[ Page 4275 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Reid)

On vote 65: minister's office –– 4275

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Rose

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Michael

Mr. Miller

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TOURISM, RECREATION AND CULTURE
(continued)

On vote 65: minister's office, $243,459.

MS. EDWARDS: We were talking yesterday, Mr. Minister, about the hotel room tax. I have taken the opportunity to reread the bill as well, and there is still a question in my mind about how that tax gets back to the tourism promotion functions it is supposed to be taken for. I know this is not in the minister's estimates. However, it is an issue of some importance to hotels and tourism promotion and so on; therefore I know it's of great interest to the minister.

There are some suggestions that 2 percent on a $180 bill won't make that much difference, but an increase of 2 percent in tax on a bill for conventions is simply impossible. Some of the hotel and tourism people are telling me that if a municipality or regional district chose to impose an extra 2 percent, that would make it extremely difficult to attract conventions. That's one of the concerns that I put forward for the minister. I am sure he has heard this concern and will have something to say about it.

What I am worrying about in particular, besides that, is still the issue — and the minister may have reviewed this in the interim — of how that money gets back out of coffers. Is it simply reassigned to the municipality or the entity that asked for it on the basis of a descriptive contract? Or does the entity have to apply each time it has a project that it wants to fund under those particular revenues?

HON. MR. REID: I don't have the answer to the question, and it's probably most appropriate if I take that question as notice and provide her with sufficient details and information on it, because it doesn't come under my ministry. It's not in the estimates, but I will answer it so that we're all aware how the final disbursal will be handled.

You're talking to the hotel industry out there, Madam Member, and they're making a case to you of their concern about the 2 percent increase in hotel tax. I don't know where you're renting a room in British Columbia for $180 a night. They would be very limited hotels. I would tell you that the average rental is somewhere around $70 a night. I think the Pan Pacific and the Bayshore during the strong season may get somewhere near that figure, but I am not hearing from the travelling public that the 2 percent is a major concern.

They have said on occasion in the last little while that the hotel industry itself has added a 3.4 percent increase in 1987 over 1986. I'm not so sure that they shouldn't reconsider their position if they're worried about a 2 percent component that we determined — in talking to them — is necessary to market the component called convention marketing. I don't think it's the taxpayers' role to market convention facilities as much as it is the recipient's, which is mostly the hotel industry.

So if they are so concerned about the 2 percent, I hope they would rethink their 3.4 percent on average increase in 1987, and maybe we can get a compromise between the two.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I'm surprised to hear you say what you do about convention centres, considering that the ministry, the government, has put so many resources into supporting the convention industry in this province — convention centres and so on and so forth.

As to hotel rooms, I understand there are some that are over $100. I believe this was for an average two-night stay, which was why that figure of $180 was put together. I don't think it was indicated that that was a one-night stay; I think it was the average stay, the average bill, or something like that. I believe that's where the figure came from. However, the point was that 2 percent may not be much on an individual's hotel bill, but when you put together what you're going to have to charge an organization, for example There are many organizations who have conventions and who have people attending who are not very well able to pay hotel bills — everything from the Canadian Cancer Society to the Mental Health Association — and the people who do have conventions.... So the suggestion is that that kind of tax could in fact create a hardship.

As I say, I'm surprised that the minister sort of dissociated himself from the promotion of conventions, because I think that has been considered one of the things the ministry has wanted to do in its marketing programs. Certainly the amount of capital funding that has gone into assisting convention centres would indicate that the provincial government has an interest.

I am even more concerned about whether this is — and I believe you said it was — one of the ways the ministry was hoping to offset the cut in its marketing budget, that it would allow municipalities, regional districts and other entities to apply to have promotion funding this way. I would like to know if I'm correct in that interpretation of what you said.

HON. MR. REID: No, you're not correct. I did not in any way infer that I wanted to dissociate my ministry from the promotion of tourism convention facilities — God forbid! We've just funded Victoria to the tune of over $7.5 million from the provincial coffers for a convention Centre. We also inherited, with some cooperation from the federal government, the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre, which we as a government have an interest in keeping full. It would be folly for me to not encourage the filling of a convention Centre. On average, a thousand convention attenders in a community bring a million dollars with them. That million dollars spills off into hotels and restaurants and attractions. For the hotel industry to cry foul and then need to be part of the system to pay the bill instead of the taxpayer from Cranbrook paying for the convention Centre in downtown Vancouver.... I can't believe that the member is taking that position, wanting the private sector to be part of the promotion of convention centres and the tourists.

I don't know what tourists you're talking to, but I'm not getting complaints from tourists about the price of hotel rooms in relation to either conventions or our tourist component in British Columbia. I haven't heard a single complaint about the price of a hotel room in downtown Vancouver, downtown Prince George or wherever. I just told you they'd gone up by 3.4 percent without a complaint. I'm telling you they are up over $100 million in '87 over '85. If that's not

[ Page 4276 ]

positive and showing you that the tourists are willing to pay, I don't know what else you want.

[10:15]

I can't get negative, I'm sorry. I'm telling you it's a very positive ministry. The money that it generates for the province is nothing short of incredible and will continue to be. We're very positive about the business called convention business, but it must pay part of its way — not the taxpayers from Cranbrook paying the way for tourists in downtown Vancouver for facilities being used by tourists. We think the tourists should pay part of that, and the 2 percent hotel tax could be relegated to that.

MS. EDWARDS: I think we're again missing one of the points I'm trying to make, which is that if this is one of the ways the minister is suggesting that the promotion will be done in this province instead of having the marketing budget that you had asked for, there are some major difficulties. This has been brought up several times. If the promotion and marketing for the province are done region by region, there are some problems.

I'm not saying that all marketing should be central or that all or no marketing should be regional. There has to be a balance; I think you're well aware of that. What I'm trying to do is to find the edges of where you think the global marketing for British Columbia goes and where the other marketing goes. There has been some considerable suggestion that there are problems with doing region-by-region advertising, which will not do the same thing that the whole province advertising will do. In fact, when you collect from one region, that region is going to promote its own region. You may be collecting a whole lot of 2 percents from convention-goers in Cranbrook, and that goes into promoting the Vancouver area.

I want to know where the edges are. We need global budgeting as well. What is your feeling on that? Is this a move to cover that amount of marketing that used to be done on a global area and will now be done on a regional area? I believe that's so. If that's so, do you have a rationale for defending that? Because I see some problems. The tourists are not all from outside the province. The tourist and certainly the convention-goer to Vancouver are frequently from Prince George, Dawson Creek, Nelson and Penticton. That's the question.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, the philosophy on distributing marketing equally to the nine regions around the province.... With the regional organizations and the new 800 number, the impact it's having on being able to generate information on those individual regions across the United States and into the rest of Canada, is having such a — as I indicated to her yesterday — successful first six weeks, there are 600 calls on average a day now from outside the province.

I don't think I as minister have to worry about marketing the convention centre or the Five Sails in Vancouver to somebody in downtown Vernon. I don't believe that in this day and age in British Columbia. I think the people in downtown Vernon understand what's available in Vancouver. They understand the beauty of the harbour and the mountains and the Royal Hudson and all those other things that are neat to come and be part of.

I don't think we need to strongly market that component, but I think — and I know — we have to strongly market externally, which we're doing. We're trying to draft a cooperative approach as a result of Partners in Tourism with the other private sector and Crown corporation marketing programs going on in the province. If you take the marketing programs of other government entities such as B.C. Rail, B. C. Steamships, B. C. Transit, B.C. Ferries and our marketing budget and bring them all together, and we were all working for the same product called "marketing the whole province collectively," I can tell you we've got more money than we've ever had.

We talk about doing the proper things with the money we've got, which is treasury board's direction: to get a bigger bang for the buck in each of our Crown corporations that are marketing, including my ministry. That is the mandate we have now; I have no argument with that. If it's filling up the hotels and the highways and selling more gas and groceries to people who are coming and filling up the attractions, that's what you call success. Since it's happening daily — the numbers are larger than ever, as I told you before — and since it's happening on a regular basis and since the convention centres....I wish the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) were here because I'd like him to emphasize to you the results they already have booked for the convention centre which isn't even halfway up.

