debate that has been going on — this exciting debate on tourism in this province.

I'd like to point out one minor fact. I was listening to the minister replying to the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) with respect to the multiplying factor of motion pictures. The member for Surrey and I have had a conversation since, and we've tried to figure out if there is any industry that will produce a money-multiplier in the order of 15. Even the moving picture industry admit that their money-multiplier is something in the order of five. It's four to five for virtually everything, and suddenly we hear a 15. I hope that the minister looks at that claim along with many of the other claims that she seems to be making around the province, and along with the claim that we did $100 million worth of film production as opposed to the $53 million that the member for Surrey talked about.

I'd like to talk about another kind of picture situation that's going on in our province today. The Health ministry in this province has a studio. It's a video and recording studio, and it produces health promotional works. It did until it became the Socred propaganda arm. If everybody in the province is now suddenly healthy, if everybody is fine, then maybe we could transfer it to the Minister of Tourism to promote tourism in the province. But if it promotes Social Credit aims in this province, that minister should be fighting against it. If that film-making ability is to be redirected — I was going to say misdirected, and of course it is — then it should at least be directed to another department where it could have some constructive use advertising our beautiful British Columbia. Thank heavens we have a new minister, as boring as it is, but we should not, and that minister, who has shown some evidence from time to time of an ability to fight....

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes, she has. I hear that the reason they make so many mistakes in their caucus is because nobody else has time to say anything. We've seen evidence of that this afternoon.

That minister should be fighting to get that film-making material, that video studio, into her ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair has followed with some interest the point that the member is making. But as the member is very well aware, we may discuss only the existing administrative responsibility of the minister. Whether it be a need for legislation or anything requiring legislation or something that exists in another ministry, it must be discussed in the ministry under which it presently falls. Otherwise, by taking it to its logical conclusion, we could cover anything related to tourism — whether it be bridges, roads, highways, land — and that's why we don't do that. Could the member be strictly relevant.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we remember a film produced in this province by the then mini-ministry of tourism. Remember Ron Worley's "The Good Life"?

MS. BROWN: How could we forget it?

[ Page 5071 ]

MR. COCKE: How can we ever forget?

I'm not suggesting legislation. Obviously this government can take and move a very important adjunct to health care into another ministry in ten seconds, as they have done, in order to promote the Social Credit cause. I'm just suggesting that we take it right out of politics and give it to that minister. Maybe she can do something better with it than Ron Worley did with "The Good Life."

I would like to ask another question. Is it because of tourism that we're getting into the Annacis crossing? Is it to bring Americans into New Westminster? Is she responsible? Is she really the power behind this situation?

Am I meandering around a little bit? One of the reasons I tend to meander a bit is that I've been listening to the minister weaving around, talking about every ministry, and once in a while touching on the Ministry of Tourism.

MR. LAUK: The bridge is going to be a tourist attraction because there won't be any roads leading up to it or away from it.

MR. COCKE: Yes. We're hoping that the minister will do what thoughtful people in the province are doing, and that is suggest to visitors that there are other ways of getting into and out of Vancouver.

I suggest that this ministry can be given a good deal of credit for — not this particular minister — Beautiful British Columbia magazine. I think that's probably one of the best productions we have going. I would like to compare Beautiful British Columbia to B.C. Government News. The contrast in those two government publications — one a propaganda piece of almost Goebbels-like material, the other a first-class magazine showing the beauties of our province and being circulated.... In places I go to outside of the province and outside of the country where people have seen our magazine they are motivated to come here and have a look for themselves. It's super. However, when I go to places around the province that have just received a copy of the B.C. Government News, the first sign that I see is a sign of disgust.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, I would just remind the hon. member, who is always so precise and accurate, that the B.C. Government News doesn't come under my administration.

MR. COCKE: On the same point of order, I would like to suggest that I was comparing Beautiful British Columbia magazine, a very beautiful piece of work, to the trash that has been produced in the last three or four or five years in this province. It's called B.C. Government News. I'm sure that the minister wouldn't deign to feel that I was transgressing against this debate in any way. I just want to give her a great deal of credit for this first-class piece of material. I wanted to compare it to something, and the first thing that came to my mind was that.

Secondly, when the minister gets into the filming business or the video business to advertise the beauties of our province, would she please go to the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and ask that at least part of the time that new production studio — not new by any means; it was health promotion — be used for something positive, rather than something that we find quite the contrary, something obnoxious. I can't believe the way this government's going in terms of that sort of thing. The only good thing we see coming out of that government in terms of publication is the Beautiful B.C.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, you'll have to forgive me for laughing, but it's always so entertaining when that member gets up and has little more to say other than to do what psychiatrists call "project" — sort of attributing to others the faults that he himself has and uses so well: inaccuracy, nit-picking, character assassination, all these things that the member just did and really offered no constructive suggestions about tourism in British Columbia. Frankly, I would have thought he'd be up there complimenting the private sector in New Westminster and the government for what they're doing for New Westminster. The revitalization of downtown New Westminster is going to be an exciting tourist addition in British Columbia. Many of the small operators who work in the motels, restaurants and coffee shops of New Westminster and that whole area of Whalley and many of the areas that the member has not mentioned — he probably doesn't think about them — are going to benefit very much from yet another dynamic, imaginative 1980s, 1990s policy of this government.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'm sure that member is not an authority on the film industry. If you will check with Hansard, Mr. Chairman, you will find that I did not suggest that it was my figure, nor did I suggest it applied to any other business or that that factor was in any way involved in computing the figures that we're using in terms of past production and monetary benefits in British Columbia, or the projected production which they still keep getting mixed up. Mr. Member, the factor of 15 is one that's used by the industry itself. It's not involved in any way in our own figures. I would have to make that very clear so the members don't get mixed up and mislead the public. I know they wouldn't want to do that.

Again, for the point of clarification, I'll remind him that to my knowledge our figures in British Columbia are in keeping with the statements that I've made. For the year of 1980 they were between $58 million and $60 million — not $100 million. The $100 million that the member keeps inadvertently drawing to the public's attention, Mr. Chairman, in a way that I'm sure he would be most embarrassed about if he realized what he was doing, is a projected figure for the year of 1981. It's a figure that I say quite candidly is an ambitious figure. But, unlike the opposition, I'm a very progressive person. We are a very progressive government. We believe in challenging ourselves, the members who make up our team and the industry. We may not make $100 million but by George, we're going to try. If the member stopped talking and listened, he might understand that that $100 million figure for film production in British Columbia is a projected figure for this coming year. But it might interest the member and I really don't like playing the numbers game........

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Member, don't ask questions if you don't want answers. One minute you tell us we don't answer any questions. The next minute we try to answer your questions, and you want to run out of the House and have a holiday. You have to work in this business.

[ Page 5072 ]

Beautiful British Columbia magazine. I appreciate the member's comments. I would like to advise him that it's not under my administration.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Maybe the member needs the white flag at home more than he does here. I don't know.

I'm glad he talks about "our" magazine, because that's the flavour we've tried to further even more than it was before. It is "our" magazine, and people from all over the world — Ghana, China, Russia, Finland — send letters. We have letters from all over the world talking about this beautiful magazine, and the staff deserve a great deal of credit. Perhaps if the members wouldn't mind not being so frivolous and come down to earth and realize....

I'm sure that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) would be as distressed as we are to know that the father of that magazine in the last few years, Bernie Atkins, is very ill. He served this province with distinction and dedication and he's well known around the province. He has been ill and we've kept the door open for him at all times to come back when he could, but he's had surgery this past week. He had six very serious bypasses, and my understanding is that he's resting. I know the members join me in wishing his family well, and we have expressed the respects and best wishes of the members of this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the B.C. Government News is concerned, which isn't under my jurisdiction, I happen to enjoy it very much.