So if you're trying to make a case for desperation of the convention centres, I don't think that you should be making it on the backs of the people in downtown Fernie, or that they should pay for a convention centre complex marketing program in downtown Vancouver. When the private sector pays their share and we pay our share — which should be a declining number — we're winning, because the facility itself should stand alone, ultimately, from the numbers of people who are utilizing it, and who are coming to the province to do that. They do it everywhere else in the world. I don't know why British Columbia has to be unique and have a socialist attitude of "we pay for everything" as taxpayers –– I think that's ludicrous.

MR. ROSE: I was intrigued by the response of the minister, as I usually am. Just to follow up on that, does that mean there'll be no grants for tourist facilities by the Chambers of Commerce in each area? Are they going to have to stand on their own feet too, for the tourist buildings and information centres?

HON. MR. REID: Not at the moment, they don't. But there is a declining involvement from the ministry in local chambers' operations from when we first took over to what it is today. The intention is that if the businesses in the community, supported by chambers are in fact bona fide tourism promoters themselves, and if they're the recipient of the promotions for drawing people into their community, it's not incumbent upon the taxpayers to continue to fund local information offices other than — and I want to make this abundantly clear — what we should do as a government for what would be perceived as flow-through traffic. If the Chilliwack information office, for instance, is entertaining 20 percent of their traffic which is stopping in there because they're lost tourists who pull in there and want to know how to get to the Victoria ferry heading westbound, and they're not looking for McDonalds or Fantasy Gardens or the transportation centre in Cloverdale or whatever....

MR. ROSE: No commercials.

HON. MR. REID: I'm sorry. But if they're not looking for particular attractions, but they're looking for a destination

[ Page 4277 ]

location, that would be considered flow-through traffic. At this point we still fund those operations with staff, assistance to staff and a component of funding. It's around $ 10,000 on average per information office around the province. We have 154 of them, to which we contribute around $ 10,000 each for what we perceive to be flow-through traffic. Mr. Member, when the case can be made for flow-through traffic information, we will continue to participate with whatever money we have available.

MR. ROSE: Just so I understand it. There is going to be a declining government involvement in such information centres as years go on, and this is consistent, I understand, with the Premier's abhorrence of grants and wanting these businesses to stand on their own feet. Are you suggesting to me that the chambers' approach to municipal governments for their grants will also be declining, and that the chambers will be urged to forgo that kind of practice in fund-raising that is going to the municipalities or the provincial government, and the chambers will be urged to avoid grants and raise their own money and stand on their own feet too?

HON. MR. REID: Just to give you some idea, my ministry is not allowed to use the word "grant" in any of my letters because grants draw up the conclusion that it's a gift and you're continuing to give a gift. If you want to talk about funding — continual funding, ongoing funding — for these operations, certainly I think it's just as much or more of a responsibility for a local municipality than it is for the provincial government if it's not flow-through traffic. If the case can continually be made for flow-through traffic which is not generating for its own community and is looking after the traffic destined for the Coquihalla and heading into Kamloops, there is no reason why Chilliwack municipality and the businesses of Chilliwack should be paying that tab. If they can make a continual case to both the Highways ministry, my ministry and to Economic Development and others for some funding assistance to provide that information, then collectively we're all going to gain by that.

There has to be a further commitment by local municipalities and local businesses to the receipt of the tourists that are getting to their communities by virtue of our marketing programs offshore and outside of the province of British Columbia. We're getting them here on behalf of the taxpayers, on behalf of the businesses, and once they get here, we would hope that the industries and businesses come of age and do the thing which is proper for the private sector and the free enterprise system, and that is invite them in and entertain them and keep them around for a few days. That's what tourism is all about.

MR. ROSE: I suspect that this is a new and refreshing approach to tourism. I congratulate the minister and want to ask him: since it's virtually Orwellian that you can give a grant but you can't call it a grant — it's called an incentive henceforth — I wonder, then, if the minister expects that his budget will continue to decline as more and more the incentives — notice I didn't use the word "grant" — will be offloaded on to other people. Is that it, that we can expect a decline year after year in his ministry, and if he is there long enough it might shrink to virtually nothing?

HON. MR. REID: The reverse is true. We're putting more money into the information network in 1988 than we did in 1987, and I will continue to press for more money into the network when it's proven and justified that the province has a role to play in the information network in relation to the day-to-day operations. Where the case can be made that the information centre is not the recipient of all the paraphernalia and the material needed, my ministry will be involved.

Let me make it abundantly clear to you, your members and everybody out there that I have no intention of leaving visitors and tourists in this province stranded without information on what to find, where to find the best attractions and how to get where they want to get to in a hurry. I don't have any problem with that, and I will do that and continue to press for that.

In saying that, what we need to do, since we now have a uniform network, uniform signage which is very exciting — it's the best in North America.... We have a network that works together. They talk to each other now about what kind of tourist information people are looking for in each centre, what kind of thing the average tourist really wants in relation to the communities they're visiting. The networks are talking to each other — not my staff talking to each other in a little cubbyhole down in Victoria any longer. The network, the 145 centres, are talking to each other. They weren't doing that two and a half years ago.

In relation to that, I can tell you on a month-to-month basis — we could do it on a day-to-day basis if necessary — how many people are visiting each information centre around the province of British Columbia and how the increases are coming on. I can give you an example right at the moment. Travel info inquiries in 1986 versus 1987: in 1986, in Fernie — which this member might want to know — the information office handled 2,015 inquiries. In 1987 they handled 2,766, an increase of 37 percent. In Merritt in 1986 they handled 8,920 inquiries. I don't know if the member who represents Merritt is here. In 1987 — surprise, surprise, about the scare tactic out there, but this is what's happening in the system — the travel info centre in Merritt handled 23,845 inquiries — up 168 percent.

Dawson Creek had 12,773 inquiries in 1986. Lo and behold, little old Dawson Creek — I'm sorry the member from the area is not here — had 26,746, up 109 percent in 1987. Quesnel: the Gold Rush Trail route handled 7,910 inquiries in 1986 and 10,943 in 1987, an increase of 38 percent. Massey Tunnel, Richmond— the question was asked yesterday by the member — in February of this year handled 1,075, up 56 percent over the same month last year. In March they handled 875, an increase of 86 percent over 1987. Last year in April — these are the numbers that I'd like the member to make note of, because they're the ones I'd like to respond to — the Richmond Massey Tunnel handled 1,205. This year in April they handled 2,142, an increase of 78 percent. Delta handled 209 in April of last year and 757 in April 1988, a 262 percent increase. So you see, Madam Member, when you asked the question yesterday about whether the tourists are going to be looked after better, those numbers tell you that the people are getting the information from the network of information centres around the province, which is working.

We will continue to fund to the maximum that we have available, out of my ministry, the assistance to those info centres, because of the increase in incremental numbers they're getting. If they're having some difficulty handling those kinds of increments, we must be prepared to help them because there must be some flow-through traffic related to

[ Page 4278 ]

those numbers. There's no question about that. For example, Merritt. If you go up 168 percent in one year, that tells you that all that load cannot be Merritt's. Good for them if it is, but Merritt is handling some flow through traffic. As a result of that, my ministry will look at that from month to month and continue to assist.

The other thing that it should tell you is that if we're getting 168 percent more visits to Merritt over last year, we're also giving out 168 percent more brochures and maps, which my ministry spends $2 million on annually. As those increases come up and as the interest comes up and information centres give this material out, we provide 90 percent of it from the ministry. The rest of it comes from other regions, but 90 percent of their giveaways are eight or nine productions that we pay for — $2 million worth.

[10:30]

MR. ROSE: I hadn't intended to pursue this for another question, but I think the minister would allow that the results that he's.... I wouldn't say he's boasting about them, because he's so modest I know I could never accuse him of boasting, especially on the fifth anniversary of his election to this House.

I noticed there was a tremendous thundering of applause here — deafening applause by the minister.

He would agree, though, wouldn't he, that it isn't just brochures and maps and that sort of thing, but the Coquihalla had a good deal to do with the increase in traffic and information sought at that office, probably more than anything else. Traffic might have been encouraged towards Merritt because of the Coquihalla and diverted from Cache Creek or some other place.

HON. MR. REID: It's up 38 percent.

MR. ROSE: What is? Well, that's not quite the same either, is it? I mean, if you're going to Kamloops, you don't necessarily have to go through.... I mean, you might not look.

I'm not arguing with that point. I'm just saying his figure on the Merritt thing has probably a good deal more to do with the.... I know he's fair-minded. It wasn't the goodness of his heart; it was the goodness of the Coquihalla which attracted people there, because it was a faster trip to the Okanagan.

HON. MR. REID: I'm not going to debate with the member on the subject. I gave him that one only because it related to some concerns that have been offered by that member over there and other members who said that the increase in traffic on the Coquihalla had a detrimental effect on the Hope-Princeton route and on the Gold Rush Trail route. Our numbers don't indicate that. Our numbers say that the incremental numbers are up in the other regions also.

MR. ROSE: Have you been through Cache Creek lately and seen the stores and businesses closing?

HON. MR. REID: No, I'm not aware that they're....

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: Well, the restaurant and hotel industry is very strong in Cache Creek that I'm aware of. I wasn't aware that there was a.... My ministry is responsible for tourism, and tourism numbers, as far as I know, are still high in Cache Creek. I'll get you the actual numbers. I'll take that as notice.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like to pursue this line of questioning just a little bit further too. It's interesting that the minister gives figures for '86 and '87 –– I think it would be interesting, if those figures were available, to go back to 1985, because one of the things we do know is that during 1986 figures were down in many tourist areas of the province, because people were coming to Vancouver and that was their only destination. I travelled the province in 1986, and there was doom and gloom in North Island, in the member for Kootenay's area and in the north, because people were not in those regions. It would be interesting to have a longer-range perspective on that.

I'd like to also comment on the figures the minister just quoted for Richmond and Delta, which I think would have a considerable amount to do with the closing of Douglas crossing. People have to go out of their way to find information. It would be interesting to know how much flow-through traffic there is in those particular areas.

I just want to raise a few more questions about Douglas crossing. I know it was discussed in the debate yesterday afternoon, but as a member for a riding that is close to that crossing, I know that in my community the closing of that particular centre is still looked upon with considerable regret and concern. It's not just a local concern. It is, I think, a very strongly held perception that the face the province, which is promoting itself as a tourist destination, shows to tourists as they come across its major borders is one of the most important impressions that is left. The kind of welcome there and the kind of access to immediate information are , extremely important to the visitor. I know from the other side of the country, where I originally come from and which I often visit, that those first tourist centres that welcome people into a province have a tremendous effect on their whole perception of how that province is going to receive them.

That's not to say I'm not entirely in support of the network of centres across the province that have local knowledge and the skills in their staff to provide information to the visitor to Greenwood or Quesnel or the northern parts of the province. But I truly do believe that we have made a major error in closing that facility. If it was inadequate, which the minister stated yesterday, then surely the decision should have been to improve its quality in whatever way that might have been necessary — through an improved building or through taking over the whole building. To close it altogether is a major mistake for us. To take people off the major routes into what are local tourist offices doesn't recognize the flow-through nature of a lot of the traffic that enters over that border.

I'd like to ask the minister what kind of responses he has been getting about that closure from areas other than Surrey, Delta and Richmond, who have obviously seen an increase in the volume of traffic into their offices, as that's the only alternative people have; it's the only place they can get early information. Could the minister give me some indication of the responses he has had to that closure?

HON. MR. REID: I did get some mail from some of the chambers of commerce and some of the information offices outside the peripheral area we talked about — Richmond, Delta, South Surrey, White Rock, Cloverdale, etc. — only

[ Page 4279 ]

because, as always, there was a fear mongering attitude out there. Somebody said this ministry had made a dumb move: "Of course, they're making all dumb moves. They've closed down the most effective, the most attractive, the most accessible..." — all those neat things, without researching what we were doing and why we were doing it.

The facility at Douglas was inadequate, but not because of staff or internal facilities. It was inadequate for parking, for the number of vehicles that come straight across now at that border crossing. They couldn't handle 10 percent of the traffic that was trying to stop at that facility. It's not geared for an information office. It doesn't have sufficient parking. It doesn't have enough washrooms. It had two portable trailers that were non-conforming and had been there forever and a day. They were creating some problems for the golf course, which runs right behind the facility, because of the number of cars that were parking on part of the golf course, and so on. It was creating some problems for the Highways ministry, for BCDC and for my ministry. We were getting complaints that it wasn't providing sufficient space for people to stop and get the information they wanted.

We took it upon ourselves to encourage two local chambers to do a more effective job of putting other locations within a mile and a mile and a half of that location. To say that we're giving up looking after visitors the minute they cross the border.... Maybe within 100 yards of the border, that's true; but we will be providing, and we are providing.... On the other highway, which you failed to mention.... The Pacific crossing, 176th, had no information facilities. A third of the traffic northbound into British Columbia wasn't even being told how to find an information office or where there was one. We're putting one in there. It's a full service being ran by the chamber of commerce of Surrey. We've got an agreement now with the White Rock, Crescent Beach and South Surrey people on a brand-new hotel site right off the freeway. They have a deal with the owner of this new hotel that they are putting in there to provide a facility for them to provide information on that area which the people couldn't find before.

I told you about what's happened in Delta. Those people are happy with what's happened with the generation of visitors to their centre, which they spent $200,000 or thereabouts to build for that purpose. Up until a month ago they were getting 209 people, and now they are getting 757, an increase of 262 percent.

I gave you the number for the Richmond Massey Tunnel — up 78 percent. Those numbers indicate that people who want to know about Vancouver in general are probably getting the information there, but they are also getting information on Richmond, South Surrey, New Westminster, and Delta. They weren't getting it before.

What I promised the other member yesterday — your colleague over there — is that I will give her numbers at the end of this year indicating that this pattern will continue. If we get numbers like a 78 percent increase in visits to information offices that are brought on stream, over and above what was happening in 1987, will you call that a success? Sure you will.

The important thing — and I hear you — is that the visitor gets the information as efficiently and as soon as possible, and I think as comprehensively as possible. We give you that assurance. Have faith in this ministry. I give you that assurance. In doing that, your community will benefit.

I'll tell you what will happen, if I can just globalize for a second. The new information office on 176th and 8th avenue will be able to talk about your stem-wheeler, the Samson V, the historical sites in New Westminster, and how to catch the SkyTrain from New Westminster to Vancouver. They haven't been able to do that up until now, because the information people at Douglas have been so busy handing out maps on everything else going on that they haven't been able to talk about a commodity called a tourism attraction. I'm convinced that we are doing a better job and will be doing a better job on behalf of your community. I give you that assurance. Have faith.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Minister, what I'm bringing to you areas some concerns of my community that they don't have that faith at this stage of the game. I think it is both a local and a broad issue. Certainly the facility at Douglas was inadequate and there was a need for a facility at the other crossing, and we can acknowledge that state of affairs. But I remain a doubter that when one crosses a border into this province, the lack of a major provincial presence in the immediate vicinity of that crossing is a good thing for tourism.

I would like to just ask the minister, in the same way that he is urging us to accept his perspective on how the world is going to unfold, that he be equally prepared to look at a reconsideration of that particular crossing and how it's working, if the figures, particularly around flow-through information, are not satisfactory. We need to have an ability to look at both sides of this equation in the year ahead. I would be satisfied if I could hear on his behalf that he is prepared to look at another scenario unfolding that may need to have a reconsideration of the way in which this area is being served for tourists entering the province for the first time.

Let me just ask another question while I'm on my feet, Mr. Chairman, and the minister can perhaps just keep track of that commitment that I'm looking to from him. He noted to the opposition House Leader that he doesn't use the word "grants," but he does use the word "funding." I find "funding" a much more interesting word, because to me it suggests that there is an ongoing commitment, whereas "grant" suggests that there is some kind of term to the grant or project. You know, we fund hospitals, we fund schools, we fund social programs, so "funding" suggests to me that there is a commitment to these information centres on an ongoing basis.

I want to pick up on the comments of the Opposition House Leader around the volume of dollars that will be available to these various centres around the province for flow-through traffic.

[10:45]

There is in fact a huge demand from chambers of commerce and info centres on local municipalities for dollars to help support that activity. If we're looking at an average figure of $10,000, for example, for the info centres — the figure that the minister quoted a moment ago — my municipality alone, a very small city, has more than ten times that in terms of municipal dollars that flow into that centre.