The member keeps talking about film production. Again he's confused. We have a film-promotion program, which is the one we've been talking about and the one you get confused all the time in terms of your figures. And then we have a production centre within the ministry, which does all our tourism promotion films. I'd very glad to give you the details of that. What you're talking about is not under my ministry, but I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Member, that there has been absolutely no change in production policy since the inception of that area. The centre has worked for any ministry that required its service. The statements that the members in the House made — again, I'm sure they wouldn't do it intentionally — are totally inaccurate. There has been no change in policy from the day it opened for business. That government production centre operated as a government facility, not as a health promotional program, although health utilized it a lot, which is fine and good. I'm glad that they did — but many other ministries have utilized it and there is absolutely no change in policy. I hope that helps you understand that there are three centres within government: the two that are within the Ministry of Tourism and the other one that you keep getting confused. There is no change in policy there; it's under the proper auspices, as it should be.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I listened very careful to the minister and soft and dulcet tones though she may use, the facts of the matter are.... She can suggest that we are confused as much as she wants, but I have in my hand a newsletter put out by the Ministry of Tourism, volume 4, number 1, June 1980 — six months into the year. The headline is: "$100 Million and More for FILMS, FILMS, FILMS, FILMS." I read into the record: "More than $120 million worth of films are now committed." It's not a projection; it's just simple PR-flackery, hyperbole, exaggeration and nonsense — the lightweight kind of stuff that we've got to expect now in terms of the kinds of public statements that come from that ministry. We've given her three opportunities to look at the eventual outcome of that kind of nonsense. It's now coming home to roost. She's trying to avoid the consequences of that kind of nonsense. She cannot avoid the consequences of that kind of nonsense.

It goes on to say: "The ministry's film development office is currently engaged in making arrangements for another $40 million worth of films." That's $120 million plus $40 million — $160 million worth in 1980. Nowhere in this magazine, nowhere in that note are the figures for 1981. I've reported that the industry now tells us that they did $53 million worth. The minister admits under questioning they did $60 million; the second time around she said they did $58 million. As I said, we're getting closer. If we stay here long enough, she will probably agree that they did $53 million.

MR. BARBER: Will they publish a correction?

MR. HALL: They will never publish a correction. We'll never see another correction in whatever volume they're up to now. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Then during the minister's contribution, she said that there is a multiplying factor of 15. That's what she said. The Blues say 15. I don't know whether she attributed her knowledge of a multiplying factor of 15 to somebody else, but the minister stuck with the figure 15. I'm suggesting to her that she's wrong. She doesn't have to accept my word; I'm just suggesting that a figure of 15 is wrong. The figure is five. The figure of five was given to me on Monday by the very people that I've read into the record, representing 2,000 employees of the film industry of British Columbia, representing 30 decision-makers, going from film directors through film producers and through to the one large trade union involved in the business.

I listen carefully to what the minister says, and I read carefully what the minister says. She can wriggle all she wants, but those are the facts of the matter. She's again exercising that kind of unerring judgment for exaggeration that will get her into more and more trouble. That's why I think she should be kept at home. When we've asked the question about her travel plans, she's avoided the answer. We'll have more to say about that very shortly.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the minister a question about the visitors' bureau planned for the city of Prince Rupert for some time. The visitors' bureau in Prince Rupert has been asking for some aid from the provincial government. To my knowledge — maybe the minister has some other information — they have never asked that the province itself go in and set up a visitors' bureau. What they said to me was that they'd like the province to augment the program that's there now. I believe the minister — or possibly it was the former minister — has said that the job that's been done by the visitors' bureau in Prince Rupert has been magnificent not only for Prince Rupert but for British Columbia, because so many people come into British Columbia through the port of Prince Rupert, down the Alaska ferry system. I noticed it was in the throne speech that the government would be looking at the visitors' bureau in Prince Rupert. I'd like to ask the minister exactly what her department's plans are concerning the visitors' bureau concept in Prince Rupert.

[ Page 5073 ]

HON. MRS. JORDAN: They're called visitor information centres, if I understand you correctly. Through the years, as I understand the picture, there have been formal requests, informal requests and direct requests — I think even perhaps from yourself, if Hansard is correct — for a government information centre such as we have at Golden or at the border and other areas.

When I first became minister I heard from them indirectly through our assistant deputy minister, now of marketing, that this was a matter that he felt was most important. When I was up there I met with the people. As you know, I've been there three or four times, I believe it is. I addressed myself to this matter. We met and we discussed how it might best be done in everyone's interest. I discussed it with your mayor and other elected representatives — because we want to work as a team — as well as with the head of your chamber of commerce. It was agreed and is now confirmed by letter from the chamber of commerce that they would like us to work together on a cooperative venture. This is a commitment I've made. Our ministry is actively working on it.

MR. LEA: What do you mean by cooperative?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: We feel that we can serve the public better and all make better use of our money by working together. I was very impressed when I saw the common facility between the museum — the carvings that went on — and the information centre. At the time I asked if there was any way we could get this all together so tourists don't keep running around. They agreed. So we are now looking hopefully at a common centre.

We will put in a direct government employee. It is my hope, if I can find the right person, to have that person year-round, not just during the tourist season. He may not be totally occupied in that particular aspect year-round, but he will be servicing the area in some way year-round. The chamber will have their people there. We will have separate areas but will be a common centre. This is where it stands at the moment. We're negotiating. My understanding is that everything is going well. My understanding from the mayor and from all the people involved is that this is the right way to go. I just wonder if the member has another idea. Our objective is to help all of us work together and get the best use of our money. This sounds to me like a very logical proposal.

MR. LEA: I'm not trying to nail the minister with anything. It is confusing. I had a request from the chamber of commerce to take a certain direction with your ministry, which I did. Then I found out that I should have done a little bit more checking first, because the visitors bureau itself had a different idea than the chamber of commerce. I'm not sure at this point whether the minister has talked to the right people. Obviously the chamber of commerce was only taking it up on behalf of the visitors bureau. They haven't been directly involved, although some members have — it just happens that membership in both coincides.

What I'd like from the minister — I think I have it, but I'd like it in precise terms — before anything is done is that you do check with the visitors bureau itself in Prince Rupert, with Larry Valentin and others who are directly involved with the visitors bureau. It was my understanding the last time I raised the matter that they're not so much interested in having the province necessarily put in a full-time employee. What they would like is some help so they can do it on their own. I think they have been doing a good job. I'm pleased that the government is interested enough that they want to put someone in; I'm just not sure that it's the approach the visitors bureau in Prince Rupert wants. It may be that it could be done more efficiently with less money by going a different route. I just ask the minister, before making a final decision on which way the government is going to go, to make a final check with the visitors bureau in Prince Rupert.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It's obvious that there would be some advantages in sharing, We could spell each other off. We — and those in the tourist industry — don't feel it would cause any confusion to the public. We have letters of confirmation. As I say, I've talked to the mayor. If there is a local problem, then of course this would be a matter for the local people to decide. As far as how we staff our portion, that would be a ministry decision in terms of what we think is appropriate. You mustn't confuse in your mind the two roles. Mrs. Judy Culp, as you know, is your person. She is an employee at the local level. That's a decision of your local community.

What we are trying to do is develop an information centre, cooperatively we hope, in everybody's best interests — whichever way that goes — that is going to serve the general public, the provincial tourist, within the framework of our policy. It will be operated basically on the same basis as every other Ministry of Tourism information centre in British Columbia — such as at Golden, the various border crossings and Highway 401, for example. I must say quite candidly that we would perhaps be unable to go the route that some of the people there might want. In other words, we can't get involved in the local support for Prince Rupert that we wouldn't be prepared to give to every other community. You should be most cautious in working with your people that you know the parameters within which we can work; because you could transgress that and upset the whole of British Columbia. As far as your commitment, if the community is not united within itself and the mayor, the visitors bureau and the region don't support it, then of course we wouldn 't proceed. I have no intention of forcing anything down anyone's throat and spending taxpayers' money, but we do want to provide the visitor going into Prince Rupert on a province-wide basis — to Alaska or whatever — with provincial information.

MR. LEA: What I'm trying to do is possibly save the government a bit of money and at the same time get a service. Obviously if the highway comes into British Columbia and there's no community available, then your ministry has a different kind of choice to make. There isn't a community there that's been doing.... Quite frankly, I think the city of Prince Rupert, on its own hook, has, through the visitors' bureau, not only been promoting Prince Rupert but also the province as a whole. I'm convinced that the people who are involved in the visitors' bureau in Prince Rupert are capable of promoting the province as a whole. I think there's a distinct possibility that the best solution for Prince Rupert would be to look at funding the facility that is there. Instead of putting a body in there from the province, fund the centre with a little better funding formula so they can do the job that they've been doing for years.

I think the visitors' bureau in Prince Rupert can do it. Government always gets bogged down in precedents. Oftentimes they'll say: "Gee, this makes a lot of sense, but let's not do it; it's establishing a precedent." I would ask that you just

[ Page 5074 ]

take that final look at Prince Rupert, in discussion with the visitors' bureau, before you come down with a final decision on the kind of funding and the kind of personnel that the province is considering.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to make a suggestion to the minister on a couple of issues that directly affect the constituency of Comox. I don't know whether the minister is aware that we have an outstanding youth music camp that operates in the Comox Valley in the summertime. I hope the Minister of Tourism is aware of it. Students are attracted to the Courtenay youth music program from all over the province, from across Canada and from the United States. It's really a result of the hard work of a society that has donated many hours to making this music camp a success. They've managed to build it up over the years into a very successful program.

In addition, I would like to bring to the minister's attention the very fine ski facilities.... I think she probably does have some information about the ski facilities we have in the Courtenay area. I would like to bring to her attention, too, that there is a group of volunteers and non-profit societies which have spent many years in developing that facility. They started out by going up on weekends, cutting down trees, putting in rope tows, and spending all their hours as a group of citizens out of Courtenay and Comox who were interested in developing skiing in that area. As a result of that kind of pioneering work, the ski facilities in the Courtenay area are now one of the finest in the province.

The minister also mentioned that representatives of her ministry sit on a number of cabinet committees, because there is overlapping of Tourism into various other ministries. I would like to make a couple of recommendations to her, as a result of her having some participation in committees. I would assume that they would include committees that deal with recreation facilities, recreation grants and perhaps Provincial Secretary committees related to transportation — those kinds of things.

I am very concerned at this moment with respect to the two programs I mentioned earlier. One is the Courtenay youth music camp, and the other is the ski facility at Forbidden Plateau, operated by this non-profit society. They have made application for assistance from the government. The youth employment program, for instance, provided for one fifth of the operating costs. In other words, through that youth employment program they were able to obtain one fifth of the operating costs of the entire Courtenay youth music camp.

When the minister's representatives, or the minister herself, attend these committees, I wonder if in the interest of tourism they could impress upon the committee the need for the kind of funding that has been provided in the past in order to ensure that pioneering non-profit societies of this type can continue to develop and build tourism within our constituency.

This year the youth employment program has been cut back so drastically that this Courtenay youth music camp.... I know you're going to try to call me to order, Mr. Chairman, but I'm talking about the committees that that minister says she sits on that have to do with tourism and cross all of the other various ministries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair recognizes your sincerity. It has occurred to me that you might be discussing a vote that has not been brought before us yet.

With that said, I'm sure the member can continue on the administrative actions of the Minister of Tourism.

MS. SANFORD: In her administrative capacity, I would also like the minister to show some concern on these committees with respect to groups that work so hard to provide tourism facilities within the province. This group that I referred to earlier, that related to ski development — which is a fine tourist amenity for the Courtenay area — has also been turned down for a recreation grant from this government. That non-profit society, which has been pioneering all these years, is now facing a deficit and owes money to small businesses all over the Courtenay area — close to $200,000. They spend all of their time developing those tourist facilities and trying to improve the facilities that are there, and then they get this kind of slap in the face as people interested in the development of tourism. They were turned down. They were not given any recognition by the government for developing the ski lodge and providing the kinds of facilities that tourists expect these days when they come into the area. They did get some money through TIDSA, the federal-provincial travel industry development subsidiary agreement, which provided for some projects on the ski hill, such as putting in sewer facilities and bringing in hydro. But it was the community recreation facilities grant that they looked to in order to improve their ski lodge. They have been turned down and are now facing this kind of deficit. The Minister of Tourism must exercise her influence on the committees to ensure that the efforts of people like those pioneers, who have worked so hard, are indeed recognized.

If she has any influence on any transportation committee, unless there is a bypass built very soon on the Island Highway — an inland bypass route — the tourists are not going to come to our area anymore.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I can see the hon. member is very interested in tourism, and I'd like to spend some time with her — I know she's been busy — to maybe help her better understand how to develop a tourist industry which will be viable not only today or tomorrow, but many years down the line. I think then you can help your constituents as much as you'd like to.

The matter of the placements.... And I must regretfully say that a number of matters that the member touched upon are, of course, not within my capacity to answer, because we're on my votes, not on other ministries' votes.

In relation to the music school, I would tell you that I am aware of it. I haven't been there when it's been operating. I think they do an excellent job, and I wish them every success. You might be pleased to know, Madam Member, that in the 1975 summer issue of Beautiful British Columbia — I was not the minister then, of course — they did a major article, which went to many parts of the world, on summer music from Courtenay, and you might wish to get back copies of that to send out. The subjects you touched upon were a little bit mixed up, but the summer school itself, when it is operating, is of course listed in our events magazine. It becomes part of your regional promotion, which we help fund, and then it becomes part of our provincial promotion. Our job is to encourage, as much as we can, knowledge of what goes on in our province, so that people know what there is to attend.

We can help many groups. I've met with cultural and recreational groups with a whole new attitude that's coming to help them understand that we are not a funding ministry in

[ Page 5075 ]

that sense. What we do is work together, and we will provide them with customers through our programming, and they in turn provide the service and naturally charge for it. Many of these operations can become self-supporting. I wish the school every success and think that we have significantly enhanced their opportunity to have more guests come to see them.

As far as the committee position of the ministry is concerned, we do sit on a number of committees. I'm involved, as minister, in the area of economic development, and I sit on the economic development subcommittee of cabinet. I don't sit on the social committee of cabinet. Many of the matters the member raised would relate to those committees, although there's a great cross-section within cabinet. We have representation of our ministry on B.C. Rail, and they work with the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), Transpo and B.C. Place, so there's a good deal of input of ministerial staff there. Of course our deputy minister also sits on the deputy ministers' committee for economic development, so, again, there's a good deal of interrelated thinking. We can help them, and they certainly help us.

I won't go into it in terms of assistance because it does relate to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development's (Hon. Mr. Phillips) side of TIDSA. I understand — and I'm sure she'll want to bring it up — that both Forbidden Plateau and Mount Washington have had substantial assistance through the TIDSA program, along with the fact that we have developed a major emphasis on Vancouver Island. Mount Washington is almost an international generator which brings the people, and then the regional people and local people tie the ideas into that market area. The member might be able to help some of the groups she talked about understand how they can tie in; how they can use their own initiative, abilities and product; how they can learn more about what their market area is and what the needs of that market area are so they can develop service for that market area. This is very helpful to them.