I want to have some commitment from the minister about the kind of funding on an ongoing basis that is available, and that funding is genuinely related to the kind of flow-through traffic that is there. You know, if anyone goes into an info centre, in most instances they are looking for two kinds of information: they're looking for information about the local area, but they're also looking for information that takes them to their next stop or the next area into which they're going. They're planning for today but they're planning for tomor-

[ Page 4280 ]

row and a week from tomorrow as well. In many instances, I would suspect, it's very difficult to track that kind of use, if you like, of the centre and to distinguish between the local information and the information that has a province wide kind of implication.

Can the minister give us some understanding of how his ministry decides on the level of funding that is available to these various centres, and a commitment that there is going to continue to be a recognition that these centres run by local organizations have a dual purpose: to serve the local community, and to serve also the broad tourism needs of the province; that every one of them will, just by the very nature of their being, be one of them and be automatically providing both those services and deserve to have support from the provincial government in its promotion of tourism in concrete terms, in dollars that are available for the operation of those centres?

HON. MR. REID: Firstly, let me give you some comfort relative to the services being provided and the ongoing services that we are going to assure the incoming visitor to British Columbia — at even the Douglas crossing. As I mentioned before, that was an inadequate facility, and if you want to make a note, we will not as a ministry reopen that Douglas under any condition. It is inadequate; it is not a proper facility for tourists. We will be making service additions in the area to make certain that we service the visitors to British Columbia in the best way possible.

I know that doesn't give you comfort, because you don't believe we will do it. I give you the commitment that we will do that. We will not reduce the service in British Columbia from the provincial point of view to the travelling public as a result of a change such as that. We're already putting in place two centres that were not there two months ago: one on 8th Avenue, 176th; and one on King George Highway at the overpass at the 499. They were not there two months ago. They are going to be there to offer not only full service to the people coming into the area but flow-through traffic service.

The other question. I cannot be trapped into ongoing funding commitments, because I cannot make them. We talked to every information centre around the province on an individual basis with my staff on providing whatever funds we can apportion to them as a commitment to our contribution towards the flow-through requirements. New Westminster's operation is certainly a lot different than Vanderhoof's, and New Westminster's in relation to Surrey's even has a variance in the amount of flow-through traffic that goes through Surrey at the library versus the one that you have just off the freeway there on Front Street, or whatever it is.

I can tell you that we also provide on an ongoing basis a commitment to manpower assistance which we provide annually to every centre in the province that has evidence there is a provincial requirement for assistance towards t manpower. There's a manpower commitment over and above the amount of money that we commit on an individual basis. Globally it's around $10,000, but it's not the same in every one. Some will get more and some less, depending on the flow-through traffic that we can identify.

We're not just guessing at these things, Madam Member. As I told that member yesterday, as a result of this very innovative "Visitor '87" survey that we conducted with visitors to British Columbia, we can now tell you without question the percentage of visitors to your info centre who are lost, how many are stopping in New Westminster because it's an interesting place to visit, how many are staying overnight, why they're coming and which direction they're going. We can now tell you that within a small percentage point on a daily basis.

When New Westminster's info office wants to make a case for this government making a further commitment towards funding, we know if they're just trying to lead us down the garden path. I commit to you that we will, with available funds in my ministry, assist information centres around the province as best we can and when we can.

MS. A. HAGEN: I just want to make one comment on the minister's language. It's a friendly comment, Mr. Minister. One of the things I've made a commitment to is to encourage people to try to use gender-neutral language whenever possible. Instead of "manpower assistance," "staffing assistance" is a good term for you to have in your lexicon in the future. I'm pleased to know that staffing assistance is there.

I want to move on to the whole question of the resources available to your ministry in the way of people resources. Some time ago, at the start of the session, we had some discussion about a program that your ministry was involved with last year through the umbrella JobTrac program coordinated through the Advanced Education and Job Training ministry. Your ministry had about 25 percent of the dollars available — about $20 million of the $81 million in the program last year. I think it was pretty clear to all of us that you were as surprised as anyone at the fact that those dollars were not going to be available to you in the coming year.

I know we're looking at this year ahead, but I want to ask you for just a moment to look back over the year past and the work done by quite a number of employees who came under hat program. I think the figures for your ministry were the largest of any — yours and the forestry JobTrac, each of which had pretty close to 25 percent of the dollars. There were around 1,600 jobs in your ministry, covering the range of your ministry's mandate: recreation, culture and tourism.

Because we don't very often have an opportunity to get your perspective on this, perhaps you can give us some idea of the projects funded last year. I'm not asking you for a lot of detail, but I think you have a good way of picking up some representative activities to reflect the work made available. Perhaps, too, you could give us some indication of how you or your ministry decided where those dollars should be allocated around your ministry's mandate and priorities. Were they evenly distributed across the province? Were there certain priorities that your ministry was able to address by virtue of having some of these project dollars? They were grants to non-profit groups, as I understand the program set up with your ministry. They were grants with a project framework that had very specific tasks to be accomplished. Talk to us for just a few minutes about that, and then 1 want to take a more forward look on that issue.

HON. MR. REID: First of all, my apologies if I offended anybody with the word "manpower." I would say that 80 percent of my ministry's staff — especially under the culture, recreation and tourism operation — are of the female gender; there's no question about that. So I will caution my comments; I had no intention of doing that.

On the question of JobTrac, first of all, I can give you the assurance that those of my staff involved with the JobTrac dispersal around the province were more than fair. If I had the numbers in front of me I'd be able to convince that member

[ Page 4281 ]

just how fair it was. I think New Westminster probably got more funds in community JobTrac in 1987 than any other community in the lower mainland as a result of the programs brought forward by the non-profit sector there which had some very neat and very novel cultural, heritage, tourism — because they come under my ministry — historical, the Samson V.... I'm trying to think of the name of the museum up on the hill; it's a family name. The Irving museum had significant funds. The Samson V is the other one which is one of the major attractions there. People got some funds for the firemen to restore some historical fire equipment.

I want to elaborate about the rest of the province. You've really caught me where the heart beats the strongest: the program we had last year, the roughly 1,700 people we put into the workforce out there, and the things it created for each community in which it's in. I hope that some of the members who aren't in the House today have their squawk boxes on and are going to listen to this, because there isn't a program that we ever put in place as a government and that I've been involved with that had as big an impact on any community as community JobTrac.

It was not only the fact that it took people off welfare and put them into the workforce; that wasn't the success. The success was the pride that the people who worked in those projects had in what they were doing. The success was those people getting into the workforce as a result of trying something new and innovative in the community, which was first of all instituted by the non-profit groups which we funded. We did not grant money; I want to make this clear. We funded by project definition and by manpower description to a certain level per person, plus 25 percent of that — which was for materials, nails and shrubbery.

I'll talk about a couple, because I could talk about many around the province. We have them in every community. A couple of weeks ago  — maybe three weeks ago — I went out to the constituency of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to visit that community which had the Sooke museum historical association. They had acquired some funds for a work project there. They hired people in that community, but the success of the project is that it turned that whole community around to having pride in a tourism component that Sooke now has. They now have beautified the streets and the roadways into town. They had the school kids out planting shrubs and trees along with people on social assistance who were happy to be doing it. They arrived early every day, and they went home late. They came in on Saturdays and planted trees and shrubs on their days off. That's how successful the project was.

If you ask me if I was sad that we couldn't continue it in '88, the answer is yes. There were other priorities established by Treasury Board where the funds may be better servicing the community in 1988, in their minds, over that kind of a project. If it worked well....

I was in Fernie two weeks ago, and the member for that constituency was in the same area. I talked to people on JobTrac who were at the end of their project with tears in their eyes. Never in my life have I seen people so enthusiastic about a project funded by this government, that they didn't want to leave; they wanted to stay on working. They were happy to do it.

They were applying for jobs that they thought they could never in their life apply for. This innovative project allowed them to have a more diverse application of their own experience. They were able to talk about different things that they had no experience with before. If you ask me if I'm enthusiastic about JobTrac, I can get you some details that will blow you right out of the water. Last year we spent $17 million of your money most effectively around the province, and I'd love to have the opportunity to do it again.

We are currently negotiating on a tourism component with the Minister of Social Services. It is a similar kind of project — not knowing the framework, as I explained to the member yesterday — called "Civic Pride," where non-profit groups can continue to bring projects into their community which need to be assisted by people who need any kind of job and who are happy to come and do it and help build up the pride of the community. That's the success of the project. The community pride was nothing short of phenomenal. Ask me if I'm enthusiastic. You better believe it.