MR. BARBER: The official opposition has made two principal charges against this minister during these estimates. The first is that the morale in her ministry is the lowest of that of any ministry in the government, and it's the direct result of poor leadership — specifically in the last two years — inept organization and bungled opportunities. We've observed as well, within the grounds of this principal charge of disorganization, that persons of vast experience and acute perception who have a genuine and disciplined commitment to the public side of the tourist industry of British Columbia have quit, have been let go, have seen themselves going through the ministry like one goes through the revolving door at the Hotel Vancouver. The reason for that, in the last two years, is disorganization.

I'd like to read into the record a series of confidential memos which I have received over a period of some years that indicate what's gone wrong with organization in the Ministry of Tourism. I'd like to start, if I may, by reading from a memo dated January 15, 1975 — the chairman will know that's when we were in government — signed by David Livingstone, who was then the executive director of the Department of Travel Industry. Here's the first, but not the last, in a series of new organizational charts, new organizational directives and increasingly desperate attempts to shore up a grossly disorganized ministry. The first one isn't too bad; it's reasonable enough. It simply says:

"Subject: reorganization. As we grow through the process of reorganization it is important that all staff members are fully informed of the purpose and the effect of reorganization. At the same time each of the branch directors should invite the staff to come forward with any ideas or problems they can identify from their perception of the present organization."

Skip a couple of paragraphs, and it goes on to handle the description of need for reorganization, Remember this is January 1975. Here comes the first:

" 1. To keep pace with a rapidly changing tourism business.

"2. To provide greater cohesion within the department.

"3. To establish the specific responsibilities of each member of the department.

"4. To determine the most appropriate classification and level with each position.

"5. To alter titles in the interests of making the organization more understandable to other tourism officers and the travel industry generally.

"6. To develop an organization that encourages employees to follow a career path."

On the surface, all of this is legitimate; all of that is clearly a neutral and non-partisan approach in this case initiated by Mr. Livingstone from within the public service to do a better job. Fair enough, we don't object. However, we then see another memo. This is from Mr. Colby. Ominously it indicates that one Cathy Gillis, a postgraduate student of the University of Victoria, will be making a "study" of this department. This is dated October 27, 1975. As the minister knows, this, again, is during the New Democrat administration. Once more one has to say, well, if they're reorganizing once during the period of the life of a government, fair enough, and, indeed, we give Social Credit the same option. If you want to organize once within a particular government period, within the lifetime of one parliament, fair enough. We don't criticize Mr. Livingstone or Mr. Colby, and we wouldn't criticize Mrs. McCarthy if she did it once only when she was the minister. However, unfortunately, it hasn't been once only under Social Credit as it was under the NDP. The next memo is dated October 4, 1977, and this one is titled — guess what, Mr. Chairman — "Reorganization." Here goes:

"Tourism British Columbia recently embarked on a planned reorganization of our operation. We have identified the need for a more aggressive and responsive organization in order to effectively protect and increase the revenue contribution which tourism makes to the economy of the province. Our operation will be organized into three operating divisions: marketing — sales; industry development — service; special services which provide support services to the other two divisions."

Even that's fair enough, Mr. Chairman. It's the first Socred reorganization.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

But hold on. That was October 1977. In August 1978 there's another one. A year later they are at it again. This one is called, "Organization of Travel Industry," dated August 8, 1978, signed by R. . Saunders, senior analyst. Here he goes again. He's telling us that they're conducting a review of the organization of travel industry.

[ Page 5076 ]

" In order to conduct this review the following is requested: a functional outline of all sections; an update of objectives for each of the four divisions, including strategy; a functional outline of primary positions in each of the sections; detailed organization charts; job descriptions for section heads."

Mr. Chairman, believe it or not, it was followed up by another memo of April 10, 1979, from David Hall, research manager. This one is entitled "Travel Industry Organization." "Enclosed please find a project authorization and proposed terms of reference for the tentatively planned travel industry organization review. I realize you have not approved this project, but I am supplying the background for information." This was from David Hall to Ben Leboe, who was then the deputy minister. You may remember, Mr. Chairman, he didn't last terribly long.

But here's another one. They're at it again, July 27, 1979, from Brian Warburton, director of administration. He tells us that he's compiling another organizational structural chart for the branch. They're at it one more time, because he asks: "Please identify the goals and objectives of your branch and how you plan to achieve these goals." They did that earlier on April 10, 1979, on August 8, 1978, and on October 4, 1977. Apparently three times wasn't good enough. They had to do it a fourth time. Here they are, at it again. Mr. Warburton says:

" I would suggest that the divisions within your branch will also be identified as having goals and objectives. Please prepare an organization chart of your branch as it presently exists, by utilizing the information contained in the organizational format of section 19 of the attached TBS 100. Bob Sherring will be able to supply you with the position numbers and classifications of the personnel in your branch. However, you should prepare your own organization chart."

Why is this, Mr. Chairman? Because they were at it again, and the chaos had reached such a level that the previous reorganizations and studies and charts and diagrams of April 10, 1979, August 8, 1978, and October 4, 1977, apparently were not adequate to keep up with the growing chaos of the department.

But was July 27, 1979, the last encounter with chaos in the travel industry? No. Here's the latest. October 29, 1980 — Dr. Rae smiles, because he knows about this one — here it goes again. This too is entitled. "Ministry Organization." Dr. Rae on October 29, 1980, advised as follows:

"As you are all aware, the Ministry of Tourism has been structured under two assistant deputy ministers to reflect the need to meet the demands of a major growing industry in this province. To assist in refining and documenting the various job functions and positions throughout the ministry, I have requested that Mr. Robert Saunders, senior treasury board analyst from the Treasury Board staff, undertake the project to help meet the objectives previously stated. Mr. Saunders will, from time to time, require information that can only be obtained from a supervisor or an individual within a position in the ministry, and therefore I am requesting that you give him all the assistance required."

To conclude this latest organizational chart, review, study and display, he says:

"Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. I am sure the ministry as a whole will benefit from this project, and hopefully" —get this, Mr. Chairman —"those areas which have caused some concern in the past will be identified and corrected in the very near future."

Mr. Chairman, if ever we had proof of chaos within the Ministry of Tourism under Social Credit, it is surely the memo entitled "Ministry Organization" of October 29, 1980; a memo of July 27, 1979, carrying out reorganizational charts; a memo entitled "Travel Industry Organization" of April 10, 1979; a memo entitled "Organization of Travel Industry," dated August 8, 1978; a memo entitled "Reorganization," dated October 4, 1977.

How many times are they going to keep doing this, Mr. Chairman? How much more proof does the opposition need to put forward that what this minister described yesterday as flexibility would be, for a normal person, chaos? One of the reasons why tourism has been so ineptly led is that clearly the cabinet has been unable to resolve the conflicts between the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Minister of Tourism. Clearly the fight in cabinet over Pier B-C has distracted the Minister of Tourism from doing her job properly. Clearly the history of organizational neglect and superstar glamour of the now Deputy Premier, when she was Minister of Tourism, has led to these endless reviews, reorganizations, new charts, new personnel and a simply dreadful history of incompetence, vacant positions and ridiculously high turnover in that department.

My colleague from Surrey and I, the critics for the official opposition, wish Deputy Minister Ray the very best in his new job. We hope he lasts longer than his several predecessors have lasted in the last few weeks. We hope that the last memo, dated October 29, 1980, entitled "Ministry Organization," lasts longer than a month. You know, some of the others were only a few weeks apart. They were constantly changing things then.

The minister may wish to reply: "Well, we're only perfecting this flexible organization." What we reply is that they are only admitting chaos — the chaos that has resulted from a style of administration which promoted glamour, hype and PR for the minister over substance, and which has inevitably led to the chaos, decline in morale and simply ridiculous series of endless reorganizations that have been suffered by the employees of the Ministry of Tourism. We don't need to offer much more proof than these memos which originate from within the public service. If the minister is not familiar with them, I will table a copy at the appropriate time, but I'm sure she has seen this.

Again, we wish the new deputy minister well. We wish his continuing employees, whoever they are, well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty days, on average.

MR. BARBER: Thirty-day average. They don't even last the probation period. We wish the minister's most recent batch of executive assistants well — as long as they may last. Even more, we wish well the tourist industry, which unfortunately has had to deal with the constant reorganization, the endless stream of directives, memos and charts endlessly correcting, contradicting and redirecting one another over the years of Social Credit administration of tourism.

We don't begrudge one government deciding on one reorganization within the life a parliament. Fair enough.

[ Page 5077 ]

They switch ministries, deputies and responsibilities. Neither do we begrudge the October 1977 memo. If they wanted to reorganize once, fair enough. But this is simply ridiculous: half a dozen memos indicating half a dozen reviews and half a dozen new organizational charts and relationships, new power structures, new flow charts of various sorts. All of the things in the greater length of the memos — I didn't quote from all of them; they're much too long and boring to do so — reveal that Social Credit is now paying the price for attempting to promote Mrs. McCarthy, the original Tourism minister, into some glamorous superstar in British Columbia, while utterly neglecting to run a ministry in a competent manner. The expensive Socred chickens are coming home to roost, and we have the memos to prove it.

We have some other concerns. We're concerned about the Ministry of Tourism Act and the way in which it seemed fairly clear to us that at least in drafts 2 and 3 of the act the minister was asking for authority that she should not have had. I've been made privy to correspondence between Elizabeth King, the assistant legislative counsel, and the minister, discussing the drafts of the Ministry of Tourism Act. It's quite clear here that there was a dispute in the cabinet and there was concern demonstrated by persons who do not want ministers to have the sweeping powers that this minister wanted. I wonder whether or not the minister could reassure us that this dispute is over.

I'm advised, for instance, that part of the dispute at least, as recounted by Ms. King, concerns the changes from drafts 3 and 4 reflecting a view reached after researching the topic that a minister has a common-law right to contract and as such the only purpose of section 4 of draft 3 was the limitation of this right. They went on to propose an amendment to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. In this memo it was made perfectly clear — the memo has not been released prior to today — that there has been a further dispute within the ministry about the right of the minister to contract, either with the federal Crown or on behalf of the provincial Crown and with private and public agencies in British Columbia.

On the basis of this memo from legislative counsel to the minister, I would like to be reassured that she has not entered into any contract or agreement outside the authority and the powers of the Ministry of Tourism Act and outside whatever amendments may have been made or will be made to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act — the one that comes down year to year. We wish to be assured that the legitimate concerns raised in these memos from the office of the legislative counsel have been met and that the minister has not overstepped her proper and legal bounds in signing contracts on behalf of the people of British Columbia. It occurs to us that with these endless reorganizations it's just possible some improper authority may have been delegated and some improper exercise of it may have resulted. We're concerned about that as well.

I have a couple of other concerns I'd like to raise. I have a letter from E.J. Turner of the Ministry of Finance. He is the director of the consumer taxation branch. I was asking him in my original letter to tell me what happens to the money that the hotel and motel room-tax revenues provide. What I was trying to do was determine whether or not a sufficient share of the moneys raised by the 5 percent hotel and motel room-tax — as it was then — was actually being made available to the tourist industry. Well, I discovered that it clearly was not.

Let me read, if I may, Mr. Turner's letter and ask for the minister's comments. This is clearly proof that the tourist industry is paying far more than it gets in return via grants made to tourist bureaus, associations and centres around the province. Here's what we now learn from Mr. Turner on March 11, 1980. I hope, by the way, for an update of this fairly shortly, but it's been impossible to get it previously.

"I've received your letter of March 3 requesting information on the 5 percent hotel and motel room-tax revenues. The last complete fiscal year is the year ended March 31, 1979, and in that period, revenues were S9, 772.099. The Hon. Mr. Curtis has published a nine-month financial report...."

And he goes on to indicate that revenue would be approximately 10 million, an increase of $1.9 million over the nine-month period in the previous year.

"We do not code returns or assemble information from returns based on a hotel or motel's location being within the Capital Regional District or the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Therefore, we are unable to provide any accurate basis for estimating the tax revenue derived from businesses located in these particular regions. I trust this information will be helpful."

It's clear, Mr. Chairman, that the hotel and motel room tax is being diverted to purposes that do not necessarily serve the purpose of the tourist bureaus and centres of this province. Again, the last complete fiscal year reported revenues of $9,772,099. How much of that did the tourist industry of British Columbia get back in grants for tourism centres, tourist bureaus and information organizations? They got, I would gather, something like less than 10 percent.

That being the case, I call on the minister to go to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and insist that a fair share of these revenues be appropriated for the operation of local and regional tourist information centres and bureaus across British Columbia. In 1979 you raised $9,772, 099. As far as we can tell, you returned less than 10 percent of that to tourist bureaus around the province. That is simply not good enough.

On Vancouver Island it is indisputably the case that tourist bureaus are having a difficult time financing themselves. It's clear, as well, that they have a legitimate call on these revenues. It's clear that these revenues which are raised from the hotel and motel room-tax should be directed more nearly and entirely to sponsoring and supporting tourist bureau activities around the province. The tourist representatives with whom I've spoken and with whom my colleague from Surrey has spoken make it perfectly clear that they are totally unsatisfied. They are totally unhappy with the fact that they receive such a peanut share of the revenues derived from the hotel and motel room-tax. If there is any justification for that tax, it is that the revenues derived from it go to support the tourist industry in British Columbia. Clearly, they do not receive an adequate share of this.

I call on the minister, as well, to ask the Minister of Finance to start coding, and assembling in a scientific way, some evidence which suggests how much is raised by the hotel and motel room-tax within the given tourist regions of the province. It is on the basis of an earned revenue that local tourist associations are then perhaps more competently able to come forward and claim a share of it for their own purposes. If the government is going to raise $10 million or $12 million a year from the hotel and motel room tax, it might well be useful to determine on a regional basis where that

[ Page 5078 ]

money came from and how it might be returned in some much larger measure than it is currently being returned to the people who earned it the first place.

I have several other proposals for the minister. I'll make them briefly.

We call on the minister to negotiate with the federal ministry of tourism for such necessary redesign of physical facilities, boarding practices, ticketing practices and luggage practices as to allow skiers across the province to be more handily able to use regional airports in order to, thereby, further enhance the skiing industry. Pacific Western, to its credit, has pioneered the notion of ski-travel packages in this province. It's a good public enterprise, owned by all the people of Alberta. It's a shame we didn't buy it in B.C. first. Nonetheless, it was bought by the people of Alberta. They've done a good job of promoting the ski-package industry, via their own services. However, Pacific Western does not own or operate the airports. By and large, they are owned and operated by the Ministry of Tourism, with the exception of a couple of municipal airports that also have ski travel. I ask the minister if she would be prepared to negotiate in a very tough-minded way — and do so with the unanimous support of this Legislature — with the federal ministry of tourism. We believe that there's a need to redesign the physical plant, the boarding procedures and the luggage-handling practices at airports, as well as within the airplane systems themselves, to further encourage and enhance tourism in the ski areas of this province. It would be a useful contribution and one which we in the opposition would entirely support.

I ask the minister as well, by way of another positive proposal, to negotiate with her provincial counterparts the establishment of a uniform Canadian code governing non-resident bus-line operators. This is an extremely important matter to tour packages and to bus-line operators who go back and forth across the country. Unfortunately they are the victims of utter inconsistency and clear unfairness. We would urge that provincial regulations governing non-resident bus-line operators be unified to enable them to operate anywhere they choose in Canada, and in particular that the laws governing these operators be made consistent across Canada. This would, we argue, enable British Columbia to become more readily and more handily the destination point for national tours and charters.