[11:00]

MS. A. HAGEN: That's quite self-evident. What is also self-evident is that if we were to ask organizations around the province about continuing needs that came out of the initiatives, the imagination and the concerns of communities, I suspect we would get the same response. I know that community groups are really devastated by the fact that not only is the program not ongoing, but that nobody knows what is happening. The minister has said over and over again — and so has the Minister of Social Services and Housing said during his estimates — that we don't know what we're going to be doing, and how we're going to be doing it.

Clearly, with a lot of the programs related to your ministry, the activities that people are involved with have a focus during the high tourist months. I think that at this stage of the game, the minister must be getting very apprehensive about the delay in some firm commitments to both the dollars and the structure of this year's program. It's not something that should be happening in June and July; it's something that should be happening right now. It's not something where we should be guessing about whether the dollars are going to be minimal — a few million dollars — or whether they're going to be sufficiently substantial for the ministry to have some effect on the tourism and recreational and cultural activities that are clearly concentrated in the summer months.

Does the minister anticipate as a result of this some decline in the tourism activities that he is going to be able to prioritize this year? Can he give us any indication of when he would be able to inform members on both sides of this House about how he has been able to translate his enthusiasm and obvious advocacy for this program into something concrete that he can work with, continue to talk about with pride, and that MLAs on both sides of the House can convey to their communities so they can know what is in store for them? When are we going to have some hard information on this, and what are the results if we don't get it soon?

HON. MR. REID: We are getting off my estimates, because, as you know, there isn't a penny in my estimates for the continuation of the JobTrac program. Last year, in fact, the money was not directly in my ministry but was administered by post-secondary education. If I had the funds we could discuss it even further.

I can tell you that I continue to make a case for a similar program. I indicate that the hon. Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) has a component this year under his ministry which will address tourism assistance, and it's somewhere in the neighbourhood. of $4 mil-

[ Page 4282 ]

lion. It's a quarter of what was given last year, but it identifies under tourism. The framework for that has not been finally defined, and so I say to you that once the mechanics for that are in place I'd be happy to talk to you — within an instant of that information.

What I want to do is encourage the groups out there; and if I had a let-down from the groups that participated in 1987, it was that they didn't tell my colleagues and your colleagues much about the success of their projects until it was determined by some that maybe it wasn't successful, because not much was said about it except by this minister and some of my staff. In saying that, I think if the enthusiasm for the success of the projects had been made abundantly clear sooner rather than after the fact, we probably would have been able to press as collective members of this House for a continuation of those programs, because they do work and they work well. If your colleagues are not fully aware of that, it's difficult sometimes to continue to try to make a case which may not appear to be successful, because there are 17 other ministers, of course, who continue to press for what they perceive to be the most needy programs in B.C.

I have spoken on many occasions to groups out there and said that if their projects were as successful as they were telling me they were, why didn't they tell that story to everybody else; and after the fact a lot of them are. But some comfort I will give you is this. As you know and as I mentioned, there is a project which won't be as large as last year but which will be similar, being identified very shortly. It will be earlier than last year, even though it currently can't be fine-tuned, so we will be on stream with it.

Any groups you know that are contacting you in relation to similar projects to community JobTrac 1987, only in 1988 called "Tourism Civic Pride".... Since I don't have the mechanics for it yet, I would be happy to receive applications from your people on projects that they consider to be similar; and if they meet the criteria when the criteria are established, we can start to channel it through. If they don't, we can certainly get back to them right away. But I give you the assurance that I'm very enthusiastic about the potential.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to just ask the minister to clarify a figure that I thought I heard but I wasn't sure. Did you say, Mr. Minister, something in the order of $4 million? Did you use that figure?

HON. MR. REID: It was $4.5 million.

MS. A. HAGEN: Thank you. So that's about 20 percent of the dollars that were available last year. I would differ with the minister about the reason for the cancellation of this program. I think it is because we so often see on the government side a lack of any long-term planning around these programs.

I want to pick up on the quality of the program that the minister waxes so enthusiastic about. That quality is that people were doing useful work. It was work that the community valued and that people got a lot of affirmation for.

I want to just contrast what's happening in this province on the ongoing need for job opportunities that provide training with what's happening at the federal level, where a job strategy is in place. It was a three-year program. It is a program that continues and is fine-tuned. It's not our task today to evaluate that particular program, because it too has some flaws. But at least it's a program that is in place with some time-frame that allows for programs to be developed, that allows for evaluations, that allows for good targeting in terms of the people being assisted into employment and training, and that allows for communities to be targeted.

What we have are annual hiccups of dollars that come into programs and then disappear, that leave communities with no context in which they can do any of the long-term planning they need to do. Clearly, from the minister's comments, that shortchanges him in his being able to do some of the kind of planning he would like to do. If we want to look at what happens in the whole range of opportunities for people to work in the tourism industry, with the support of this government, we find that we simply have programs that arrive and disappear and arrive and disappear

I know that there are many areas where you cross boundaries with, for example, Environment and Parks, which is a major ministry in terms of the kind of tourism activities you'd be promoting. You obviously cross boundaries, if we're looking at training, with Advanced Education. There needs to be some coordination.

If we're talking about tourism being one of the most important industries in this province economically, we're looking at communities.... You talked about communities and the role they play being key to how that industry develops. This kind of "here it is, there it isn't; we don't know when it's coming and what's it's going to be" doesn't allow you, Mr. Minister, or communities to really do the kind of planning that needs to take place.

Let's just look at it from the youth perspective, for example. For the third year in a row the Challenge '88 program, which is another program that allows some opportunity for young people to work, has had no increase in dollars from the provincial government, but a 13 percent increase in dollars from the federal government. Let's look at the number of people who are still unemployed in the regions where tourism, as my colleague has so eloquently said, is a major industry that needs to be supported.

You have the support of people on this side of the House for some of those initiatives. But, Mr. Minister, we need to put it in a broader context; there has to be longer-term planning for you to do your job in marketing facilities and developing community programs and networks.

If I look at my own community, for example, one of the reasons programs like JobTrac were taken up is that an economic development association developed within our community that is a model all across the country because it is a cooperative endeavour. If we have a provincial government that is constantly changing the frameworks in which people in local communities can plan the kinds of initiatives that tap the energy of many volunteers in the community, of solid community groups, then we are undermining the very things that you, by your own words, Mr. Minister, are indicating you want to promote.

This loss of a program after one year, without, it appears, any consultation by your ministry, leaves people without confidence. To look at 20 percent of those dollars being available this year is to tell its own story in terms of what those organizations can expect. I think the ministry has some potential to take some leads here with youth work in relation to tourism and ongoing funding to groups, so there can be that stimulation while we have the growth in the industry that all of us would like to see. We simply can't have those results if we have the kind of ad hockery and short-term planning that this ministry has been the victim of at this particular time.

[ Page 4283 ]

I think the minister has acknowledged his own discouragement and despair that something that fitted into the agenda that he's been trying to promote was in such a short shrift way simply removed without any consultation. It's the responsibility of ministers to look at and evaluate those kinds of programs before they introduce and then short-circuit them. That kind of result simply doesn't fit with the other kind of rhetoric, with the other cuts that your ministry has endured this year. All of your enthusiasm and commitment can't make up for the lack of hard, cold dollars into some of the activities that could be used to promote one of the most important industries in our province.

I'm devastated to know that out of this you are going to have a few dollars that really can't begin to do more than provide 200 or 300 jobs across the province. You don't have, through Parks, any of the youth programs anymore. There's no increase in the Challenge program. There's very little for you to work with, and I think that presents you with some problems that we can't solve for you. Those are government problems, and they are problems that suggest to you that this government is simply looking to the latest idea of how they can cut their budget rather than using their budget to facilitate the things that work cooperatively with economic, recreation and tourism organizations across the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to talk to hon. members for a moment with respect to relevancy. I appreciate the fact that all the members are well aware.... We have discussed, yesterday and today, certain items in relationship to vote 65 and the budget of the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture, items which do relate to the ministry but which are not under the minister's control. I speak of the 2 percent tax and the matter we were just discussing. Certainly I agree that insofar as they relate to the administrative functions of the ministry, they should be discussed. But I would just like to caution hon. members with respect to the fact that discussing the reasons why these matters might have been cancelled or are not being carried on anymore is not really within the purview of the minister, and therefore we have a problem with relevancy.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I just want to start off by saying that I believe the Minister of Tourism has probably got the most exciting portfolio in government. It's a growth industry; it's got more challenge and excitement in it than any of the other ministries of government. I certainly envy that minister, and I congratulate him for the action-oriented, positive attitude that he's entered in that ministry.