At the moment, it is easier for an Ontario or Quebec tour operator to go down to New York state, where he has to cross only one border and deal with one set of regulations, than it is for that operator to cross the boundaries of, say, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and into British Columbia, where he has to deal with four or five different sets of rules and standards. We ask the minister to advocate a national and unified code of rules and regulations as they deal with bus charter operations. In our opinion, we think that would be an enormously more helpful means of assisting Canadian tour operators to govern themselves across the country and to move their passengers as well. At the moment, we are advised that it is often a difficult situation and, as I say, easier to cross one border — an international one — than it is to cross several provincial borders, where the rules change every few hours.

There is another problem again in regard to a national policy that we call upon the minister to deal with. If she does, she will have the full support of this opposition. We ask the minister to bring pressure on the national government to revise the Canadian departure taxes and to reconsider the Canadian user-pay policy, as the ones currently in effect render our own air transportation simply uncompetitive. It's perfectly clear that the national departure taxes and the user-pay policy behind it unfairly discriminate against our own tourist industry. It's perfectly clear that there's no justification for that. It's even more clear that once more, because of national tariffs and national policy, we find it often easier and cheaper for those Canadian tourists to travel to the States than to travel within Canada. That's a shame. It's a disgrace. It's a failure of national policy, and it will continue to be one aspect of the failure of provincial policy, as long as we allow it to continue.

On previous occasions this government has chosen to deal internationally. Section 602 of the U.S. Income Tax Act — which was the problem we had before with the deducibility of conventions held in Canada — is something the previous minister took up, and we congratulate her for doing so. Now if the ministry feels that it's able to deal with American legislation which was discriminatory and unfair, it is surely just as appropriate to deal with Canadian legislation that is currently discriminatory and unfair. If they can deal with American problems of law, they can certainly deal with Canadian problems of law.

Once again, in a positive and helpful way, we call on the minister to take up these negotiations, to do so with the support of this opposition and, I'm sure, her own government as well. It's simply very difficult and awkward right now to justify a Canadian internal air fare policy, structure and airport tax policy that so patently discriminates against, and hurts and harms and hinders our own tourist industry, and apparently does nothing but good for the American tourist industry.

These are several of the proposals we make to the minister. Those are several of the criticisms that we have of the endless, constant, habitual reorganizations of the ministry.

To conclude, we call on the minister to abandon the unhappy example of her predecessor, and to forget about turning herself into a kind of movie star. The endless self-promotions of the Deputy Premier finally sickened the people of British Columbia. I recall that one issue of Tourism B.C. actually contained 14 pictures of the then minister, Mrs. McCarthy. I'm glad the current minister shows somewhat more restraint and less vanity. Hooray. It was ridiculous. The self-promotion of the former Deputy Minister of Tourism made the whole Ministry of Tourism a joke. It was a constant embarrassment to the employees of the ministry as well. If you speak to any of them privately, they will agree entirely. I ask the minister to abandon that silly and just ludicrous practice of self-promoting hype that the Deputy Premier followed, and return somewhat more responsibly to the way in which ministers have traditionally been identified with the public affairs of their ministry.

The last proposal that I make to the minister, I do so on behalf of my colleague from Vancouver Centre. I ask the Minister of Tourism to take personal responsibility for the Vancouver convention centre. Together with my colleague from Vancouver Centre, I ask the minister, in her capacity as Minister of Tourism, to become directly responsible for the negotiations with the city of Vancouver and the business community of Vancouver. We have no confidence that the Deputy Premier is capable....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Again, we are dealing with the administrative responsibility of one

[ Page 5079 ]

minister presently before us under vote 183, which is Tourism. The need for legislation or anything of that nature is out of order in this particular debate. Otherwise, hon. member, taking that to a logical extension, we could debate virtually anything by simply associating it with one particular ministry, whether it be bridges, highways, labour relations, etc. I would ask the member to confine his remarks to the specific responsibility, administratively, of the Minister of Tourism.

MR. BARBER: I hope I haven't lost time; I saw the green light was on. Did the point of order cause a loss of time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. BARBER: Will you add three minutes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. BARBER: Oh, I may just have to get up again then.

I wonder if the Minister of Tourism could justify the policy, could explain to those who are curious, why the Minister of Tourism is not responsible for the Vancouver tourist centre, the convention centre, Pier B-C. We have confidence in you; we lack confidence in someone else who shall not be named. We have confidence that you could easily do a better job than the person who currently has it. Therefore I would like you to explain to me why you are not responsible for it, because we think you could do it. You are a new broom sweeping clean; you're not running pictures of yourself at every single opportunity to do so. You obviously deal with enthusiasm, and we applaud you for all those things; we're glad of it.

You never said it would come in at $25 million, when you knew it would cost $52 million. We also know that you don't approve of the fact that it's going to cost $90 million-plus. We know that you wouldn't advertise something coming in at $25 million, when it was going to come in at $90 million. We believe you're more candid than that. We believe you wouldn't try and oversell and underfinance a convention centre. So, therefore, would you tell us what your policy is, Madam Minister, and would you tell us why you're not responsible for the convention centre in Vancouver as Minister of Tourism, and why someone else is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before recognizing the member for Dewdney, I must again point out that any debate on the matter referred to in the last moments of the first member for Victoria's remarks is not applicable to the Ministry of Tourism.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I take my place in this debate and wonder why our honourable friends in the opposition — and particularly the first member for Victoria — are so critical of the tourist industry in detail. The fact is that one does not go into detail when the results prove otherwise. It was only a short while ago, I would remind him, that tourism in Canada increased by a little over 7 percent, when in British Columbia it increased by 15 percent, and more in Victoria. He's the first member for Victoria and he must realize that the tourist business in Victoria has never been better in the history of Victoria; not only that, Mr. Chairman, but it's going up every year.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It was in the year 1977 that the tourist industry increased in British Columbia by 15 percent when in the rest of Canada it increased by 7 percent. In 1978 it increased measurably to $1.5 billion, in 1979 to $1.63 billion, in 1980 to $1.8 billion and it is forecast to go to $2 billion in 1981. I want to say this to the opposition: if you can get results like that, I don't care whose picture is on the envelope or on the promotion. That is what I call promotion, and that should be recognized. What the opposition should be doing is commending the Ministry of Tourism on the excellent job that's been done. This minister has done a fantastic job in the short time she's been there, and it should be recognized. What a change from the day....

MR. LEA: Name one thing.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, I'll name you! "Tourists go home! We don't want you on the roads." I'll tell you, those were the days when tourism was dropping, sliding and falling. It fell and it dropped and it slid. Do we hear that from the great thinkers and shakers, my friends? I should say to my friends, Mr. Chairman: get off that. You do not always have to criticize. Surely some ministries deserve to be commended, and this is one.

The provincial tourist bureau of Vancouver is a place to which you can go and get information about all of British Columbia. The tourist bureaus and the municipalities everywhere have material, and the chambers of commerce have material and trained people, and they're designed to assist tourism in their programs. Now California thinks it's very good that a tourist goes into California and resides in California for over four days. At one time in British Columbia, not long ago, during the regime of the previous government and before, they stayed here less than a day or a matter of hours on the average — tourist residence in the province. Today we're over two days for tourist residence in the province. Do you realize what this means in money for British Columbia? Someday this can be our second-largest industry if it goes on and progresses the way it is.

I think the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) should be the first one to say to the minister, "Well done, Madam Minister, for the job you have done," particularly for Victoria — and all of British Columbia, but Victoria just becomes wealthy. They have a saying among the businessmen here: "the magic hundred days." Have you ever heard, Mr. Chairman, of the magic hundred days? The magic hundred days are the tourism days in Victoria. They're magical days when money rolls in to the merchants of this city. Surely the first member for Victoria should recognize this instead of passing out his little panaceas — which I do not find fault with, but he should be encouraging what is being done, not being critical.

MR. LAUK: I want to ask a series of questions of the minister concerning a project that is taking place within the constituency of Vancouver Centre, but which concerns all British Columbians and which should receive the attention of this committee and, I hope, the minister's attention. That's the Pier B-C project.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has already advised that we cannot discuss a vote that is not before us or the administrative actions of a minister whose vote is not before us. I'm sure the hon. member is aware of that restriction in Committee of Supply.

[ Page 5080 ]

MR. LAUK: Most assuredly, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure that as the Chairman listens he will see that the points that I have to question the minister on do come quite precisely within her administration. However, they do concern the Pier B-C project and her role with respect to it.

I would like to know: has the minister consulted with the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) or has the Deputy Premier consulted the minister in connection with this project that has been the subject of such controversy over the past several months? It seems to me that the minister's department has many very capable individuals, some of whom I know personally and who have the kind of background that could provide some planning expertise that the Deputy Premier's approach to the problem, representing the province in that project, has certainly not provided. It has clearly been a bungle, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister — from the beginning to the end.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair must ask the member to confine his remarks to the administrative actions and responsibilities of the minister whose vote is before us.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman does not have to repeat the Chairman's interruptions of my remarks. I do not conduct this canvass of questions with the minister lightly. I know it's within her purview. I know that there may be individuals within her department involved in the project. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, in consultation with the full-time Deputy Speaker, should not be easily pressed into interrupting a member's statements simply because of a whim. I am in order, Mr. Chairman, and I do not like to be interrupted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will remind you that the Chair has the responsibility to maintain order in Committee of Supply. Sir Erskine May is quite clear that in Committee of Supply we discuss the administrative actions of the minister whose vote is before us. Sir Erskine May is also quite clear that we cannot discuss a vote which has not yet come to the committee. Discussion of Pier B-C is a vote that is not before the committee at this point.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't quite understand your ruling. I would imagine that Pier B-C is being built to facilitate tourists. One would think that. I find it incongruous that Mr. Chairman would rule out of order the discussion of tourism while discussing the Minister of Tourism's estimates. I would like to give you an example and see how you can sort out in your mind the difference between these two projects. For instance, I would imagine that Pier B-C has been assigned to a minister for its construction; but surely after it's constructed, something's going to happen. Tourists are going to go in. Now I'd like to give you another example. I'd like to give you one more example, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like your patience.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you could relate it to your point of order briefly.

MR. LAUK: Say a tourist bureau were being built in Prince Rupert, but it's being built under the Provincial Secretary and BCBC. Are you saying then that we couldn't question the minister about the function of the tourist bureau in Prince Rupert because it's being built by BCBC? It seems to me that the Chairman's on thin ground.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, hypothetical examples, I believe, confuse the committee. The standing orders are quite clear. While discussing the estimates of a minister we discuss the administrative actions of that department. That is clearly all the committee is allowed to accept. You are clearly, in the Chair's opinion, entertaining a debate on a vote which has not yet been called to this committee. The committee has been instructed by the House to discuss the administrative actions of the Minister of Tourism. I'm afraid that's all the committee is allowed to discuss. Any other discussion about another minister's responsibility would clearly be out of order. I'm sure the hon. members appreciate that.

MR. LAUK: On that point of order, before continuing my remarks, the point is that I'm asking the minister whether she's been consulted on the project. Secondly, what is the minister's position with respect to that consultation? Thirdly, how many members of her department have been involved in the project? Fourthly, I'd like other details that involve her ministry, with respect to tourism and that project within the city of Vancouver.

If the Chairman refuses me an opportunity to question this minister on her role, which is within her administrative purview, it is a stifling of debate and interfering with the privileges of the members of this committee. Simply because the Chair gets it in his head that somehow it doesn't have administrative responsibility, you should not be allowed to stifle debate, Mr. Chairman. It's simply not within the rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair is not trying to stifle debate. The Chair is only trying to ask the committee to debate the matter that is before us.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to try and help the member, as I wish to help the other members. You know the subject you wish to discuss is a bill under another minister's name in terms of the convention centre. The member never wanted to discuss it. With leave of the House, I would like to set the member's mind at rest by saying that as a government we work as a team. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) was the initiator of this project. It was appropriate that the bill came in under her name, and our ministry was involved when she was the minister and when the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was — as we should be. Our ministry is involved today. We will play a much larger role in terms of marketing, not administration.

I don't want to transgress, because I'm speaking with leave of the House and feel I should not be discussing it in this area. I'd like you to understand that under the area of marketing you should feel free. Our cabinet works as a team. There's much discussion that goes on between ministers. So I wish to assure the member that the whole project is being worked on in concert within our cabinet and ministries, and our ministry is very much involved and will be in terms of the marketing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will have to remind the committee that it is not appropriate to canvass inter-cabinet discussions under this vote. If the member can canvass the administrative actions of the department, the committee will be well served.

[ Page 5081 ]

MR. LAUK: It's not without knowledge of what's been going on in my own riding that I raise this within the minister's estimates. The minister has indicated that it is a concerted action, and there are members of her administration within her department who have provided some input with respect to this very important project, and this is what I want from this minister. I also know — and I want the minister to confirm this — that there isn't a sufficient input, because one of the problems.... I'm sorry that I haven't consulted privately with the minister to request her intercession more fully in this very important project that will benefit tourism and will benefit the people of my constituency and my city. It has been thoroughly and completely bungled by the Deputy Premier. I am confident that had those members of her ministry been more fully involved and contributed their expertise and guidance through the minister's office to handle this very important project it wouldn't be sliding down the tubes today.

The minister has admitted consulting, and I appreciate that. She has given the indication that there's a concerted action to bring this project about, and I would ask her if there are any members of her department working full-time or contributing a great portion of their time to this project now. If it is not out of keeping with the minister's guidelines, could she indicate to me and to the committee what persons in her ministry are involved with this project? Lastly, what position does she take with respect to the figures that have been offered by the city of Vancouver as to the cost of the project and the figures which have been, from time to time, discussed in the press by others? In other words, has the minister got a definite figure in mind for the project that we can all understand clearly? Recent reports have indicated that the overrun suggested by the city of Vancouver is too high. Can the minister indicate in what way it is too high, if her view is that it is as well? Secondly, is the offer of $15 million from local Vancouver businessmen going to be sufficient to get this project back on the rails? Those are the questions I have for the minister.

It would seem to me the minister has a responsibility to the committee to indicate her involvement with this project. I'm delighted with it, and I know the minister will be forthright. If she's active in a full-time way and takes on the responsibility of this project I have much more hope for its success than otherwise. It's with that spirit that I ask the minister to respond and tell me if there is staff involved, if she is involved, and to what extent.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I would again like to say that the administration of this is not within the purview of my responsibilities. The area where we're involved is marketing. The media of Vancouver are not within the purview of my responsibilities.

I would repeat, with leave of the House, that our ministry is involved in the area of marketing. We do have a representative who meets regularly with the manager in relation to marketing. We were involved in helping to set up and analyze the marketing areas — where that market might be. The ministry itself was involved in general thoughts in terms of the requirements we'd need, the size of the requirements and what markets would pertain to those requirements. As I'm sure the member knows, through our convention director we have been very involved in promoting the convention centre in cooperation with their present staff, and before that working with the Vancouver trade and convention bureau, and we continue to do so. I think our ministry has been very successful in assisting there.

I think the member might also like to know that while I was in Asia this year I had the opportunity to make direct contact with managers of other convention centres and found their cooperation in helping each other. I found out how they market and how we can make our marketing more effective from our ministry's point of view — where we're involved and get the best value for our dollar.