[11:15]

If tourism isn't the biggest industry today, it's certainly going to be. I believe that the facts would probably show it to be the biggest industry in British Columbia today, and I can see in the next two and three and four and five years the industry growing at a more accelerated pace than it's grown in the past. I can tell, simply by listening to the inquiries coming to my desk when I'm back in my constituency looking at new entrepreneurs wishing to start businesses in the province of British Columbia and in the constituency of Shuswap Revelstoke. At least two out of every three people who walk in looking at new ventures are looking in the field of tourism. I find that very satisfying and gratifying, because it certainly is a tremendous industry. It's clean; it's literally pollution free. Certainly, the future will see tourism be the tremendous growth industry in the province.

I happened to have a short visit to the Colwood home fair a couple of weekends ago. It struck me, as I was walking through the fair, how many people were promoting little businesses: little safaris, or horseback riding, or fishing resorts and wilderness retreats, and things like that. Certainly it is indicative of the number of small businesses located in British Columbia looking to do business in the great province of B.C.

I have listened to the members opposite speak about the work done by the chambers of commerce in setting up tourist information centres and asking for more funds and grants. I've listened to the members opposite talk about the volunteer people working in the community in the way of service clubs, whether they be Rotary, Lions, Kinsmen or whatever, trying to get....

Interjection.

MR. MICHAEL: The member opposite is making derogatory remarks about service clubs. He's mentioning giraffes, wolves and things like that. I think it's indicative of the members opposite. In this House, if you look at all the members opposite, including the previous House, in which I had the pleasure of serving, I would say that there's not a single one of them who has ever belonged to a service club. I certainly have not identified a single one, and if there is one, I would like him to identify himself sometime in the future. I doubt whether any of them has ever belonged to a chamber of commerce and got in there and put in volunteer hours to provide the infrastructure for the tourists to come to this province. Perhaps they could comment on that later in the debate.

The job of the minister is to provide the avenues of opportunity, to see that the roads, the bridges, the information offices and the telephone lines are open — areas like this, to provide the avenues of opportunity for the tourist to get to small resorts and let the private sector do the job. They will do the job. They will go out there and create the jobs. They've got the incentive and the initiative. They will get out there and provide the work to put the people to work.

Speaking of people at work, it's interesting to look at the story in the Times-Colonist, dated Thursday, May 5, 1988: "Welfare Drops, Except in Alberta, Ontario." Looking at the British Columbia statistics, it reads: "In British Columbia, where numbers dropped to 142,000 from 153,000, there is little sign that long lines at local food banks are receding...." I think that's a good-news item, and there's no question that a lot of those thousands of people who are going off welfare are indeed going to work in the tourist industry.

What I'm happy to see is the number of small operators. In my constituency, for the information of the minister, I have people working in the area of heli-skiing, river rafting, wilderness experiences, mountain safaris, float plane fishing, horseback riding and fishing resorts — many, many of them throughout my constituency. All these people are creating jobs and making things happen in the province of British Columbia. I would ask the minister to concentrate on and pay attention to those small entrepreneurs. There are thousands of them out there who want to create jobs and make things happen.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to once again say to the minister: keep up the good work. You've got the positive attitude and the enthusiasm, and I'm sure that we will see great things continue to happen in the area of tourism in the province of B.C.

[ Page 4284 ]

MR. ROSE: I really can't let go unanswered the exaggerated, almost provocative charges that the member has made against hon. members of the opposition and their support for service clubs. The minister knows that both he and I are longtime members of the Kinsmen Club. I didn't rise to such dizzy heights as he did, but perhaps it's because I'm not quite as dizzy.

The other side of it is that they should know that I and other members here have achieved certain eminences in various service clubs. I possess both the national and the provincial trophy in bulletin-writing for the Kinsmen Club. It was relatively heavy on the bull, but perhaps that is why I got the support of the judges. To suggest that we are going to be derogatory about the Lions, the Tigers, the Muskrats, the Eagles or any other of these clubs who take their names from certain animals, is an unfair charge.

The member has done his constituency speech for this year, where he's named practically everybody from riders of the purple sage to people who go out hunting goats. He left those out. He didn't mention, either, the problem with houseboats and the pollution that we've heard about in his area — in the Shuswap and Merrill Lakes — and all these other problems. That is a serious problem.

His uncritical boosterism really comes from the twenties and O'Neill, the great American author, who coined the name "Babbittry." We have the boosters and the knockers. Of course the boosters were all in the local service clubs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sinclair Lewis.

MR. ROSE: Sinclair Lewis: Main Street and all that rot. I would just like to tell him that the happiness boys are over here; I mean, the people who have no faith are all over there. Hear the people crying doom and gloom and restraint, and we have to cut back on the universities and schools and everybody else — in other words, to build character. If you're able to build character, it means that you starve people to death, and that's good for their character. I think it's unfair, and I have to take issue on a matter of privilege with the member who suggests that we don't support local volunteers or service clubs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Relevancy?

MR. ROSE: As close as he was.

MR. MILLER: I should also add my feelings that it's too bad that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) had to resort to those statements. I happen to be a proud member of the Royal Canadian Legion, which does a lot of good work in my community, and also occasionally a customer there.

I want to go fairly quickly through a number of issues with the Minister of Tourism regarding some areas of my constituency — first of all, concerning the Queen Charlotte Islands Museum.

I understand that the minister has visited the museum, and I believe I'm correct in stating that he, along with me and many others, views that as a very excellent facility, and I understand that the minister was delighted during his visit to the museum. They do have some difficulty. They have relied on the province for an operating grant for some time now. There seems to be some delay this year in getting that grant to them, and I wonder if the minister would undertake to check that out at the earliest opportunity to make sure that they will be given the same opportunity this year and that that grant, which has become something they've relied on, will be forwarded. I see the minister nodding, so I won't relinquish my place; I'll go on and deal with.... Unless the minister wants to respond.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond directly so he doesn't misinterpret a nod. My nod was that it's an excellent museum, and in talking to Richard Brownsey, my director of the cultural division, I've learned that we have funded that museum up until this year but that they've had such an increase in attendance at the museum — they have a collection box there — that their donations are higher than ever. So there may be a reduction in the province's commitment inasmuch as they're probably generating more from the private sector and the public visiting the museum. In saying that, I'm not aware that there's a substantial reduction, but there will probably be a percentage reduction in assistance to that particular museum.

MR. MILLER: That is indeed unfortunate, and I would ask the minister to reconsider and review the application that's been submitted this year. In fact, the museum was hoping for an increase in the amount of operating money they get from his ministry, I will make further representations. I won't take the time of the House to get into an in-depth discussion of that, but I think there is a very good argument for not having a reduction. I mean, it's a modest amount. The people they have on staff to maintain that excellent facility are just getting peanuts in remuneration.

Secondly, with regard to South Moresby and the agreement — I don't know what the minister's role in that process is; he might want to advise us what his role, if any, is in that agreement — we have a very serious situation. There was a fairly significant increase in tourism on the Queen Charlotte Islands last year. There is a real and critical shortage in the infrastructure required to deal with that number of visitors, and again we're left this year with the same kind of thing. People can't move, can't plan, can't start to open bed-and-breakfasts, campgrounds or any other things because nobody knows what's happening with the federal-provincial negotiations. Nobody knows what assistance may be forthcoming to develop the infrastructure, and here we are with the tourist season just about on us. I think the conditions on the Charlottes are going to be quite bad this year, and I very much fear that if we go through another year of people arriving and being disappointed because the infrastructure is not there to meet their needs, we will turn people off. We will create a bad name for what is really a jewel in western Canada.

Could the minister advise what steps his ministry is taking so that there is orderly development of tourism infrastructure to meet the demand that will be placed on the area? What role is the ministry taking in that regard?

HON. MR. REID: One of the difficulties we're having with the South Moresby infrastructure development is that the federal government, which is the instituter of the agreement that we are party to.... I have a member of my staff who meets with the federal people daily, encouraging them to get on with some announcements and some infrastructure determination with funding to back that up, because the funding must come from the federal government. That's the deal they had when they decided to make it a national park,

[ Page 4285 ]

which we did not disagree with. We love the initiative, but the only reason we were excited about it was that the federal government was coming to the program of the South Moresby park designation with some supposed funds. The final dotted line has not been signed by the federal-provincial partners. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) runs our negotiations from the provincial side of that agreement and is, I understand, working daily on it, trying to get it signed. Once it is signed, I can tell you that we'll be excited about getting on with the job.

As I said to you earlier, one of our staff, Mr. Stuart Gale, works daily with the people in the Queen Charlotte communities and has been up there twice in the last month talking to people about what to expect and what they can do in the interim. I would hope that with the increase in tourism already in the Queen Charlottes there would be some initiative in the people of the Queen Charlottes to do something on their own, without taxpayers doing it all.

There is a lack of infrastructure outside of the major infrastructure you're talking about. There is a lack of camping and bed-and-breakfast facilities, and the people are arriving there now by ferry. They had a problem last summer in handling the traffic that arrived, without any major marketing on behalf of South Moresby. I can tell you my ministry has on hold all of our marketing to do with South Moresby. There isn't any point in putting a major marketing program for South Moresby when we can't handle the traffic that's coming there already. The story about what South Moresby has to offer, and the factual results of what's available to the average tourist, is unknown to them.

[11:30]

As you know, they're arriving in the city of Prince Rupert in droves and they're getting on the ferry with a map in their hand, knowing how to get to the Queen Charlottes. Unbeknownst to them, they cannot see South Moresby without an $800 or $900 expenditure. They don't know that until they get there. We're not about to encourage that dilemma, without the infrastructure being there. So I can tell you the cruise ship and small ship harbour for that inlet up there is the highest priority in my ministry's mind, because it gives the potential for people to do things other than driving that four miles on a paved road, then come to a dead end and not be able to get anywhere.

At the upper end, Graham Island, I've encouraged the private sector since last year to get on with building the infrastructure there; it's going to happen. The people are coming now, and 1988 will be the biggest year that ever happened to the Queen Charlotte Islands without you or I ever saying another word.

We continue to market the upper island. The museum attraction you talked about before, the Masset Indian Reserve, Long Beach at the upper end of the island and Naikoon Park — all those things are just great. But we're getting more people there now than they can handle. The worst thing that we can have is people writing to us complaining: "You invited us here, and you don't have anything for us to do."

With your assistance and your federal member up there, if you get positive for a change and get on top of the federal government.... I can tell you the federal Minister of Tourism, the hon. Mr. Valcourt, will be in this province at the end of May meeting with me to discuss how we can encourage that infrastructure and that development to come on stream sooner than later. But I have as much excitement about that product as you have. The last thing we want is to be saturated with tourists who can't be looked after in the way that they're accustomed to in the rest of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, hon. members, the member for Cowichan-Malahat would like to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. BRUCE: In the gallery today are a number of students from the Chemainus elementary school. I think it's most appropriate that we're doing the Tourism estimates today when the students from Chemainus are here — the little town that did. Of course, you've all heard of that before. They are with their teacher, Mrs. Turner. 1 would ask that the House make them feel warmly welcome.

MR. MILLER: Responding to the minister, we'll get on top of the federal government. After the next election, you'll see how much on top of the federal government this party is.

I appreciate the minister's comment that there is tremendous potential there, but there's a possibility, because the infrastructure doesn't exist, of turning people off. There seems to be a lack of coordination and direction and planning. I'm not saying this minister has the total responsibility for that, but there does seem to be.

For example, there are some people who want to develop facilities in Sandspit. Modest though they are, they want to develop bed-and-breakfast facilities. There's a freeze on Crown land. One particular person had been working for a year, finally got a piece of Crown land, cleared all of the regulatory hurdles in terms of getting that land, only to be told by the Lands branch: "Sorry, there's a freeze on Crown land in the Sandspit area while we do some planning." Here's a guy who's ready to start. He wants to put in an RV site with a dump because there is no dump and people are dumping the contents of their RVs out in the bush. So that kind of planning and coordination is not taking place.

It's interministerial, and I'm not saying you're the lead minister, but it seems to me there are some deficiencies there which need to be looked at. Similarly, I don't know if the minister is aware of indications from the western diversification fund, or whether you've taken a.... I'll ask you to respond. There's a number of public facilities, museums, some in place and some in the planning stage, which in my opinion would complement tourism development on the Charlottes.

For example, in Sandspit the concept is for a museum, which would essentially be a logging museum that would display in an outdoor setting some of the extremely old logging equipment that exists in that part of the country. Some of it's out in the bush. They're going to need some help getting that in, and perhaps some additional help with facilities; but there's lots of volunteer labour too. There are people willing to devote their time and energy to restoring equipment and doing all the hard work that's necessary.

Up in Port Clements they have a modest museum and visitor information centre. There's been tremendous support of local initiative, not going to governments and asking for handouts. They're going to. I've met with them and they're looking for sources of support.

The western diversification fund has indicated — again, I don't know if the minister is aware of this — that they have

[ Page 4286 ]

not yet arrived at a position on funding museums. It seems to me — and I would like to hear the minister respond — that it would be a sensible move to have moneys from that fund put into that kind of development, because, as the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) indicated, tourism is a growing industry, and you have to have those kinds of facilities in terms of attraction and something for people to do once they arrive at a particular location.

So would the minister support that kind of funding being made available to these local museums from either the...? It's an unknown, I suppose. Moneys that may be earmarked for the South Moresby are flowing out of the South Moresby agreement. I understand that they come from the western diversification fund. Nonetheless, the central question is that moneys should be made available to those groups to develop these kinds of facilities to complement tourism development.

HON. MR. REID: I'm having some difficulty equating to the WDI, because my ministry has no direct involvement with the western diversification fund. But I can tell you that the issues you talked about — the possible museum generation and development up there; the one in Sandspit to do with the forestry museum and the others.... I'm not even aware of them, so they would be, I think, very good initiatives to be considered under the infrastructure development. I think those could be considered the same as a motel, a trailer campsite, an RV site and a museum. There's probably going to be more flexibility built around the funding from the federal government for the South Moresby development and the infrastructure required in the periphery, which is all the way up to Masset and down to Anthony Island.

There could be lots of cases made, and unless Mr. Stuart Gale is aware of them.... I'm not. Of course, as the minister responsible for the whole province I'm not aware of every initiative and discussion about potential museum development. But I like it. I think it's the kind of thing I could support, not financially, because this will be a major federal funding.... They made the assurance. It's up to the communities up there to put something on paper that's part of infrastructure, as to what they perceive to be a necessity for that community to be successful in the tourism industry. You can make it very broad in the Queen Charlottes, and you can't do that anywhere else, because they've made the commitment that it's a tourist attraction for all tourists. But in doing it, the stuff has to be there.

I commend you for that, but I don't know of them. I don't have any control over that, but I can certainly tell you I will make a case and continue to make a case on behalf of the Queen Charlottes and South Moresby and all those neat ideas. If I've got them in my ministry, I'm not aware of them. But I'd like a list of them, if you know what they are, and how I can encourage the federal people in their description of items to be funded in their earlier years. I think they're making a ten-year $50 million commitment towards infrastructure of tourist attractions. We should have them listed. If they're making a commitment, then they should provide the money up front for the local volunteers in the community to do these enhancements and attractions. Yes, no question.

MR. MILLER: I appreciate the minister's response, and I just want to reiterate the point that the planning required is extensive and is beyond the scope of individuals on the Queen Charlottes to do that totally. I think it requires a coordinated effort involving various ministries in British Columbia.

Certainly your ministry is one of the key ministries in terms of leading. I don't know what structure could be developed, but I'm certain that an inter-ministry planning team could be assembled to deal with some of those issues. There is a great deal of unknown, I suppose. People in the Charlottes do not know what's going on, and there needs to be an early attempt to try and put something together so that people can see that there's a planning group and that they can submit those needs. I don't think it's up to me as the MLA to take every single initiative, although I will do that on behalf of my constituents; there needs to be a broader perspective.

The minister has viewed the Prince Rupert museum, and he's also viewed the tribal council building currently under construction in Prince Rupert. I thank the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) for the $ 100,000 grant made through the First Citizens' Fund to contribute to the construction of that facility. It is going to be magnificent. It is perched on the waterfront in Prince Rupert. It is an amazing building; I don't think another building like it exists in this province. But it will require further support.