In my travels I met with staff of the Montreal convention centre, on the day their module came in, to assess for myself the progress they were making, what their marketing was and what type of competition I felt they were going to offer us. I feel they'll offer us sizeable competition.

I'm sure you'll be pleased to know, Mr. Chairman, that in British Columbia the teamwork we're using has seen our convention centre more fully booked than any other proposed convention centre in Canada. One of our objectives is to try to have that convention centre well occupied from the day it is opened. We would appreciate that member's help in seeing that that day comes. It's a very important asset to Vancouver and to British Columbia. I take a look, as minister, at what is happening in other convention centres around the world, and how we might best fit into those patterns. I'm sure the member can realize that ministerial contact in other parts of the world, where you're looking for cooperative ventures based on goodwill, is extremely important. I feel that my trip to Asia this year and further trips that I'll be taking in Asia accomplish that very much, and will do so in Europe.

MR. LAUK: You'll have to get the centre built first, Pat.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm very optimistic. I believe the mayor of that great city of Vancouver has now come to realize that you can't build schools, hospitals and houses without having revenue. That trade and convention centre is beautiful in itself. It will help make Vancouver harbour one of the most exciting harbours in the world — perhaps comparable to Australia.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the member's time, if I may, just for a moment, and let him know the advantages. I have a publication put out by private companies in the cruise ship business in other countries. There's a whole page in there devoted to cruises. I believe something like seven out of nine of those ads listed Vancouver as point of embarkation, or else as a stopping point. The Pacific Rim Trade and Convention Centre will add greatly to our ability, in spite of the federal government, to keep our Vancouver harbour and British Columbia in the prominent position they are in. I do wish that the members opposite would realize that they can't ride both sides of the fence.

MR. BARBER: With one ear to the ground?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I heard the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) get up and talk — I'll answer his questions when he's ready — about things that he would like me to do, dealing with the federal Transport Commission, the customs officials and other ministers too — things that aren't even in my vote. Mr. Member, you cannot climb into bed with the federal government on the constitutional issue and then stand up in British Columbia and try and make yourself a hero of vested groups. The problem is that the whole constitutional question revolves around the right of the west to have fair representation.

[ Page 5082 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll remind the minister that we are discussing vote 183, the administrative responsibilities of the minister's office. The committee has been reminded of that to some degree, and if we can contain our argument, the committee will be well served.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would remind you, if you look at your notes on questions posed by the first member for Victoria and now being reinforced by the first member for Vancouver Centre, that the first member for Victoria asked me to stand up and fight vigorously against the departure tax that the federal government have, and we understand there's going to be another tax imposed by the federal government. He asked about landing taxes. All relate to something he wished me to do relating to the federal government, and which I'm delighted to do. I appreciate his support. That's quite proper but you can't have it both ways.

The member for Vancouver Centre has just now asked about our exciting and very imaginative proposal for the Pacific Rim centre, and I'm talking about marketing and answering both of them in that vein. The whole problem is that we have to have clout in Ottawa. Our government is asking for people on the Transport Commission, the Harbours Board and the Supreme Court of Canada from the west — from British Columbia — so that these decisions that affect Air Canada or CP Air, our harbours and our railways, which are our tourist industry, have representation from us, because these are the boards that make the regulations that impose taxes and costs on the British Columbia tourist industry and impose customs regulations that don't assist us. Therefore, we must constitutionally have the right for that placement. I would hope the member and the majority of people in western Canada will support this government in its position on the constitution.

MR. HALL: I'd like to repatriate the minister and bring her back home to this chamber, the Legislature, on vote 183 — bring her back, if I may, from the flights of fancy through the customs officials right back to vote 183. I'd like to bring her back to her travel expenses, about which we've heard nothing. I'd like now to bring you back, in effect, to the travel plans that were successful upon the expenditure of some $15,600 last year, rather than the $30,000 that are in the estimates before us. I think the ministry needs her supervision, in view of the documents that have been read into the record by my colleague the first member for Victoria. I think the ministry now needs the full-time attention of what they're calling a full-time minister. Let's have the full-time minister full-time operative and full-time in her office here in the capital city of British Columbia.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

To try and bring this government to some sense and restraint, and in keeping with all our previous moves in committee dealing with supply, I move that this minister be limited and that vote 183 by reduced by $14,400. This is cutting back that estimate to last year's estimate. It's trimming the wings of the minister a little bit. It's bringing her home.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's against tourism.

MR. HALL: It's against the minister's tourism. Frankly, I think that department needs some attention that it's not been getting from the person you're chatting to. It didn't get any attention when he was the minister; it didn't get any attention when Mr. Veitch was the minister. It's about time that ministry got some attention, and by limiting this minister's travel plans.... We see her in Peking, in Hong Kong, in Asia.... In fact, a little while ago she said she was in Asia earlier this year. I'd like to know when she was in Asia earlier this year. If she was in Asia earlier this year I'd love to know when it was. She seems to have slipped across to Asia every weekend. Between you and I, Mr. Chairman, I don't think she knows what year it is. Therefore, if this amendment is successful, we're reducing this estimate by $14,400. The plan that the government had in terms of this vote was to increase that amount of money by 92 percent. Frankly, a 92 percent increase in that particular expenditure is not supportable, and that's why I move the amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Well, the member is certainly going to be sorry he brought up this subject, because I intend to answer it fully. I very much appreciate the member's concern. In graciously listening to his amendment — which I oppose, naturally — I have to say, with great respect, he is simply proving over and over again the fact that his best days — if I might call them as Minister of Tourism — were certainly well back in the early seventies. The whole world of tourism has changed. It's quite obvious that that member has not had the opportunity to keep up.

The travel expenses which that member is attempting to reduce — without any thought or understanding of the industry or of what we face today.... This is, of course, strictly a political manoeuvre.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to advise you that the expenses there relate fully to the whole of my office. I would like to make it very clear for the record and for the public. As I have said all along, this government — and it follows through in this ministry — is determined to help the fellow who lives outside the lower mainland to have access to government, have the right of service from their staff.

I was just looking for an article that I happened to read at noon today, which was a very charming little memo from the member for Surrey to his constituents. In that article he listed the things he could do without. He said that the things he could do without were the societies, the governments and the people who kept thinking that Richmond, Surrey and Burnaby, I believe it was, were in the boonies — something to that effect; the fact that people thought the highlight of the lives of people in that area was a long-range trip to Vancouver; the fact that people in the metropolitan area didn't seem to know they existed. Therefore I realize that the member will now recognize why his motion is so out of keeping with his own concerns. Would he like to withdraw?

He only lives ten miles from the centre of Vancouver. There are people in this province who live a thousand miles or hundreds of miles from the seat of government. I think this is marvellous because, believe me, I know the people out there. The truckers, loggers, teachers, storeworkers and those with small businesses recognize that they're not part of that sophisticated world of the opposition which trades on socialism and lives on free enterprise. That group would like very much to cut the successes and the contact with this

[ Page 5083 ]

government away from the people in the province. Obviously it was just a political motion. They're chatting away in typical childish fashion.

Since being minister I have travelled to every region of this province, often more than twice. I have been to Ucluelet and Tofino many times. I don't know whether that member was there. I have been to the Peace River.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: There is the arrogance of the NDP again. They don't realize that people in that area would like to have a knowledge of what's going on in their ministry available to them and would like to have the staff of this ministry and my office visit them.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.

APPENDIX

4 Ms. Brown asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With reference to the cost-sharing formula between the Provincial Government and the municipalities-

1. What was the total amount paid by the Government for 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, and 1979-80?

2. What was the total amount paid by the municipalities for 197 6-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, and 1979-80?

The Hon. G. M. McCarthy replied as follows:

"The Government payments column includes the amount charged back to the municipalities."