One of the proposals — and it makes immense sense — is to relocate the existing museum in Prince Rupert to that building. From a tourist point of view, it is a natural. It is a longhouse-style building. But as with everything else, where does the money come from? I've written to the minister previously about the project and asked for his support. I never asked for an outright grant, but I would like to know that the minister would support such an initiative. It's difficult putting it all together — getting the federal funding, local funding and provincial funding — but I would like to see the minister support that.

Finally there's the question of tying in Alaska tourism with British Columbia's. First of all, I note that there is a federal bill.... I'm not sure whether it's C-52 or C-54.

HON. MR. REID: It's C-52.

MR. MILLER: I note that it would impact on charges to cruise ships. From our point of view in Prince Rupert, we would certainly object to that. We have worked to develop — although I do recall that the minister and the mayor of Prince Rupert had a few exchanges on the subject — and increase the cruise ship industry traffic out of the port of Prince Rupert. That again requires an ongoing initiative. The docking facilities are not adequate; there is fierce competition from Alaska. And certainly, additional charges levied on cruise ships are not going to help Prince Rupert at all in trying to develop that. I would like to hear the minister's position on that bill.

[11:45]

Secondly, tying in the Alaska traffic.... As you know, Alaska maintains the Alaska Marine Highway through their state ferries. I think there needs to be a better look at coordinating the Alaska ferry with the British Columbia ferry. Proposals have been advanced by the visitors' bureau in Prince Rupert for linking the two schedules — I don't think it's really progressed far enough — so that we have a transportation network that runs the coast, that Alaskans and British Columbians link into automatically.

I'll end on that note, if the minister could respond to those questions.

HON. MR. REID: To answer in the order of the questions put by the member, in response to the first one about resource

[ Page 4287 ]

management and coordinated roles of ministries in management of the wilderness and tourism component, along with others, as you know, just last year the Premier put the minister of this ministry on the ELU Committee of cabinet to deal with environment and land use concerns. We also have now allocated a resource person who works daily with those other ministries — Forests, the Ministry of Environment and Parks, the Ministry of Highways and all those others — that have an impact on the global scene called tourism and the wilderness area, etc., etc.

So we are proactive, no question about that. We have now a sitting member of staff who daily keeps me informed on those subjects. It's called a cooperative approach to looking at the multi-use within the province of all of our resources. I can tell you we are taking a strong position on that. We deal with all of my colleague ministers related to that, so we are having a more acceptable role, a larger role in the whole scene called the economy of the province as it relates to tourism and other things. I thank you for that question; we are proactive in that. We have Brian Apland who is my ministry staff on that, and he does a very good job. But we deal with it daily now, which is a new initiative of the ministry in the last year.

The second question is the cultural centre in Prince Rupert and the ongoing question of relocating the very appropriate museum in downtown Prince Rupert into that cultural centre. The underlying question, my friend, is the cost. I don't have the kind of money they want in order to relocate and to continue to operate the museum in the manner in which they propose. It's just not conceivable. If you ask me if I think it's a good idea, the answer is yes. Do I think they should relocate in the cultural centre when it's ready and completed? I say yes.

We currently provide that museum in Prince Rupert probably with more money per square foot than any other museum in the province. A relocated facility in the bigger one, with the numbers they advanced to me, was in excess of $1 million. I don't want to give you any hope that that's ever going to be possible from my ministry. If they can make a case to others for that, fair enough. But they can't make it to my ministry because I don't have it in total for the whole cultural component, never mind the museum of Prince Rupert.

In saying that, I like what they're doing. They do a neat job. If I had my druthers as a businessman, I'd say they should fix the roof and do the best they can with what they've got, like everybody else does. If they can find out how to relocate into the cultural centre with the current commitment we give them annually, we probably have a deal, but I don't have any more money unless the federal government.... Because it's a major native Indian kind of museum, they may get some assistance from the hon. Mr. Valcourt with the native affairs component of his ministry. He may be able to be of some assistance. That's federal assistance, but we just gave, as you indicated before.... I commend the Minister of Highways and native Indian affairs and the minister of state for the region there.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: Well, he's just to the east, but he has an empathy for all the native Indian....

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: Well, he said he always wanted to visit Prince Rupert, and he had so much admiration for what's going on with the native Indian community that he took the time to stop off in your region and tell them what a great job they're doing and help them with $100,000 assistance towards.... I commend him for that too.

Thirdly, the question about Bill C-52 and the cruise ship industry. Bill C-52 does give us some concern as a ministry and as a government. We have sent to the federal government some requests for amendments to the act before it's finally passed. There are a couple of major concerns: the one that you talked about, and the federal sales tax they want to charge to new relocated cruise ships into the British Columbia waters. It's a major concern of ours because it is giving some concern to the major cruise providers.

As I mentioned to the hon. member from the Kootenays yesterday, we have just commissioned a report, which has come down, on the potential for other cruise ship attractions in B.C. waters. Prince Rupert plays a major part of any added component. It doesn't matter if it's pocket cruising or major cruising, Prince Rupert sits in a geographic position where it can do nothing but gain from increased traffic flow.

Bill C-52 does concern me, and my ministry will continue to advocate on behalf of the industry because of what it does, not only for your community.... Even though your mayor is not in favour of cruising, the rest of the community is.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: Well, I can tell you he's not in favour because I made a special trip up there last year as the minister responsible for tourism, and we invited him to come down to the harbour and make a big welcome to the people from Exploration Cruise Lines. They spent their time and money coming up there to launch their first sailing, and the mayor of the city of Prince Rupert didn't even show up. He didn't even want to come. He said, "I've got other things to do, like cut my grass," or something. I was offended, because I thought the industry had so much to offer the community. But I'm sure the community will find out one day soon that there's lots more potential, if they can only get all the people in Prince Rupert positive about it.

Thirdly — or fourthly — the question about the marrying-up of the Marine Highway, the Alaska ferry system, and the B.C. Ferries: that's currently under negotiation and discussion. I agree with you wholeheartedly: both will benefit from that kind of marry-up. B.C. Ferries is fully aware of my position on it. I encourage them to do that, and I thank you for that question.

MR. MILLER: I appreciate the minister's response to the questions I posed, but I don't appreciate the divergence into the wilderness of areas that he really knows nothing about. Just for the record, I would like to refute that. His comments had nothing to do with his estimates, but the mayor of Prince Rupert is the longest-serving mayor in British Columbia. He has worked long and hard for his community, and I think if you look at the development of that community it will bear witness to what I've said. A disparaging remark based on the mayor's non-attendance at some function that you put on seems to me not to be sufficient evidence for the minister to make a wild, spurious accusation that the mayor of Prince Rupert doesn't care about the cruise ship industry. In fact, I

[ Page 4288 ]

think the mayor of Prince Rupert appointed a committee to look into and promote the cruise ship industry. So if you want to have better relations with people around the province, perhaps you should take a different position when you make those wild accusations about people and really don't know what you're talking about.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, in response to the member, the mayor of Prince Rupert and I have an ongoing dialogue, sometimes one way or another. But I do commend him for his longevity, and maybe somewhere down the line we'll both be on the same wavelength relative to the potential for the cruise ship industry for Prince Rupert. I only relate this to the member because he wasn't there, and the Exploration Cruise sendoff was.... The host was a company that does a lot of business in Prince Rupert. They were offended; they passed it on to me. I talked to the community; the community said the mayor wasn't interested. The mayor never did talk to me directly, so I just passed on what I heard.

But he's probably changed his attitude because he knows how aggressive this ministry is and what we're doing so positively for Prince Rupert. I should maybe talk to him again. He's probably changed his view. Maybe what happened a year ago has been reversed. Maybe I could call up the mayor and talk to him today. If he's positive about the issue, I'd be happy to use his comments with mine when I talk about Prince Rupert's positive cruise ship potential.

You raised the question of the ferry traffic and the arrivals by ferry passengers into Prince Rupert and the area of North-by-Northwest. It's very significant. And the rental of vehicles in Prince Rupert is higher than in any other region because of that. There is a lot of walk-on ferry traffic. They enter Prince Rupert by ferry and rent more cars. The ferry was popular among all visitors, ranging from 43 percent for international visitors to 24 percent for the Canadian visitors. Those kinds of numbers indicate the response that the ferry traffic does generate for your area.

MR. MILLER: Given the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.